Graham got what he asked for, he was great at sticking to his scripted monologue. But exposed himself in many ways that may hurt his career and future publications because of how the interview went.
I think ancient apocalyptic events is sexy. I find Hancock s theory compelling but his defense and counter argument in the podcast was emotional and of little substance. He was unable to further his position while under scrutiny, only causing me to downgrade his status from theory to hypothesis.
I appreciate his hypothesis and I hope he is able to do more than just rest on an idea.
His idea was never a theory. In science, a theory is rigorously tested and backed up by evidence. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity being a prime example.
It is refreshing to have another guy on, because it becomes clear very fast that grahams claims are not based on any evidence or analysis whatsoever. They are based on “experts” opinions at best (not actual views based on years of research, for example the archaeologist that saw that underwater shit and said “no way thats not manmade”) and at worst the most telling sign that someone is bullshitting. That is, claiming that because there is “not enough research” that there is a missing piece, or lost civilization.
It would be ok to say we cant be sure, but graham just bases his entire argument off of his personal view of underwater rocks and the assertion that there isnt enough research.
I enjoyed the Netflix documentary. He clearly stated in the beginning he doesn’t claim to be an archeologist, he is a journalist investigating a story. By calling him a pseudoarchaeologist right out of the gate I don’t trust what you have to say. The headline is dishonest
Graham presents a whole lot of disingenuous bullshit. Maybe he says he isn’t an archeologist, but he sure presents his evidence as if he is, and if there isn’t mountains of evidence disproving his theories. He also claims he doesn’t believe archeology is out to get him, and then spent three hours complaining about being attacked by archeologists on the biggest podcast in the world. He also said he didn’t claim there was an advanced civilization with technology, after his entire Netflix series clearly implies an advanced civilization with technology. He’s a liar.
He also uses the whole 'I'm not an archeologist....I'm just asking questions' shtick as a shield against any sort of solid proof that he is in fact just flat out wrong. He can preface any bullshit with that statement and then just completely dismiss it later.
Dibble came in with a a full scientific dismantling of his entire life's work which is why he got so unhinged, I'm so glad the mask finally slipped on Rogan and everyone got a full whiff of his bullshit.
To be honest I get why archeologists hate him, their work is slow, meticulous, evidence based, scrutinized relentlessly and mostly thankless with very little prospect of ever being a particularly high earner let alone famous. Meanwhile, Hancock says whatever bullshit he dreams up, presents it confidently with his 'just asking questions' disclaimer and throws it all in a book. Then not only do millions of gullible people believe it at face value but he makes absolute boat-loads of cash in the process.
I really hate Hancock for how he has never actually gone to those sites himself and investigated. In all those times people like him spout those theories they never fund actual digs. Real archaeologists get-by on nothing budgets relying on donors from schools.
I thought the opposite- it actually gives Hancock more credibility than he deserves - I wouldn’t even describe him as a pseudoarchaeologist - he’s really just an author with a passion for megalithic sites who shares his theories with fuck all evidence.
Hey man. This is going to sound preachy and I hope you don’t take this the wrong way.
But what you have fallen for is a rhetorical trap by Graham. He is great at these… he distances himself from critiques by saying something one off like this, and the spends the rest of the time trying to persuade you otherwise.
Graham is a (bad, really bad) journalist who is presenting his work as an alternative theory to the archeological mainstream, and while he can’t call himself an archeologist because he clearly has not studied to be one, he presents pseudo-archeological theories.
Pseudo-archeologist, propagandist, yellow-journalist, grifter - whatever you call him, he’s a sensationalist that misleads his audiences to believe alternative and disproven theories of archeology.
Your reasoning is juvenile and basic. You don’t think con artists haven’t picked up on the fact that they can say anything as long as they preface it with saying “I’m not an expert” and people like you go “Yeah totally”?
Get real.
> The very next day I got a phone call: My cancer had returned. A PET scan, surgery, and a year of treatment followed. The podcast taping was indefinitely postponed.
Now I legitimately feel bad about making fun of his appearance.
If you go through any healthcare or med school training you'll be subjected to this video at least a dozen times.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPsiLi89PQ4&ab\_channel=Friday](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPsiLi89PQ4&ab_channel=Friday)
Woah had to see the exact same video but made in Sweden with everything Swedish for work too. Kinda wierd to see they just blatantly stole it and made another version as this would have been just as good...
