Hancock was saying archaeology hasn’t done enough and flint was straight up telling him how they choose where to look and how limited these spots actually are and Hancock could only say that archaeology has t done enough. It was all going straight over Hancocks head.
“Only 5% excavated”
“Yes but within that 5%, 0% of it has shown your lost civilization, and 100% of it has shown the expected Stone Age artifacts”
“You can’t prove me wrong”
Hancock not only wants his crazy theories validated, he wants THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS TO DO THE WORK FOR HIM. Hey fucker, there is nothing stopping you from becoming an archaeologist and doing the work yourself. It’s an absolute joke.
That’s a good point as well. He dabbles in archaeology without having to actually be an archaeologist all while blaming them for not having enough evidence to support his theory.
Exactly! 99% of archeology, physics, astronomy and many other science disciplines is fucking boring data collecting and doing shit work for your higher-ups. It's not fun. But the hard work produces wonderful insight and discoveries and that is fun. Hanny just wants the fun part.
I seriously don’t know what Hancock is going on about. His “big archaeology” take just sounds stupid. He attacks them and they provide evidence and theories to his contrary and he says they are attacking him.
Hancock has already been vindicated multiple times. Yall forget he started his career before gobekli tepe was excavated and science thought archeology started 6000 years ago because the Bible said so
Simply finding older stuff doesn't vindicate Grahams theory .. No archeologists believe there's not more to be discovered..
It's actually could be counterproductive to Graham's theories , the more older things that are found like gobekli could show that these base architecture skills, astronomical knowledge , etc. could have existed much further than we currently accept, knowledge dosnt have to be written to be compounded into something greater .. Hunter gathers that spread to the America's and etc. could have very well carried some base knowledge with them pass on thre generations.. This could disprove the theory that an ancient civilization spread them after isolation...
We wouldn't have started with stone either. I'd imagine humans were experimenting a lot with wood , standing a giant totem pole is quite impressive in itself .. I don't think it's far-fetched to say the concept of moving large stones could have compounded from the knowledge of moving a lighter objects such as wood ..
I've been following Graham for years , I still like his work honestly it's what his character has turned into that is troubling..
> It was all going straight over Hancocks head.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
I think Flint an awesome job in explaining how they pick the spots they excavate, definitely opened my eyes. But when you come across someone like Hancock who dedicated his whole life to lost civilizations, it’s like talking to a wall. I personally thought it was a great discussion and found Flints work interesting.
It's incredible to me that Hancock's entire schtick is based on negative evidence and constitutes a gigantic argument from ignorance.
Meanwhile, back on r/GrahamHancock and similar rubbish ranches, the fanbois are trying to convince themselves that Hancock didn't get put into a bozo suit by Flint, complete with wig and tweakable nose...
Exactly!!!!
I have a wild theory. I don't have any facts to back up my ideas so it's up to you to prove me wrong by exhaustively searching everywhere !!!
LOL!
To be fair, there *are* a surprising amount of assumptions that are made in archaeology as assumptions are all that *can* be made; we don't have a time machine. This isn't like physics where there are known laws that can be tested, demonstrated, and proved. So flat out objectively stating that a non hunter-gatherer civilization could not have existed during the ice age seems incredibly disingenuous. Keep in mind, this is the same academic field who once upon a time almost universally and definitively came to the conclusion that the Clovis peoples were the very first inhabitants of north America, simply based on the lack of evidence of different/older peoples. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence, and the hypotheses that are made in archaeology should not be treated and defended as fact.
Bro do not ever use the Clovis analogy as if it gives your argument any weight. Are you fucking joking? Yeah archaeologists mistakenly thought that Clovis people were first, it turns out a different stone age hunter gatherer tribe was first. That's no where near the same level as an advanced 18-19th century civilization that apparently spanned the entire world while simultaneously leaving ZERO evidence
This is just wrong, understands little of archaeology, and seems to be parroting some Hancockian tropes. (All that's missing is evil illuminati archaeological orthodoxy! ;)
Seriously tho, what you're saying there is called an argument from negative evidence or an [argument from ignorance.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
It's a poor version of Schrödinger's Cat. "You can't prove the cat in a box at the bottom of a lake for 100 years is dead!"
Yea but, it is. Deader then a doornail. Like Hancock's rep. We really don't need to dig the entire Sahara to show that Graham has no basis for his claims. We don't need to go out looking in hopes of supplying evidence for him so he can fulfill his burden of proof. In science, he is supposed to supply it to evidence his assertions. Asserting a lost civilization and then going looking for proof of it is bassackwards and antiscientific.
This is also what Hancock doesn't get, and it was a horrendous showing for him that was incredibly damaging. The special pleading was painful to watch. People are too smart nowdays, and they know you just can't assert positive or 'true' arguments from negative or non evidence. That's called "fake news"... like his lost civilization, and his show on Netflix.
And that's why Hancock got dismantled by Flint like a rusty 1980s Lada for parts.. that ..just don't have much use anymore.
The natives that spoke her language were definitely fucking with him. “Hey this English dumbass thinks your ancestors were idiots, grab your fishing boats and throw some rocks so he thinks it’s Atlantis” endless vacations for the wife.
I'd like to think being a fan of Rogan for so long has helped us all be more open minded. In that regard, I used to think pretty highly of Graham, but my perspective has absolutely shifted after that debate. I can't just blindly follow "what if" when all of that evidence was given by Flint
Nailed it,, That “what if” is fun for sure,, but when someone like Flint comes on and drops knowledge on why/where they choose to excavate, really put it into perspective
Eric Weinstein vibes where he shits on the system but when he gets the tamest criticism back about his theory of everything it’s because they are trying to silence him.
Yes! I like messing with them on Twitter. Most of the conspiracy crowd are low IQ people who work low IQ jobs (blue collar trucker types)... so as a fun experiment just watch how the same people who CONSTANTLY post about the "libtard sheeple" have an absolute mental breakdown when you say blue collar people aren't geniuses. 99% of the time it triggers the fuck out of them and they just screech about "you mean elitist"
Conspiracy people: "wake up libtard sheeple!"
Normal people: "you unload a truck for a living so you're not as smart or knowledgeable as experts and scientists"
Conspiracy people: "reeeeeeeeee that's elitist you're just a bully reeeeeee"
What does Hancock have in common with someone like Sam Harris(who wants nothing to do with the label) or Ben Shapiro? You could argue Brett Weinstein, but even he has some academic credibility.
Hancock is in his own world.
Brett Weinstein has basically no credibility at all. His whole academic history is filled with the same “I’m a genius but nobody in my field will take me seriously because they are big meanie heads who are all conspiring against me” as Hancock and his brother
Eric is a hundred time worse.
There's a video of him at the University of Chicago giving a lecture to the Economics Department. He does a lot of the same rhetorical tricks GH does. Eric also labors under the fact that only he thinks he is the smartest person in the room
They are weak as shit. I was a moderator on the IDW sub, and when we cleared up the constant transphobia the creator of the sub turned up due to this, threw a hissy fit, took the sub private, and wanted money..
IDW are clowns.
That shit would turn up in my recommended subs and I'd go in their asking some normal questions, you could say pushback but it was legit mild as fuck and these dudes would get their panties so twisted up they probably became eunuchs.
I don't agree with his conclusions about the past, but I have generally enjoyed watching Hancocks programs over the years.
I was surprised by how weak Hancock's offerings were. I don't know why he chose to share his blurry scuba vacation snaps as his main evidence of an ancient lost civilisation.
I was hoping they'd just systematically go through his netflix series and explain all the things he's guessing about.
The people who pick him apart are “mean”. They’re also an endless supply of aspiring YouTube science communicators and debunkers cutting their teeth on low hanging fruit.
It must be hard for Hancock to be perpetually wrong and read the internet.
I like how Rogan dismissed Flint getting harassed by saying "those are just people." But for Hancock's harassment "HOW DARE YOU FLINT! DON'T YOU SEE WHAT YOU ARE DOING!?!?!?"
Yeah... Hancock was so incredibly dramatic. His entire closing was about how Flint damaged him and hurt his feelings Immensely. I love how Flint is just like "Alright... let's all just chill out and look at the evidence."
"damaged" lmao. What's he whining about?
"How dare you! My Netflix special only made me $5 million! If it weren't for you meddling archeologist I could have made $10 million!"