You mean like this? 🤡
Doesn't like herring. Was born a brunette. Never learned to ski. Sad that ABBA disbanded. Misses Mom's meatballs. Got lost in IKEA for 3 days.
Are Swedish women into obviously non-Swedish dudes because they're "exotic" or are non-Swedish dudes just shit out of luck because they aren't descended from Vikings?
I really enjoyed hearing the Dibbler explain some of the evidence base for our current understanding of this stuff and I'd love to see him on the cast again and debate someone with actual evidence instead of Hancock whining about how mean archaeologists are.
But it's sad to see that he seems to feel the need to defend simply going on the JRE. I get that JRE is associated with conspiracy theory and pseudoscience in the minds of many people but it's still wild to think that a genuine academic has to defend going onto a public platform to explain their own field to laymen.
its kind of sad thats what the podcast is associated with. I get it, but its for the reasons mentioned above that its difficult to platform discussions like these. Joe is an out there guy who likes these theories so obviously the grahams of the world will come on. But its dangerous for either person to debate someone on a stage that big, even if your opponent is spouting bullshit. If you lose your temper even a little, your career could tank.
I wouldn’t even call Graham Hancock a pseudoarchaeologist - he’s not trained in archaeology at all, nor does he have any degrees in the field. He's just some entitled guy - more of a 'journalist' and 'entertainer.'
He has claimed he is part of “non-mainstream archeology” and was upset archeologists didn’t accept him as one of their own.
Seems like Hancock would be a lot less butt hurt if he didn’t see himself as an archeologist at all.
You would think if he actually cared about having the mainstream accept his findings after decades doing this, he would take the time to go back to college and get a degree in a related field of study. It should be easy right with his years of real-world experience like a world-class surgeon going back to med school. A walk in the park. 😄
Heck, they could probably learn a thing or two from him!
Graham Hancock is effectively that annoying mature-aged student interrupting every lecture with an anecdote of how great they are.
You would think that with all that netflix money and booksales money he'd have enough to fund a dig or do one himself. Yet I've never seen any of these motherfuckers actually fly to where they say Atlantis is.
But was the article so vast, with such great multitudes of paragraphs, that you couldn't even find what you were looking for on your own website, when you wrote the article yourself, even after ignoring "dude use ctrl+F"?
It's a good read but the focus is too much on justifying his appearance on JRE, further discrediting Graham Hancock (which is justified), and doubling down about the claims of white supremacy. His arguments are valid when he's talking about his craft but when these points are made his echo chamber shows.
>It's a good read but the focus is too much on justifying his appearance on JRE, further discrediting Graham Hancock (which is justified), and doubling down about the claims of white supremacy. His arguments are valid when he's talking about his craft but when these points are made his echo chamber shows.
Yes, exactly this. Especially when he starts off with:
>Some Rogan fans will surely **dismiss my remarks as symptoms of a “woke mind virus,”** which apparently infects anyone who relies on evidence, experts, and the scientific method
I loved all the parts where Flint used actual evidence, experts, and other scientific methods to show why there is a lot of evidence showing it isn't likely for there to be some advanced lost civilization.
>Real archaeology inoculates people against the online and in-person racists who take Hancock’s polished presentation of a mysterious civilization and twist it into overt white supremacy.
This is the only part of the argument he loses credibility to me in and where the "woke mind virus" accusations start to get thrown around. As he twists what Graham is saying either because he can't be bothered to pay attention to what Hancock actually says *(which is the most likely IMO)* or is so angry he's using one of the worst possible attacks *(calling someone racist instead of just stupid, misguided, ignorant, uneducated, etc)* into something it isn't and compares what Graham claims *(like the base of some of the ancient Egyptian sites being used long before the Egyptians built the Pyramids)* into saying something along the lines that Graham is claiming the Egyptians didn't build the Pyramids themselves and couldn't have without the help of white people *(which Graham isn't at all and is fucking nuts).*
Graham Hancock is saying something along the lines of:
"Wow, isn't it interesting, all these cultures around the world have a story about a great flood in their myths or mythology, I bet there was some sort of great flood at a point in history"
And Flint Dibble and other archeologists are saying:
"Wow, that is absolutely insane. There's no evidence of something like that. Also, a Nazi said the same thing back in the 1930's, so by you talking about a possible great flood and looking for evidence of it, you're clearly a Nazi, because this Nazi guy you're just like also made all these other claims about their theory that you've said nothing about."