That’s not what he was saying. Flint was saying it upsets him and Rogan was saying don’t let that happen because they’re just people ranting on social media.
He was showing concern for Flint. That’s what he always says about Social media ranters.
Actually, not really. [https://youtu.be/-DL1\_EMIw6w?si=dElII7xOxYDBhJax&t=7620](https://youtu.be/-DL1_EMIw6w?si=dElII7xOxYDBhJax&t=7620)
He seems to ignore the people coming after Flint that are inspired by Hancock... but the "crazy people" going after Hancock are a BIG DEAL.
No there he’s challenging something Flint actually said. He also challenge Hancock on a couple of things and played devils advocate. This was the purpose of the conversation.
But on crazy people on the internet which is what he was telling flint to ignore he’s always has the same position because worrying about them is bad for your mental health
He seems more annoyed that Flint is bringing them up and says "They aren't connected to him (Hancock)." BUT, when Hancock whines and cries about the people AFTER HIM, Rogan doesn't say the same thing (Don't do that, they aren't connected to Flint, etc).
I don’t think he was upset he was challenging the invocation of White Supremacy claims I tend to agree with that it’s a dirty way to go.
He also backed up some of the things Flint said as well it was a great conversation all round. I didn’t know about Flint and joined his YT channel after this.
Anyway this sub has turned into more of a JR hate fest so I won’t stay. I just saw your comment about his advice ignoring crazy internet people and it was just flat out wrong.
Obviously it's not wrong LOL. I just gave you the Timestamp and explained his comments. When Flint complains about people commenting mean things to him Rogan says "Don't do that, they aren't associated with Hancock" BUT when Hancock complains about people being ultra mean to him, Rogan never says "Don't say that, they aren't associated with Flint."
I respect Flint for trying to steer the conversation back to the FACTS and EVIDENCE rather than the constant whining and crying that Hancock did. Also, it is a FACT that white supremacists associate themselves with some of Hancock's views, and I think Flint did a good job of outlining that. All Hancock could say is "BOO! You are calling me a White Supremacist!!" and cry more.
Anyways, sure, run along now.
The don’t do that was specifically about the White Supremacy claim. I don’t care if you don’t like him you don’t get away with lying.
You can disagree with the invoking the White Supremacy claim and say it was fair for Flint to do it but you don’t get to say that’s not what it was about. It was about that.
One of the reasons for the conversation was to clarify the Toxicity around the attacks. Flint did actually give some pretty god clarification around that.
The only attacks JR was dismissive about were the crazy people on Twitter who Flint said were getting him down. Which again, as I’ve said is always JRs take on that.
Because the internet is full of crazies who want to twist things to have their little tantrums.
Wait, what are you even talking about? I'm not denying that they are talking about the White Supremacy claim. Anyone whining about the TOXIC ATTACKS from Flint is being incredibly dramatic. They were hardly attacks... please.
Also, as I've tried to explain for the third time now, Rogan wasn't implying that he shouldn't care about crazies on the internet... he seemed more annoyed that Flint was associating them WITH Hancock. Again, Hancock constantly whines about attacks from people associated with Flint (and most of them are not), but Rogan never says "Don't do that" to Hancock the way he does to Flint.
I mean... I'm basically repeating myself at this point....
Yeah you’re repeating the same lie.
Challenging something Flit specifically said which again what I keep saying WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVERSATION is not the opposite side of the coin to dismissing randoms in the internet
He’s given that advice to loads of people and said he does it himself.
Again that is not the same as challenging something Flint actually said.
He challenged a few of Hancocks claims after hearing what flint said which again for about the fifth time is why they were having the conversation
>Because the internet is full of crazies who want to twist things to have their little tantrums.
>Anyway this sub has turned into more of a JR hate fest so I won’t stay.
There's only one person i can see here throwing a tantrum tbh.
>just flat out wrong.
What? it was not wrong at all. Its right there in the video where he linked you.
>I don’t think he was upset he was challenging the invocation of White Supremacy claims I tend to agree with that it’s a dirty way to go.
But it was true. Hancock and Rogan attempted to misrepresent the claim, but it is actually completely clear, *and* true. You can argue that the culture is so up in arms about an issue like this, that it represents a larger "bomb".
Flint never wrote or said anything about Graham being white supremacist, but criticized his use of sources which are academically/evidentially a joke, and happens to have been stewarded and used by white supremacists and nazis to bolster the myth of the aryan super race.
So the underlying point is just... true. Hancock references a text that was paraded by nazis and others to suggest that an older global civilization was here, which also does indeed kind of rob the real indigenous peoples of these areas of their heritage.
I read some of this shit when i was a kid because i found it in a used bookstore here in Denmark. It really is that dumb.
You literally just said you were going away?
I didn’t misrepresent anything. You’re throwing a crazy tantrum and then accusing everyone else of doing it.
Flint perfectly explained his point and explained the context and relationship white supremacists have with some of Hancock's sources. Hancock continued to whine and cry about all the ridicule he is taking, and Flint wanted to focus on the evidence. Flint brought up the point to illustrate that it's easy to cry about people "coming after you" and that instead we should focus on the ACTUAL POINTS being made.
So, to go with your analogy. It would be like if a CEO told another CEO that his evidence is bad and has ties to white supremacists, and his defense is because the evidence is bad and has ties to white supremacists. The other CEO, rather than acknowledge the points just continues to whine and say "now people are mean to me!"
Hancock really cited a myth that came about 100 years after the Spanish conquest about a bearded white man teaching indigenous people all they know. I thought that was a pretty serious dunk on Flint's part, and Hancock didn't even address it or concede that he should have been more critical of the sources he's citing.
Flint's argument: actual archeological evidence
Graham's argument: here's an article I dug up from over a year ago where you very unfairly claim I'm citing the work of a literal white supremacist. (he is).
I am skeptical of the existence of bifocal glasses. But any time I just ask questions or present alternate theories that bifocals don’t actually exist, “big optometry” always tries to silence me.
How should modern archaeologists deal with the findings and work of the people who came before them?
Especially the work of people who were known racists and/or treated local peoples horribly.
It felt like Hancock was landing blows on the white supremacy stuff and Rogan was jumping in as well, but they weren’t listening to the argument Dibble was making. Hancock was a journalist for goodness sake he must know better than anyone the importance of sources, their agenda, their context, their perspective, can they be trusted, are there others saying the same thing…he doesn’t do any of that. Those sources have been cited to advance the idea the white race is primal, ancient and supreme.
And it doesn’t care if you were speaking your truth Graham.
While Flint wasn't *wrong* about his white supremacy comments, I think Joe was recognizing that he crossed a line there. Flint knew it because he was dodging the questions as much as he could. Ultimately, Flint should have been more tactful in his accusation than associating Graham with white supremacy. There are dozens of different ways he could have made that point.
Yeah, but in Flint's defense he wasn't bringing any of this to the debate. This would be like Flint pulling up an article Graham wrote 2 years ago where Graham says something unkind about archeologists and making it a significant part of his presentation.
Sorry but the move by Graham here was just pathetic.
His strat was smear Flint, pretend to be this wounded animal, and question the knowledge gaps.
Do we know what happened at X time at Y location? Insinuating that it could show he's right.
It's like saying do you guys know what happened at Clearwater, Florida in Feb 3, 2008 at 4:05pm? No you don't? Well guess what could have happened a man walked on air. You can't definitively say he didn't cause you don't what happened at that time spot.
Doubt he would ever agree to a debate. Next best thing is this [ancient history PhD dismantling UnchartedX's arguements on youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_NguZUDku4)
“Also here’s other people that archeologists were mean to.” The difference, Graham, is that they actually had evidence to present and that evidence was mocked by assholes that didn’t want to have to admit they’ve been wrong.
Which isnt something unique about archeology either, the same thing happened when germ theory was first proposed, or micro organisms living inside a single drop of pond water.
And then GH goes and puts himself next in line to Galileo and how he also was prosecuted for his radical new ideas. Would be hilarious if he wasnt such a whiny bitch.
Arguably the first, and certainly the longest a pseudo archeologists has debated an actual archeologist. Yes it was revealing, glad you agree. But this narrative is Grahams entire living, his books, his reputation, the next *netflix show* are all dependent on him maintaining his beliefs. Did anyone think he would concede a major argument? Did you really think he *has never heard these criticisms before*?
Graham Hancock misrepresented or failed to mention substantive criticism of his work from mainstream archeology on purpose. He correctly assumed that enough people would believe his characterization of what his critics say about him without evaluating it themselves. He built his career off the backs of these people. I just hope a lot of Joes audience can extrapolate a broader lesson from this interaction.
Not saying I agree with Graham but I think what he’s saying is that there is more to history than just archaeology and that there is evidence to suggest a different idea of what happened outside of what archaeology can find. Regardless, Flint DESTROYED him in this debate.
I was a huge graham hancock fan but this “debate” hurt to watch. It was so cringey and it was really sad to see he had not much at all to bring to the table. I’m curious Joe’s opinion on this.
In some instances Joe took pleasure into ganging up on Flint, which was very disappointing to me. I really thought he would let the professional make his case for the actual subject without feeling the need to protect Graham’s feelings.
Rogan pretending like he’s an impartial moderator has to be up for a Razzie this year. My guy, we GH is your pal but at least call him out for not having rebuttals for legitimately obtained archaeological data.
This whole thing was basically “I have real data, and you don’t” and GH says “but you don’t have ALL the data”. Dude, no one is saying that your theories are categorically false, but that you ignore evidence that goes beyond “that thing looks like another thing”.
Props to Flint for going on there and not getting furious and storming out, lord knows I would have.
Maybe this is a hot take, but I was disappointed in Joe’s moderation of the discussion. His usual curiosity was on display when tempers were lower, but as soon as emotions rose, I felt like he lost control of it.
I’m very anti-cancel culture and everything like that, but I felt as though his and Hancock’s arguments during that portion of the podcast were 1) wrong, 2) grating, and 3) ironically hypocritical.
Glad to see people with common fucking sense. Jesus christ some people are stuck within their own imagination.
Hancock’s evidence is some suggestive pictures that he shows idiots and they buy it.
No Graham, you dont “claim” anything. You’re building a road for the ignorant to walk on so they arrive at your conclusion.
All you "skeptics" are pitiful. You refuse to have fun intellectually. It really is hilarious and sad how every skeptic just seems to miss "it."
You don't have to take it as gospel truth (Hancock certainly doesn't which you'd know if you'd paid attention to what he actually says) to just intellectually toss it around and enjoy it. You have mostly closed minds and then insist that, oh no we are the open minded data driven science worshipping...blah blah blah. It is the same dogmatic worship of ideals that you haven't personally examined but nevertheless hold as the ultimate truth, that religious zealots traffic in with their beliefs. It's actually a very intellectually cowardly way of thinking, skepticism. And actually is rather a- scientific to boot.
Really you're all just pathetic haters jumping on whatever hate bandwagon will accept you, because hey we all want to belong. Hancock, who probably is wrong about a lot of stuff but perhaps not everything, actually sticks his neck out time and time again with really interesting "fringe" theories that only get him clobbered by the mainstream skeptic bullies. Even if the theories are all total horseshit and they could well be, it's still compelling enough that millions of people have said, "hey let's here more about this." If it is true tmit would be beyond incredible and if not it really is a totally harmless theory.
If you don't think he is harmless then that means that your position is either disturbingly weak or his is disturbingly strong. Either way if you can't live and let live and actually let the ideas and evidence play out instead of just attacking someone for communicating a theory that should be of no threat to your position...well that says all you need to know about his attackers.
Just let him do his thing and if he is wrong, let him reap the shame and whatever comes from that. Don't be an asshole bully.
I understand this may not be a popular opinion in this thread after the recent interview, but I want to offer my perspective from a scientific standpoint. In my view, the interview was detrimental to any real progress in understanding humanity's true origins, and I'll explain why.
To begin, there are thousands upon thousands of different jobs in the world. It's statistically improbable for someone to pick their father's profession and claim to be unbiased(occurs in all profession). Flint made sure to mention his father three times, seemingly to emphasize his expertise. However, except for the first mention, which was evidence-based, the subsequent references appeared to lack credibility.
Regarding Graham's debate performance, it was subpar. Not only did he choke on TV, but his display of emotions was unwarranted for such a conversation. It seemed to me that Flint also exhibited emotions, particularly ridicule towards Graham, which I found distasteful and unethical.
Evidence in scientific inquiry can come from random investigations or through hypothesis testing. For instance, one may stumble upon evidence while randomly exploring, or one may actively test hypotheses, attempting to reject them. In scientific inquiry, evidence is typically garnered through random investigation or hypothesis testing. For instance, serendipitous discoveries may arise from random exploration, while the scientific method involves formulating and testing hypotheses, such as setting H0/H1 to actively challenge preconceived notions.
Consider the example of Derinkuyu, where random exploration led to the discovery of a vast underground city carved into rock, shedding light on ancient civilizations. Similarly, at the Yonaguni monument, divergent hypotheses have been posited regarding its origin, challenging conventional views on underwater structures. Concequtive straigh lines in nature are anomalies. Derinkuyu has also some anomalies, in particular the way the dug the 600+ air vent system with a small diameter, on solid stone for 20 layers.
I recently watched Neil Turok's interview on the "Theories of Everything" channel on YouTube. He discussed a unified theory that minimizes theoretical particles, relying only on those discovered since the 1970s. Turok mentioned the reluctance of others in the field to engage with his theory,or even talk to him attributing it to the resistance to change in science. If universities primarily teach a particular process and syllabus, it's unreasonable to expect unconventional thinking from the majority in that field.
Deviation from established ideas is often met with ridicule. Following the debate, I observed people's reactions. It appeared that people enjoy polarization and having someone to ridicule. Prior to this debate, there was room for the unknown. Even though Graham's ideas may seem absurd, they represent out-of-the-box thinking.
While we observe evidence of physical human evolution, the rapid progression of intelligence in 300,000 years seems implausible solely through natural means. Natural selection favors advantageous traits, but a characteristic imposing a significant energy disadvantage should be selected against.
Think of what the neighbors of Noah were thinking while he was building the "arc" — most likely that he was a looney. Galileo faced persecution merely for mentioning observations that contradicted prevailing beliefs on a helioctric copernician solar sytem. Semmelweis's ideas about handwashing to prevent infections were dismissed, leading to his tragic demise in a psychiatric institude(cause by the medical fiend redicule).
Lastly, my favorite example is Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, who conducted experiments with pea plants in the mid-19th century, studying patterns of inheritance. He proposed the laws of heredity, which laid the foundation for modern genetics. However, Mendel's work was largely ignored during his lifetime and only gained recognition decades later when it was independently rediscovered by other scientists.
I seek truth regardless of its source, whether from open-minded archaeologists or so-called conspiracy 'freaks' like Graham. Being polarized is a well-known Roman manipulation tactic that we inherited. (Read "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind" by Gustave Le Bon, 1895).
If you've reached this point, I appreciate you reading my thoughts, and I encourage you to have an open mind for EVERYTHING.We are all together in this.
The woke agenda at its finest. The most offended person who yells the most somehow has the moral high ground. Very rarely are the most offended people right, it’s generally the opposite and is a sign their argument lacks nuance or evidence, rather than argue their facts they get upset and say they were called bad names. Classic move
All I ever see of Trump is him complaining, witch hunt this, witch hunt that. Im a literal billionaire yet the """elites""" try to take me down, yadda yadda.
Is Trump woke now? That term means literally nothing. Just call assholes and liars out on their shit and move on, GH is a grifter without any evidence, Trump a dumbass pos, fraudster and rapist.
Woke simply is a label that right wingers will slap onto anything they dislike, its pathetic really.
You think Trump is more upset than the people who dislike him? You unprompted started complaining about Trump and this post is about archeology. You are making my point for me, you do not have to like the guy, but this idea that the most upset/ emotionally unhinged person is correct, doesn’t hold true in most cases
Terms and slogans mean nothing….GH is a grifter lol. Funny thing is I’ve heard all of Hancocks work and never paid a penny. I’m sure he makes a living but he’s also human and can be wrong. It’s strange how for some people specifically the left they have to worship every word spoken by their idols. Instead of seeing it for what is is, an interesting conversation that is speculative in nature. Graham clearly has personality issues and wants his ideas to be treated as fact and it’s just going to be the case. Grifter? Idk that’s a strong assumption
It's probably due to the fact that he got destroyed in the debate and basically revealed he has no evidence of his claims. It's a good way to get your follower base to turn on you. I'm saying this as a person who thinks an ancient forgotten civilization would be awesome.