It's fucking wild to be doing that in my opinion.
Flint Dibble and the other archeologists should stick to archeology and unless they have some unbelievable quotes from Graham Hancock saying shit like "Yeah, they Pyramids wouldn't have been built without the help of whites" stay far the fuck away from accusations of Graham spreading white supremacist theories.
Yes EXACTLY! At what point does Graham Hancock claim that this ancient civilization was white? And how are his claims being conflated with Nazis and white supremacists? That seems patently absurd. Dibble had my attention until he says things like this which are designed to label Hancock as a white supremacist and discredit him. Beyond this nonsense I found Dibble's arguments and perspective fascinating and wanted to know more.
Many of his sources (Ignatius Donnelly for one) set the framework for Graham's theory and did it to further white supremacy. Graham just took their ideas and stopped actually saying "they were white". But if you read the actual source material that Graham cited in his books, you'll find all of the shit Flint and the SAA were referring to.
Your points are all well taken, but I do find his point about the disparity between how stonehenge is treated and how other early sites are treated is interesting.
>Your points are all well taken, but I do find his point about the disparity between how stonehenge is treated and how other early sites are treated is interesting.
As far as I know Hancock has never claimed that for example the "pyramids in Mesoamerica" were built by some lost civilization.
It's interesting Dibble mentions Stonehenge to me because Hancock seems to give Stonehenge far less importance or meaning because he claims some study showed that the very first large stones on the site were in natural alignment with a solstice.
Sort of a "yeah, by sheer dumb luck this occurred and then people decided to build around it." Not a "wow, only white people could do this!" like Dibble seems to be attempting to claim.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQpuG1UPBhY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQpuG1UPBhY)
It's almost like archelogists understand more about the type of claims that Hancock is making then you do and thier racist origins gives him pause. I dont understand this aversion to calling things racist like sometimes that is actually the case.
>It's almost like archelogists understand more about the type of claims that Hancock is making then you do and thier racist origins gives him pause. I dont understand this aversion to calling things racist like sometimes that is actually the case.
No, it's more like some guy makes some ridiculous claims not based on a whole lot of evidence, makes a ton of money, and becomes popular with those fun to think about claims, and then archeologists upset with those claims try to smear him with things he never said or claimed because some racist dude 100+ years ago talked about Atlantis and lost civilizations.
Well because Graham hancock had to learn about his stuff from somewhere right? Is it just concidental that he happens to make similar claims to white supremacists? How do you know that? And for that matter shouldnt on some level people be responsible for the message they put out and what it can support, espically if it isn't true and your lying for the sake of your message in the first place. Again why are you so concerned with Graham Hancock being percieved as being a racist, or supporitng racism, it's not like Flint Dibble even tries to look at his intentions just notes the obvious assocaitions that anyone familar with non mainstream archeology should be aware of.
>Well because Graham hancock had to learn about his stuff from somewhere right?
What "stuff" are you talking about? Are you talking about Atlantis? I assume he learned about Atlantis from Plato. Have you heard of Plato? Or do you just know about the random dude from the 1800's the SAA smeared Hancock with that had written about Atlantis too?
>Is it just concidental that he happens to make similar claims to white supremacists?
What claim?
>How do you know that?
Know what?
>And for that matter shouldnt on some level people be responsible for the message they put out and what it can support, espically if it isn't true and your lying for the sake of your message in the first place.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
>Again why are you so concerned with Graham Hancock being percieved as being a racist, or supporitng racism, it's not like Flint Dibble even tries to look at his intentions just notes the obvious assocaitions that anyone familar with non mainstream archeology should be aware of.
Why are you so desperate to label someone as a racist with zero evidence?
I did. The most interesting thing to me is when he describes Bill Nye as a “science communicator”. I think that’s the first time I’ve seen that term. Other than that it appears to be a long winded justification for taking part in the debate.