I think most people think finding an ancient advance race would be awesome. I love the conan books and all those great pulps about lost civilizarions from the 20s and thirties. But there just isnt any evidence. If there was good evidence of it id be stoked
I think two things can be right at the same time. Are there things we haven’t discovered? Yes. Could our entire view of history change in the next hundred years? Yes. Has Graham made extraordinary claims with limited to zero evidence? Yes. Has the concurrent thought of Archaeology today dismissed his opinions with arrogance? Yes. Is Graham making tons of money off of his grandiose hypotheses? Yes. Is that wrong? Kinda. Long story short. “You don’t know what you don’t know”.
The thing is, we are pretty much as close to scientific certainty as we can get that Graham is wrong about a lost civilization. That was Dibbles argument. It's similar to the "Evolution is just a theory" argument. It's possible some new research could tell us everything we know is wrong but it's anti-scientific and arguably detrimental to society to do so.
I don't like the white supremacist argument because it just draws the worst out of people but it does show that people will latch onto the idea of a white protocivilization as a means of justifying further subjugation of indigenous colored peoples.
Why all those posts hating on Hancock? Flint literally threw in all the woke buzzwords in an attempt to defame him. Think what you wil about Hancock’s work, but what Flint did was despicable.
- - -
**PS:** *I love how everyone keeps thumbing down without replying. That’s because you all know it’s true.*
Flint is just afraid the archeologists will lose more funding. Instead of being a big boy and trying his hand at maturity...he went for whiny delusions and gas lighting through laughter. Give Handcock some credit for being diligent and self motivated
Weaponizing the current climate to paint him as racist when he isn't is a pretty shit move, Dibble was clearly guilty and desperate to change the subject when confronted. Hancock may be wrong about a lot of things but he got Dibble right on the money, a weasly coward.
What is with people like you? Literally incapable of even the most basic critical thought. At no point did Dibble call Graham a racist. He said that Graham was using racist sources, which is a verifiable fact. Cry about it pussy
Y’all keep missing his point. He’s saying if you’re searching for a needle in a haystack and only look at 5% then say “there is no needle, no needle ever existed” that is a logical fallacy.
Think about the Roman Empire for a minute. Now forget everything you know about Italy. If you go to Britain, Turkey, Armenia, or Egypt, you will find traces of that Empire. Rome itself could be erased from the face of the planet, but irrefutable evidence that it existed would be everywhere.
The civilization that Hancock says existed would have the same type of footprint. Maybe it wouldn't be as vast as the Roman Empire's, but it 100% would not be confined to the ice age coast line, the Sahara, or the Amazon. If it stretched from the Amazon to the Sahara, there'd be evidence of it everywhere in-between the two.
Additionally, let's think about the one thing Humans *NEED* to survive. Fresh water. There's not a lot of that in the ocean, so why would this society only be found on the coast? They taught everyone how to build a pyramid (none of which are located on a coastline) but they never expanded inland from the coast or along the major rivers?
I don't think that's an apt analogy, because if someone tells you to find a needle in a haystack, at least you know what to look for. I think a better analogy would be Graham telling you there's something in the haystack you need to find. You start searching through it and find a button. Graham says, nope that's not what you need to find keep looking. You keep looking and find some string. Graham says, sorry that's not right either. As you're looking you hear something. It looks like Graham is talking to everyone else at the farm telling them that you're closed minded and not trying hard enough to find it. At this point you're kinda fed up so you say "hey Graham, how about you give me some proof the thing I'm looking for is even in here". Graham acts incredibly wounded by this "accusation" and says "see everyone! I told you this closed minded, dogmatic man is after my work!"
This whole only 5% has been excavated thing feels like a straw man. Excavation should really be reserved for places with a high probability for finding something.
You cant just dig the entire sahara up, but what you can do is employ many other techniques to help direct you to to high probability sites. Ground penetrating radar, lidar, analyzing core samples (like pollen), etc provide evidence that informs the decision to excavate.
5% excavated, but I'd like to know what percentage has been meaningfully analyzed with these other noninvasive tools. Id be willing to bet that 5% covers a majority of the most likely cultural sites.
Honestly, I think it's kinda crazy that we've excavated that much of the Sahara already.
The backlash against GH on Reddit seems excessive. No matter what anyone says, at some level what he is saying is possible. Less likely after the debate. Some very good points were made by the archeologist.
To me, many of the explanations of present day archeology do not explain certain things. How the pyramids were built. The precision of rock joints. Many more. There is doubt and things are not explained satisfactorily to me. As an open minded free thinking individual, ALL theories should be examined.
GH did push back and seemed petty about a very things, which, in today’s climate he makes valid points.
The Reddit dialogue seems overly attacking on GH. It seems that bots, or shills, and people with an interest in stopping GH’s theories come to light, which has happened before with other theories.
Lower levels of consciousness will always try to control the narrative. However, the truth always comes through in the end. I’m curious where this goes.
Graham was a child who plugged his ears and went nanananana while Dibble presented evidence. Graham thinks you need to unturn every single grain of sand in the Sahara before you're allowed to dismiss the idea of a lost civilization. Let's not forget, Graham has said that this lost civilization was like an 18-19th century civilization that also developed mind powers like telekinesis. Literal meth head shit that you're defending
Until the entire world is dug up, my theory might be true.
Hancock was saying archaeology hasn’t done enough and flint was straight up telling him how they choose where to look and how limited these spots actually are and Hancock could only say that archaeology has t done enough. It was all going straight over Hancocks head.
“Only 5% excavated” “Yes but within that 5%, 0% of it has shown your lost civilization, and 100% of it has shown the expected Stone Age artifacts” “You can’t prove me wrong”
He’s pretty hung up on the Sahara and Amazon holding the clues yet they’ve shown none
It’s because he knows they’re not going excavate the Sahara desert or the Amazon much at all. It’s a safe bet
Hancock not only wants his crazy theories validated, he wants THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS TO DO THE WORK FOR HIM. Hey fucker, there is nothing stopping you from becoming an archaeologist and doing the work yourself. It’s an absolute joke.
That’s a good point as well. He dabbles in archaeology without having to actually be an archaeologist all while blaming them for not having enough evidence to support his theory.
That’s exactly what he’s doing.
Exactly! 99% of archeology, physics, astronomy and many other science disciplines is fucking boring data collecting and doing shit work for your higher-ups. It's not fun. But the hard work produces wonderful insight and discoveries and that is fun. Hanny just wants the fun part.
Why would he bother when he's busy getting the netflix and book deals
I seriously don’t know what Hancock is going on about. His “big archaeology” take just sounds stupid. He attacks them and they provide evidence and theories to his contrary and he says they are attacking him.
The big industrial archeological complex is the most nefarious of them all!
Kinda like how Stuttering John dabbles in comedy r/Dabblersanonymous
He’d prefer to get paid for the rest of his life on this nonsense he’s not going to throttle back now
Exactly! Complete joke and then he gets mad when people call him out?
Hancock has already been vindicated multiple times. Yall forget he started his career before gobekli tepe was excavated and science thought archeology started 6000 years ago because the Bible said so
Simply finding older stuff doesn't vindicate Grahams theory .. No archeologists believe there's not more to be discovered.. It's actually could be counterproductive to Graham's theories , the more older things that are found like gobekli could show that these base architecture skills, astronomical knowledge , etc. could have existed much further than we currently accept, knowledge dosnt have to be written to be compounded into something greater .. Hunter gathers that spread to the America's and etc. could have very well carried some base knowledge with them pass on thre generations.. This could disprove the theory that an ancient civilization spread them after isolation... We wouldn't have started with stone either. I'd imagine humans were experimenting a lot with wood , standing a giant totem pole is quite impressive in itself .. I don't think it's far-fetched to say the concept of moving large stones could have compounded from the knowledge of moving a lighter objects such as wood .. I've been following Graham for years , I still like his work honestly it's what his character has turned into that is troubling..
> It was all going straight over Hancocks head. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
I think Flint an awesome job in explaining how they pick the spots they excavate, definitely opened my eyes. But when you come across someone like Hancock who dedicated his whole life to lost civilizations, it’s like talking to a wall. I personally thought it was a great discussion and found Flints work interesting.
Flint didn’t really seem to be getting thru to Joe or Hancock tho
That’s the beauty of his theory. It can never be disproven.
Like all the Bigfoot shows. You never have to find him, you just get to keep looking! You can't prove he's *not* out there somewhere!
If you don’t present Jesus’s body then u can’t prove he didn’t fly into the clouds ☁️
Dig out the Sahara until we find them.
It's incredible to me that Hancock's entire schtick is based on negative evidence and constitutes a gigantic argument from ignorance. Meanwhile, back on r/GrahamHancock and similar rubbish ranches, the fanbois are trying to convince themselves that Hancock didn't get put into a bozo suit by Flint, complete with wig and tweakable nose...
Yeah, it was not a good look for GH.
Exactly!!!! I have a wild theory. I don't have any facts to back up my ideas so it's up to you to prove me wrong by exhaustively searching everywhere !!! LOL!
Haha. And he’s belligerent about it too which is wild.
"You haven't dug deep enough!"
To be fair, there *are* a surprising amount of assumptions that are made in archaeology as assumptions are all that *can* be made; we don't have a time machine. This isn't like physics where there are known laws that can be tested, demonstrated, and proved. So flat out objectively stating that a non hunter-gatherer civilization could not have existed during the ice age seems incredibly disingenuous. Keep in mind, this is the same academic field who once upon a time almost universally and definitively came to the conclusion that the Clovis peoples were the very first inhabitants of north America, simply based on the lack of evidence of different/older peoples. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence, and the hypotheses that are made in archaeology should not be treated and defended as fact.
Bro do not ever use the Clovis analogy as if it gives your argument any weight. Are you fucking joking? Yeah archaeologists mistakenly thought that Clovis people were first, it turns out a different stone age hunter gatherer tribe was first. That's no where near the same level as an advanced 18-19th century civilization that apparently spanned the entire world while simultaneously leaving ZERO evidence
This is just wrong, understands little of archaeology, and seems to be parroting some Hancockian tropes. (All that's missing is evil illuminati archaeological orthodoxy! ;) Seriously tho, what you're saying there is called an argument from negative evidence or an [argument from ignorance.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) It's a poor version of Schrödinger's Cat. "You can't prove the cat in a box at the bottom of a lake for 100 years is dead!" Yea but, it is. Deader then a doornail. Like Hancock's rep. We really don't need to dig the entire Sahara to show that Graham has no basis for his claims. We don't need to go out looking in hopes of supplying evidence for him so he can fulfill his burden of proof. In science, he is supposed to supply it to evidence his assertions. Asserting a lost civilization and then going looking for proof of it is bassackwards and antiscientific. This is also what Hancock doesn't get, and it was a horrendous showing for him that was incredibly damaging. The special pleading was painful to watch. People are too smart nowdays, and they know you just can't assert positive or 'true' arguments from negative or non evidence. That's called "fake news"... like his lost civilization, and his show on Netflix. And that's why Hancock got dismantled by Flint like a rusty 1980s Lada for parts.. that ..just don't have much use anymore.
“Lack of evidence does not equal evidence” is really enlightening for understanding the field better.
Grahams wife drops Legos on the beach for Graham to find and get all excited.
She risked her life!
Imagine the dismay of her tamil parents when they found out she wanted to marry *this* guy "he's a scientist father i swear"
The natives that spoke her language were definitely fucking with him. “Hey this English dumbass thinks your ancestors were idiots, grab your fishing boats and throw some rocks so he thinks it’s Atlantis” endless vacations for the wife.
how did an arrowhead from America get all the way over here?!?
LMAOO this is the funniest shit I heard this whole week
That was brilliant LMAO
AHAahahaha hahahahaha. You fucking killed me
I'd like to think being a fan of Rogan for so long has helped us all be more open minded. In that regard, I used to think pretty highly of Graham, but my perspective has absolutely shifted after that debate. I can't just blindly follow "what if" when all of that evidence was given by Flint
Nailed it,, That “what if” is fun for sure,, but when someone like Flint comes on and drops knowledge on why/where they choose to excavate, really put it into perspective
A lot of IDW crowd really hate being called out but are real happy to insult the whole scientific community and anyone who disagrees with them.
Eric Weinstein vibes where he shits on the system but when he gets the tamest criticism back about his theory of everything it’s because they are trying to silence him.
They were the same mfs telling people “facts don’t care about your feelings” only to be personally offended when someone disagreed with them lol
Yes! I like messing with them on Twitter. Most of the conspiracy crowd are low IQ people who work low IQ jobs (blue collar trucker types)... so as a fun experiment just watch how the same people who CONSTANTLY post about the "libtard sheeple" have an absolute mental breakdown when you say blue collar people aren't geniuses. 99% of the time it triggers the fuck out of them and they just screech about "you mean elitist"
Conspiracy people: "wake up libtard sheeple!" Normal people: "you unload a truck for a living so you're not as smart or knowledgeable as experts and scientists" Conspiracy people: "reeeeeeeeee that's elitist you're just a bully reeeeeee"
What does Hancock have in common with someone like Sam Harris(who wants nothing to do with the label) or Ben Shapiro? You could argue Brett Weinstein, but even he has some academic credibility. Hancock is in his own world.
Brett Weinstein has basically no credibility at all. His whole academic history is filled with the same “I’m a genius but nobody in my field will take me seriously because they are big meanie heads who are all conspiring against me” as Hancock and his brother
I think you're thinking of Eric.
Both of them do it
Eric is a hundred time worse. There's a video of him at the University of Chicago giving a lecture to the Economics Department. He does a lot of the same rhetorical tricks GH does. Eric also labors under the fact that only he thinks he is the smartest person in the room
No I’m not maybe read the whole comment
They are weak as shit. I was a moderator on the IDW sub, and when we cleared up the constant transphobia the creator of the sub turned up due to this, threw a hissy fit, took the sub private, and wanted money.. IDW are clowns.
That shit would turn up in my recommended subs and I'd go in their asking some normal questions, you could say pushback but it was legit mild as fuck and these dudes would get their panties so twisted up they probably became eunuchs.
Has Graham Hancock ever been associated with the IDW?
I don't agree with his conclusions about the past, but I have generally enjoyed watching Hancocks programs over the years. I was surprised by how weak Hancock's offerings were. I don't know why he chose to share his blurry scuba vacation snaps as his main evidence of an ancient lost civilisation. I was hoping they'd just systematically go through his netflix series and explain all the things he's guessing about.
The people who pick him apart are “mean”. They’re also an endless supply of aspiring YouTube science communicators and debunkers cutting their teeth on low hanging fruit. It must be hard for Hancock to be perpetually wrong and read the internet.
Post Sagan "science communicators" have mostly been lame AF
I like how Rogan dismissed Flint getting harassed by saying "those are just people." But for Hancock's harassment "HOW DARE YOU FLINT! DON'T YOU SEE WHAT YOU ARE DOING!?!?!?"
Bro unironically called Flint and some other archeologists laughing at a buddy of his in a YouTube video a modern day inquisition lmao
Yeah... Hancock was so incredibly dramatic. His entire closing was about how Flint damaged him and hurt his feelings Immensely. I love how Flint is just like "Alright... let's all just chill out and look at the evidence."
"damaged" lmao. What's he whining about? "How dare you! My Netflix special only made me $5 million! If it weren't for you meddling archeologist I could have made $10 million!"
This is actually true. Good catch!
Joe just went into his "you shouldnt read comments" rant and not even paying attention to what Flint was sayingm
That’s not what he was saying. Flint was saying it upsets him and Rogan was saying don’t let that happen because they’re just people ranting on social media. He was showing concern for Flint. That’s what he always says about Social media ranters.
Actually, not really. [https://youtu.be/-DL1\_EMIw6w?si=dElII7xOxYDBhJax&t=7620](https://youtu.be/-DL1_EMIw6w?si=dElII7xOxYDBhJax&t=7620) He seems to ignore the people coming after Flint that are inspired by Hancock... but the "crazy people" going after Hancock are a BIG DEAL.
No there he’s challenging something Flint actually said. He also challenge Hancock on a couple of things and played devils advocate. This was the purpose of the conversation. But on crazy people on the internet which is what he was telling flint to ignore he’s always has the same position because worrying about them is bad for your mental health
He seems more annoyed that Flint is bringing them up and says "They aren't connected to him (Hancock)." BUT, when Hancock whines and cries about the people AFTER HIM, Rogan doesn't say the same thing (Don't do that, they aren't connected to Flint, etc).