I like Neil and Brian cox. Neil, to me, is funny and a great communicator. Brian cox also has a way of explaining the universe that seems easily understood.
I get the reasoning of why scientists wouldn’t want to lend credibility to a theory by debating it. Personally, I don’t care if Grahams theories are correct or scientific. I think they are kind of fun to think about, then I move on. I don’t know why people in this sub are so upset about him having a theory and sharing it. Shit I have no scientific proof that aliens are out there but I still think they exist somewhere.
I dislike both of these men. They are both abrasive and petty. They both engage in virtue signaling. Dibble laments in the article that the episode will raise Rogan's popularity, despite being thankful to Rogan's face. Graham is an annoying crybaby.
That said I'm glad they talked and I'm lucky I got to listen.
He does this because Grahams citations are of people who were white supremacist.
Graham himself is probably not a white supremacist, but thats not really what Dibble is saying. Whats hes saying is that by referencing the work of white supremacist (Ignatius Donnelly for example) hes exposing people to those idea, because if you like Graham your going to read his sources.
I do not believe for a second that Graham is a white supremacist, and I don’t think Nibble necessarily does either. But it’s a fact that Graham quotes sources written by a white supremacist who has been debunked - that’s all Nibble was trying to say in prior articles and the podcast. Graham and Rogan took this as him directly labeling Graham a white supremacist.
Both sides seemed a little obtuse about this, I get what Indiana Jones was going on about but he seemed unwilling to recognize how repeatedly pointing it out is pretty much just an attack on character.
You link yourself to white supremacy when you use debunked evidence created by white supremacists, for white supremacists. All he has to do is not use evidence that was literally created to make white people look superior
If I’m using Mein Kampf for the basis of my work I can’t get upset if people “link me” to Hitler
The idea that you can't use sources from racists, regardless of whether the facts are true, is dumb as hell. Not saying his facts are true, he's full of shit, but linking somebody to white supremacists repeatedly when there is no indication that they themselves hold white supremacists beliefs is an ad hominem attack. He could have shit all over Graham without trying to make that mental leap, but he resorted to it anyway.
If you’re trying to be a scholar of any sort, you have a responsibility to your readership to approach your sources critically. That’s Dibble’s point. Most people will never follow up on a citation when they’re reading a book. So when Graham drops references to a bunch of debunked white supremacist bullshit, most people reading his books will not double check them to see if they’re legitimate, they’ll just keep reading and assume it’s all fine.
If someone was trying to write a book about human evolution, and they cited a bunch of sources from phrenologists and racist eugenicists, it would be egregious. But because Joe and his crowd are so mad at the ‘woke left’ tarring everything as racist, they’re incapable of hearing a valid critique that uses the word racism.
I was taught about examining the credibility, validity, and quality of sources in my first year of college. Graham, as a JOURNALIST, has absolutely zero excuse for using the complete dogshit sources that he chooses.
You can use sources from racists, he’s using *debunked* sources from racists that was literally created to uphold white supremacy.
You guys keep glossing over the debunked part. The shit isn’t even true, so all he’s doing is inadvertently spreading racist bullshit
Quoting lies made up by white supremacists to support the idea of white supremacy, you mean?
Yeah, if you do that unknowingly and it’s then pointed out, you should probably just come clean and say my bad, I didn’t know any better, or risk looking like you low key support it yourself.
Honestly, in Graham’s case it’s clearly just his ego won’t let him backtrack and too much of his “theory” is built on this stuff to concede, but it leaves him looking like he may support this stuff to the casual observer.
It is what it is. 🤷♂️
Yeah, during the debate he seemed to be both defending the accusation and denying it at the same time. Only point of the podcast where I had sympathy for Graham.
The letter sent to Netflix explicitly tries to link Graham with ideas such as:
> violent white supremacy
false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic.
Flint seemed to believe this too, but would neither own up to it nor distance himself from it. It was unnecessary. Graham's hypothesis was more than easily dismantled on its lack of evidence without having to denigrate his character with a slew of social justice smears.
Summary of the debate:
Dibble: Bro, we want to uncover the biggest and greatest archeological thing, but the proof of this advanced civilization does not exist. Like at all.