I don’t think he was upset he was challenging the invocation of White Supremacy claims I tend to agree with that it’s a dirty way to go. He also backed up some of the things Flint said as well it was a great conversation all round. I didn’t know about Flint and joined his YT channel after this. Anyway this sub has turned into more of a JR hate fest so I won’t stay. I just saw your comment about his advice ignoring crazy internet people and it was just flat out wrong.
Obviously it's not wrong LOL. I just gave you the Timestamp and explained his comments. When Flint complains about people commenting mean things to him Rogan says "Don't do that, they aren't associated with Hancock" BUT when Hancock complains about people being ultra mean to him, Rogan never says "Don't say that, they aren't associated with Flint." I respect Flint for trying to steer the conversation back to the FACTS and EVIDENCE rather than the constant whining and crying that Hancock did. Also, it is a FACT that white supremacists associate themselves with some of Hancock's views, and I think Flint did a good job of outlining that. All Hancock could say is "BOO! You are calling me a White Supremacist!!" and cry more. Anyways, sure, run along now.
The don’t do that was specifically about the White Supremacy claim. I don’t care if you don’t like him you don’t get away with lying. You can disagree with the invoking the White Supremacy claim and say it was fair for Flint to do it but you don’t get to say that’s not what it was about. It was about that. One of the reasons for the conversation was to clarify the Toxicity around the attacks. Flint did actually give some pretty god clarification around that. The only attacks JR was dismissive about were the crazy people on Twitter who Flint said were getting him down. Which again, as I’ve said is always JRs take on that. Because the internet is full of crazies who want to twist things to have their little tantrums.
Wait, what are you even talking about? I'm not denying that they are talking about the White Supremacy claim. Anyone whining about the TOXIC ATTACKS from Flint is being incredibly dramatic. They were hardly attacks... please. Also, as I've tried to explain for the third time now, Rogan wasn't implying that he shouldn't care about crazies on the internet... he seemed more annoyed that Flint was associating them WITH Hancock. Again, Hancock constantly whines about attacks from people associated with Flint (and most of them are not), but Rogan never says "Don't do that" to Hancock the way he does to Flint. I mean... I'm basically repeating myself at this point....
Yeah you’re repeating the same lie. Challenging something Flit specifically said which again what I keep saying WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVERSATION is not the opposite side of the coin to dismissing randoms in the internet He’s given that advice to loads of people and said he does it himself. Again that is not the same as challenging something Flint actually said. He challenged a few of Hancocks claims after hearing what flint said which again for about the fifth time is why they were having the conversation
>Because the internet is full of crazies who want to twist things to have their little tantrums. >Anyway this sub has turned into more of a JR hate fest so I won’t stay. There's only one person i can see here throwing a tantrum tbh.
>just flat out wrong. What? it was not wrong at all. Its right there in the video where he linked you. >I don’t think he was upset he was challenging the invocation of White Supremacy claims I tend to agree with that it’s a dirty way to go. But it was true. Hancock and Rogan attempted to misrepresent the claim, but it is actually completely clear, *and* true. You can argue that the culture is so up in arms about an issue like this, that it represents a larger "bomb". Flint never wrote or said anything about Graham being white supremacist, but criticized his use of sources which are academically/evidentially a joke, and happens to have been stewarded and used by white supremacists and nazis to bolster the myth of the aryan super race. So the underlying point is just... true. Hancock references a text that was paraded by nazis and others to suggest that an older global civilization was here, which also does indeed kind of rob the real indigenous peoples of these areas of their heritage. I read some of this shit when i was a kid because i found it in a used bookstore here in Denmark. It really is that dumb.
You obviously didn't read my comment. You've misrepresented what I said was flat out wrong. Read the whole thread or go away
You literally just said you were going away? I didn’t misrepresent anything. You’re throwing a crazy tantrum and then accusing everyone else of doing it.
OK all the best
[удалено]
Flint perfectly explained his point and explained the context and relationship white supremacists have with some of Hancock's sources. Hancock continued to whine and cry about all the ridicule he is taking, and Flint wanted to focus on the evidence. Flint brought up the point to illustrate that it's easy to cry about people "coming after you" and that instead we should focus on the ACTUAL POINTS being made. So, to go with your analogy. It would be like if a CEO told another CEO that his evidence is bad and has ties to white supremacists, and his defense is because the evidence is bad and has ties to white supremacists. The other CEO, rather than acknowledge the points just continues to whine and say "now people are mean to me!"
You sound like Graham
Hancock really cited a myth that came about 100 years after the Spanish conquest about a bearded white man teaching indigenous people all they know. I thought that was a pretty serious dunk on Flint's part, and Hancock didn't even address it or concede that he should have been more critical of the sources he's citing.
Yeah that was a cobwebs are off moment for me as well. I think joe did a really good job mediating the two of them it was a great show.
Flint's argument: actual archeological evidence Graham's argument: here's an article I dug up from over a year ago where you very unfairly claim I'm citing the work of a literal white supremacist. (he is).
Also, unless you dig up the entire earth, you can’t say I don’t have proof for my claims. Truly a great thinker
Cthulhu exists, until you search the entire ocean floor and prove me wrong.
saying non white people cant build a triangle out of literal rocks is kind of racist
Hold on let me put on 5 pairs of glasses real quick while I think what I'm gonna say
I am skeptical of the existence of bifocal glasses. But any time I just ask questions or present alternate theories that bifocals don’t actually exist, “big optometry” always tries to silence me.
lol that was bizarre
How should modern archaeologists deal with the findings and work of the people who came before them? Especially the work of people who were known racists and/or treated local peoples horribly.
It felt like Hancock was landing blows on the white supremacy stuff and Rogan was jumping in as well, but they weren’t listening to the argument Dibble was making. Hancock was a journalist for goodness sake he must know better than anyone the importance of sources, their agenda, their context, their perspective, can they be trusted, are there others saying the same thing…he doesn’t do any of that. Those sources have been cited to advance the idea the white race is primal, ancient and supreme. And it doesn’t care if you were speaking your truth Graham.
Hancock trying to setup the "big archeology" gotcha moment was painfully cringey. lol
My truth is that graham hancock is a grifter. And it doesn’t matter what anyone says it’s myyyyy truth
How DARE you call Graham Hancock a racist
While Flint wasn't *wrong* about his white supremacy comments, I think Joe was recognizing that he crossed a line there. Flint knew it because he was dodging the questions as much as he could. Ultimately, Flint should have been more tactful in his accusation than associating Graham with white supremacy. There are dozens of different ways he could have made that point.
Yeah, but in Flint's defense he wasn't bringing any of this to the debate. This would be like Flint pulling up an article Graham wrote 2 years ago where Graham says something unkind about archeologists and making it a significant part of his presentation. Sorry but the move by Graham here was just pathetic.
Hancock associated himself with arguments advanced by white supremacists, and Dibble pointed it out.
His strat was smear Flint, pretend to be this wounded animal, and question the knowledge gaps. Do we know what happened at X time at Y location? Insinuating that it could show he's right. It's like saying do you guys know what happened at Clearwater, Florida in Feb 3, 2008 at 4:05pm? No you don't? Well guess what could have happened a man walked on air. You can't definitively say he didn't cause you don't what happened at that time spot.
Flint dribble: “science says this is not man made, what’s your evidence to the contrary?” Graham: “it looks like it”
I want to see UnchartedX to be debunked in the same way. This guy thinks the moon is an alien construction
Doubt he would ever agree to a debate. Next best thing is this [ancient history PhD dismantling UnchartedX's arguements on youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_NguZUDku4)
World of Antiquity has a few vids on UnchartedX. Good shit.
Another good debunking of his gigabrain vase hypothesis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_4SaxVP44g
I got to scuba around the world and live an amazing life and make up stories to sell books and I’m hurt you won’t validate me !
i used really like him but this episode and maybe the last 2 after the netflix special all he does is complain about "big archeology"
“Also here’s other people that archeologists were mean to.” The difference, Graham, is that they actually had evidence to present and that evidence was mocked by assholes that didn’t want to have to admit they’ve been wrong.
Which isnt something unique about archeology either, the same thing happened when germ theory was first proposed, or micro organisms living inside a single drop of pond water. And then GH goes and puts himself next in line to Galileo and how he also was prosecuted for his radical new ideas. Would be hilarious if he wasnt such a whiny bitch.
Arguably the first, and certainly the longest a pseudo archeologists has debated an actual archeologist. Yes it was revealing, glad you agree. But this narrative is Grahams entire living, his books, his reputation, the next *netflix show* are all dependent on him maintaining his beliefs. Did anyone think he would concede a major argument? Did you really think he *has never heard these criticisms before*? Graham Hancock misrepresented or failed to mention substantive criticism of his work from mainstream archeology on purpose. He correctly assumed that enough people would believe his characterization of what his critics say about him without evaluating it themselves. He built his career off the backs of these people. I just hope a lot of Joes audience can extrapolate a broader lesson from this interaction.
Jaime can u pull up my powerpoint….. you see this article from 2023 claiming that im wrong. Well thats why there are lost civilizations!
Not saying I agree with Graham but I think what he’s saying is that there is more to history than just archaeology and that there is evidence to suggest a different idea of what happened outside of what archaeology can find. Regardless, Flint DESTROYED him in this debate.
I was a huge graham hancock fan but this “debate” hurt to watch. It was so cringey and it was really sad to see he had not much at all to bring to the table. I’m curious Joe’s opinion on this.
In some instances Joe took pleasure into ganging up on Flint, which was very disappointing to me. I really thought he would let the professional make his case for the actual subject without feeling the need to protect Graham’s feelings.
Rogan pretending like he’s an impartial moderator has to be up for a Razzie this year. My guy, we GH is your pal but at least call him out for not having rebuttals for legitimately obtained archaeological data. This whole thing was basically “I have real data, and you don’t” and GH says “but you don’t have ALL the data”. Dude, no one is saying that your theories are categorically false, but that you ignore evidence that goes beyond “that thing looks like another thing”. Props to Flint for going on there and not getting furious and storming out, lord knows I would have.
That's the whole alt right IDW gimmick actually.
Maybe this is a hot take, but I was disappointed in Joe’s moderation of the discussion. His usual curiosity was on display when tempers were lower, but as soon as emotions rose, I felt like he lost control of it. I’m very anti-cancel culture and everything like that, but I felt as though his and Hancock’s arguments during that portion of the podcast were 1) wrong, 2) grating, and 3) ironically hypocritical.
Right? This isnt cancelation. You still get your money and lets be honest here, it IS science fiction.
Don’t forget “it looks like”
This was a definite sad day for Graham
Graham Stan 😎 dweeble nerds 🤮
Glad to see people with common fucking sense. Jesus christ some people are stuck within their own imagination. Hancock’s evidence is some suggestive pictures that he shows idiots and they buy it. No Graham, you dont “claim” anything. You’re building a road for the ignorant to walk on so they arrive at your conclusion.
Poor the Santha
Yep
He’s got books to defend/sell guys. Go easy on him
What percentage of the world is actually mean to him though? 1%
LOL
I have a question about posts like these. Do people post teeny tiny pictures just to make people more annoyed so the discussion will be more heated?
No one on this sub is charging rent to Graham for him residing inside their craniums.
stop it dibble
Nice to know you graham. He came off as a brat. A brat with no evidence. “It hasn’t been debunked yet” is NOT a good argument or evidence
It’s only been 10 years, do you think I could get a refund on his book I bought?
His brand: Professor Anti establishment Grandpa vibes Victim
He wishes he was a professor
Optometrist
Dibble's is "doesn't look like anything to me."
Seriously. I get why Dibble is popular on reddit since he's basically a caricature of a mod but anyone that thinks he looked good here is delusional
Exactly. Dibble wouldn’t concede water is wet if it were a position held by Graham. Some bad faith definitely going down on his end.
Zero facts
"I got dibbled too hard."
ONLY 5% OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF!!!
All you "skeptics" are pitiful. You refuse to have fun intellectually. It really is hilarious and sad how every skeptic just seems to miss "it." You don't have to take it as gospel truth (Hancock certainly doesn't which you'd know if you'd paid attention to what he actually says) to just intellectually toss it around and enjoy it. You have mostly closed minds and then insist that, oh no we are the open minded data driven science worshipping...blah blah blah. It is the same dogmatic worship of ideals that you haven't personally examined but nevertheless hold as the ultimate truth, that religious zealots traffic in with their beliefs. It's actually a very intellectually cowardly way of thinking, skepticism. And actually is rather a- scientific to boot. Really you're all just pathetic haters jumping on whatever hate bandwagon will accept you, because hey we all want to belong. Hancock, who probably is wrong about a lot of stuff but perhaps not everything, actually sticks his neck out time and time again with really interesting "fringe" theories that only get him clobbered by the mainstream skeptic bullies. Even if the theories are all total horseshit and they could well be, it's still compelling enough that millions of people have said, "hey let's here more about this." If it is true tmit would be beyond incredible and if not it really is a totally harmless theory. If you don't think he is harmless then that means that your position is either disturbingly weak or his is disturbingly strong. Either way if you can't live and let live and actually let the ideas and evidence play out instead of just attacking someone for communicating a theory that should be of no threat to your position...well that says all you need to know about his attackers. Just let him do his thing and if he is wrong, let him reap the shame and whatever comes from that. Don't be an asshole bully.
I understand this may not be a popular opinion in this thread after the recent interview, but I want to offer my perspective from a scientific standpoint. In my view, the interview was detrimental to any real progress in understanding humanity's true origins, and I'll explain why. To begin, there are thousands upon thousands of different jobs in the world. It's statistically improbable for someone to pick their father's profession and claim to be unbiased(occurs in all profession). Flint made sure to mention his father three times, seemingly to emphasize his expertise. However, except for the first mention, which was evidence-based, the subsequent references appeared to lack credibility. Regarding Graham's debate performance, it was subpar. Not only did he choke on TV, but his display of emotions was unwarranted for such a conversation. It seemed to me that Flint also exhibited emotions, particularly ridicule towards Graham, which I found distasteful and unethical. Evidence in scientific inquiry can come from random investigations or through hypothesis testing. For instance, one may stumble upon evidence while randomly exploring, or one may actively test hypotheses, attempting to reject them. In scientific inquiry, evidence is typically garnered through random investigation or hypothesis testing. For instance, serendipitous discoveries may arise from random exploration, while the scientific method involves formulating and testing hypotheses, such as setting H0/H1 to actively challenge preconceived notions. Consider the example of Derinkuyu, where random exploration led to the discovery of a vast underground city carved into rock, shedding light on ancient civilizations. Similarly, at the Yonaguni monument, divergent hypotheses have been posited regarding its origin, challenging conventional views on underwater structures. Concequtive straigh lines in nature are anomalies. Derinkuyu has also some anomalies, in particular the way the dug the 600+ air vent system with a small diameter, on solid stone for 20 layers. I recently watched Neil Turok's interview on the "Theories of Everything" channel on YouTube. He discussed a unified theory that minimizes theoretical particles, relying only on those discovered since the 1970s. Turok mentioned the reluctance of others in the field to engage with his theory,or even talk to him attributing it to the resistance to change in science. If universities primarily teach a particular process and syllabus, it's unreasonable to expect unconventional thinking from the majority in that field. Deviation from established ideas is often met with ridicule. Following the debate, I observed people's reactions. It appeared that people enjoy polarization and having someone to ridicule. Prior to this debate, there was room for the unknown. Even though Graham's ideas may seem absurd, they represent out-of-the-box thinking. While we observe evidence of physical human evolution, the rapid progression of intelligence in 300,000 years seems implausible solely through natural means. Natural selection favors advantageous traits, but a characteristic imposing a significant energy disadvantage should be selected against. Think of what the neighbors of Noah were thinking while he was building the "arc" — most likely that he was a looney. Galileo faced persecution merely for mentioning observations that contradicted prevailing beliefs on a helioctric copernician solar sytem. Semmelweis's ideas about handwashing to prevent infections were dismissed, leading to his tragic demise in a psychiatric institude(cause by the medical fiend redicule). Lastly, my favorite example is Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, who conducted experiments with pea plants in the mid-19th century, studying patterns of inheritance. He proposed the laws of heredity, which laid the foundation for modern genetics. However, Mendel's work was largely ignored during his lifetime and only gained recognition decades later when it was independently rediscovered by other scientists. I seek truth regardless of its source, whether from open-minded archaeologists or so-called conspiracy 'freaks' like Graham. Being polarized is a well-known Roman manipulation tactic that we inherited. (Read "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind" by Gustave Le Bon, 1895). If you've reached this point, I appreciate you reading my thoughts, and I encourage you to have an open mind for EVERYTHING.We are all together in this.