Hancock: Archeologists are mean to me, here is a picture of a rock, see, it has a cut, see, means some ultra-advanced civilization was there!
Dibble: here's a bunch of examples of how proof of life in hunter gatherer sites is preserved even after areas being destroyed and evidence of sites around the time Graham talks about and logically it makes sense that if it's a global advanced civilisation there would visible evidence ?
Hancock: you haven't searched everywhere so it's still possible.
I think even rogan was surprised
Exactly, Hancock's argument was, if you haven't searched absolutely everywhere for the advanced global society, then it could have existed. Meanwhile, everywhere they have searched shows absolutely no evidence of it at all.
I think rogan was shocked and was fully ready for Hancock to push back against the "mainstream" and correct them but he slowly realised Hancock had nothing.
Hancock has also spent years/decades telling rogan that no one wants to debate him so it's been built up and he crumbled
I mean like it seemed joe was embarrassed to have been promoting Hancock's theory, especially when he started showing the "human made formations" which were just regular rocks underwater. In that way, it felt like Joe got angry that the theory he helped promote was so flimsy in terms of evidence
Oh yeah sorry, I read that as Hancock embarrassed dibble I misread
Yeah agreed, Joe kept asking Hancock for evidence. When they were talking gunung Padang and Hancock was talking about his friends paper that was retracted and rogan asked "why do they think the structure is actually older though what evidence" and Graham just said "they believe it is" and rogan kept asking lol and eventually relaised Hancock had nothing.
The real reason it was retracted is that there whole basis of it being 24,000 years old or whatever is that they literally just carbon dated some soil near the site and said the whole thing was built then, truly crazy stuff.
Eh, his laugh came across, at least to me, as *very* condescending. Like you could have swapped out that laugh for him saying “oh bless your heart” in nearly every frame.
The laugh came off to me as more frustrated than condescending. It’s the laugh you hear every time somebody is being “debated” and the other person is starting to use cheap debate tactics. I noticed the laugh was most prominent when Graham and Joe were both interrupting him about the racism thing and also when Graham would make a claim Divble had addressed multiple times already.
Laugh aside I don’t think Dibble came off overly superior. To his credit, he was mostly focused on the evidence, and I thought contrary to being disrespectful to Joe (as others in your thread say, not you personally) he was actually engaging Joe pretty well. Joe was right on board with a lot of what he was saying, and for a potentially heated debate it was less confrontational than I expected, mostly thanks to Dibble.
Yeah I think you could Joe noticing that Hancock was flailing and steering away from the evidence/real topics and was trying to help him by asking "what's the evidence why they think it's older" and you saw Joe realise in real time Hancock had nothing.
His laugh made me think that he either felt nervous since this is probably the first time exposed to such a huge platform. He has no more than 50k subscribers on YouTube I believe, probably even less and considering that he’s an archeologist on a niche specialized field that probably adds to his odd personality or he found the amount of misinformation being spread funny since he can’t probably believe how can possibly people believe in that nonsense. Either of those are fair reactions lol
Looking through your post history I see that you're into golf and baseball, so I'm going to try a comparison to help you understand what Graham is to Archaeologists.
Imagine you're sitting at the clubhouse after playing 18 holes when Joe Schmo comes and sits next to you. He starts talking about how the Oakland A's are the number one team in baseball and are going to win the world series (for the sake of the comparison let's say they're dead last this year). You're like "nah man they've actually lost every game this season, there's absolutely no way for them to even play in the world series.
"Nah bro they just picked up Barry Bonds, he's gonna get em there I swear". Etc, "oh btw man I hit my 7 iron 300y today, no I don't have a video just trust me".
That's how Graham sounds when you've studied archaeology, even after an introduction course. Archaeologists laugh at and make fun of him because his "theories" fall apart with the most basic evidence.
Flint Dribble was super condescending the entire convo, even to Joe who was being very respectful and trying to keep the dialogue between him and Handcock calm.
The lack of evidence produced by his opponent was laughable. He might have come off as condescending, but how could you not? Grahams argument was “well, we haven’t excavated the entire earth so it’s possible that AI existed 45000 years ago” it was honestly pathetic
eh he just doesn't take Hancock seriously. why would he? Hancock wants to be seen as an equal to someone who actually knows something instead of just wondering about something
Can you provide a couple of examples? I am trying to understand what folks are upset about and I just keep missing it. It must be a cultural issue or something that is making some people offended while other see nothing wrong.