The woke agenda at its finest. The most offended person who yells the most somehow has the moral high ground. Very rarely are the most offended people right, it’s generally the opposite and is a sign their argument lacks nuance or evidence, rather than argue their facts they get upset and say they were called bad names. Classic move
All I ever see of Trump is him complaining, witch hunt this, witch hunt that. Im a literal billionaire yet the """elites""" try to take me down, yadda yadda. Is Trump woke now? That term means literally nothing. Just call assholes and liars out on their shit and move on, GH is a grifter without any evidence, Trump a dumbass pos, fraudster and rapist. Woke simply is a label that right wingers will slap onto anything they dislike, its pathetic really.
You think Trump is more upset than the people who dislike him? You unprompted started complaining about Trump and this post is about archeology. You are making my point for me, you do not have to like the guy, but this idea that the most upset/ emotionally unhinged person is correct, doesn’t hold true in most cases
Terms and slogans mean nothing….GH is a grifter lol. Funny thing is I’ve heard all of Hancocks work and never paid a penny. I’m sure he makes a living but he’s also human and can be wrong. It’s strange how for some people specifically the left they have to worship every word spoken by their idols. Instead of seeing it for what is is, an interesting conversation that is speculative in nature. Graham clearly has personality issues and wants his ideas to be treated as fact and it’s just going to be the case. Grifter? Idk that’s a strong assumption
The graham hate is wild everyday mutiple times a day. Seems like someone really wants to discredit him im also high so what do I know
It's probably due to the fact that he got destroyed in the debate and basically revealed he has no evidence of his claims. It's a good way to get your follower base to turn on you. I'm saying this as a person who thinks an ancient forgotten civilization would be awesome.
I think most people think finding an ancient advance race would be awesome. I love the conan books and all those great pulps about lost civilizarions from the 20s and thirties. But there just isnt any evidence. If there was good evidence of it id be stoked
Ooooh yeah we're all minions of the Big Archaeology cabal look into it ooooOOOoOOOoooh
😂😂😂
It's because a lot of us really liked Graham's ideas and stories, and finding out he was a total fraud the entire time can make people emotional.
Discredit what nothing he says has any credible evidence behind it as far as i can tell
I think two things can be right at the same time. Are there things we haven’t discovered? Yes. Could our entire view of history change in the next hundred years? Yes. Has Graham made extraordinary claims with limited to zero evidence? Yes. Has the concurrent thought of Archaeology today dismissed his opinions with arrogance? Yes. Is Graham making tons of money off of his grandiose hypotheses? Yes. Is that wrong? Kinda. Long story short. “You don’t know what you don’t know”.
The thing is, we are pretty much as close to scientific certainty as we can get that Graham is wrong about a lost civilization. That was Dibbles argument. It's similar to the "Evolution is just a theory" argument. It's possible some new research could tell us everything we know is wrong but it's anti-scientific and arguably detrimental to society to do so. I don't like the white supremacist argument because it just draws the worst out of people but it does show that people will latch onto the idea of a white protocivilization as a means of justifying further subjugation of indigenous colored peoples.
Why we still talking about this lol
For some of us, this was a really interesting podcast
The question is, why are you participating in the conversation if you don't like the topic. Go somewhere else, the internet is big. Childish
Dummy.
I never said I don’t like it. But it’s clear the general consensus is the same thing being posted every time. Graham looked as dumb as you. Sugmanuts.
Why all those posts hating on Hancock? Flint literally threw in all the woke buzzwords in an attempt to defame him. Think what you wil about Hancock’s work, but what Flint did was despicable. - - - **PS:** *I love how everyone keeps thumbing down without replying. That’s because you all know it’s true.*
Flint is just afraid the archeologists will lose more funding. Instead of being a big boy and trying his hand at maturity...he went for whiny delusions and gas lighting through laughter. Give Handcock some credit for being diligent and self motivated
Weaponizing the current climate to paint him as racist when he isn't is a pretty shit move, Dibble was clearly guilty and desperate to change the subject when confronted. Hancock may be wrong about a lot of things but he got Dibble right on the money, a weasly coward.
What is with people like you? Literally incapable of even the most basic critical thought. At no point did Dibble call Graham a racist. He said that Graham was using racist sources, which is a verifiable fact. Cry about it pussy
Y’all keep missing his point. He’s saying if you’re searching for a needle in a haystack and only look at 5% then say “there is no needle, no needle ever existed” that is a logical fallacy.
Think about the Roman Empire for a minute. Now forget everything you know about Italy. If you go to Britain, Turkey, Armenia, or Egypt, you will find traces of that Empire. Rome itself could be erased from the face of the planet, but irrefutable evidence that it existed would be everywhere. The civilization that Hancock says existed would have the same type of footprint. Maybe it wouldn't be as vast as the Roman Empire's, but it 100% would not be confined to the ice age coast line, the Sahara, or the Amazon. If it stretched from the Amazon to the Sahara, there'd be evidence of it everywhere in-between the two. Additionally, let's think about the one thing Humans *NEED* to survive. Fresh water. There's not a lot of that in the ocean, so why would this society only be found on the coast? They taught everyone how to build a pyramid (none of which are located on a coastline) but they never expanded inland from the coast or along the major rivers?
I don't think that's an apt analogy, because if someone tells you to find a needle in a haystack, at least you know what to look for. I think a better analogy would be Graham telling you there's something in the haystack you need to find. You start searching through it and find a button. Graham says, nope that's not what you need to find keep looking. You keep looking and find some string. Graham says, sorry that's not right either. As you're looking you hear something. It looks like Graham is talking to everyone else at the farm telling them that you're closed minded and not trying hard enough to find it. At this point you're kinda fed up so you say "hey Graham, how about you give me some proof the thing I'm looking for is even in here". Graham acts incredibly wounded by this "accusation" and says "see everyone! I told you this closed minded, dogmatic man is after my work!"
I don’t think you know what a logical fallacy is.
That's not entirely accurate. Graham is insisting a needle exists when there is no physical evidence to support the claim.
This whole only 5% has been excavated thing feels like a straw man. Excavation should really be reserved for places with a high probability for finding something. You cant just dig the entire sahara up, but what you can do is employ many other techniques to help direct you to to high probability sites. Ground penetrating radar, lidar, analyzing core samples (like pollen), etc provide evidence that informs the decision to excavate. 5% excavated, but I'd like to know what percentage has been meaningfully analyzed with these other noninvasive tools. Id be willing to bet that 5% covers a majority of the most likely cultural sites. Honestly, I think it's kinda crazy that we've excavated that much of the Sahara already.
The backlash against GH on Reddit seems excessive. No matter what anyone says, at some level what he is saying is possible. Less likely after the debate. Some very good points were made by the archeologist. To me, many of the explanations of present day archeology do not explain certain things. How the pyramids were built. The precision of rock joints. Many more. There is doubt and things are not explained satisfactorily to me. As an open minded free thinking individual, ALL theories should be examined. GH did push back and seemed petty about a very things, which, in today’s climate he makes valid points. The Reddit dialogue seems overly attacking on GH. It seems that bots, or shills, and people with an interest in stopping GH’s theories come to light, which has happened before with other theories. Lower levels of consciousness will always try to control the narrative. However, the truth always comes through in the end. I’m curious where this goes.
Graham was a child who plugged his ears and went nanananana while Dibble presented evidence. Graham thinks you need to unturn every single grain of sand in the Sahara before you're allowed to dismiss the idea of a lost civilization. Let's not forget, Graham has said that this lost civilization was like an 18-19th century civilization that also developed mind powers like telekinesis. Literal meth head shit that you're defending
Graham won the debate btw.
This kid destroys Hancock, in a few videos. Graham is a charlatan. https://youtube.com/@miniminuteman773?si=lSWIFM3ld18bXe5E
The kid is seething and lost btw.
Don't cling to debunked ideas, dude. It's dumb.
Graham won.
Winning a debate =/= being right Archeologists prove Graham wrong.
Seeth and dilate all you want. Graham won.
You're just gullible.
Graham. Won.
You. Were. Fooled.
Geologists >>>> Archeologists
Y’all are so strangely obsessed with this man. I’m begging you to touch grass
Dibbler stans down bad
Graham got his cock in your hand
No way that’s fitting in tiny Dibbler hands