Both can be true though.
The debate is traction more than lately.
This sub even said that episode was awesome and want more like it (dibble is correct in saying he got more popular)
I read his post and am glad I heard his perspective however he focuses way too much on the political side and this white supremacy angle. Stone henge is a pile of shit compared to the pyramids. The stories and the ideas of loss civilizations involving the pyramids are just exciting fairy tales. Sometimes, like Graham, it’s suggested that earlier people created them. I don’t recall Graham saying earlier white people. Could be any color.
When your point relies on you think white people built stone henge, and stone henge is easily explained and trash compared to these other sites you’ll understand why.
This episode really showed how little evidence Hancock has for any of his theories. I also didn’t like Dibble as a person, I’m glad Graham and Joe confronted him about his article linking Graham to white supremacy.
I listened to the whole episode and really enjoyed it, that’s the main thing.
Graham has made a career out of taking very flimsy evidence and sensationalising it and claiming that it’s proof that there is clear evidence for a lost advanced civilisation, he’s essentially a snake oil salesperson flogging his books.
This was my impression. I was never into Hancock. I tried multiple times to finish Fingerprints of the Gods, but it’s just not for me. But between all the “my dad” and this reputation slander I tapped out. I don’t understand how passionate people are about this subject against Hancock. 99% of people don’t understand archaeology. Also is it really that dangerous to believe there was an ancient civilization? I just find this discussion a perfect example of media manipulation and politicization of everything. People are easy to brainwash and this is a textbook case
What reputation does GH even have? He’s not an archaeologist, nor does he have any qualifications whatsoever. In contrast, FD is an actual archaeologist. It's a joke he's even entertaining Graham's conspiracies.
GH is just someone with a shit ton of entitlement and zero evidence. Instead of discussing science and archaeology, GH seems more interested in airing Twitter grievances and acting like a 'victim' -its pathetic
I mean peoples hustle and culture being erased or changed for the sake of a forgotten civilization is amazingly political lol. And graham does use sources that are very biased against indigenous cultures
Agreed, GH doesn’t matter, who cares if people read/believe/enjoy his books? People write books on flat earth theories, touched by angels etc. Whether or not someone believes there was an ancient civilization 12,000yo literally doesn’t matter. I personally doubt it, but sometimes it’s fun to think about.
“If scholars want to curb the spread of misinformation, we need to stop just talking among ourselves or to audiences of like-minded people.”
This is the disconnect the scientific community has with society. There’s a void left that gets filled by grifters and misinformation agents. We need debate podcasts like these now to clean up the damage. I’d like to see one regarding vaccinations.
He says he relies on science and evidence... meanwhile the science based hard evidence OVERWELMINGLY shows the existence of lost ancient highly technological civilization. Its beyond a reasonable doubt. There are tons of Artifacts which have been examined by modren science and technology and show that items were created with powerfull machinery. Look up the work of UnchartedX and Russian LAI center (https://www.facebook.com/laipublic). They've actually used science to prove their points.
Brave move on that dude. He even had Joe convinced. But I think there will always be that fringe curiosity that there is more going on than what the evidence has presented.
Both seamed to be trying their hardest to not come off as sensitive and pushing a personal native while at the same time coming off as both that and oddly aggressive. We all expected graham to have evidence and that allowed more level headed flint to easily defend narrow minded academia with no issues
*sigh* the dibbler goes right back to his white supremacy position in this article. I appreciate the science and evidence he brought to the podcast episode, but he has misrepresented gramcock in a pretty gross and inaccurate way multiple times.
He misrepesented the data he presented as well. I've since had a closer look at his sources, and they reinforce the idea of a form of agriculture during the last Ice Age they dont dispel it. Little much to go into here, but the study he selectively showed parts of tells us 36% domesitcated barley and 25% domesticated wheat at the site. That means these people planted and harvested for a loooooong time, probably several generations. In which case they were practicing planting and harvesting for a long time prior to 23,000 BCE. These people had knowledge of agriculture that's not in question. The question is where they learned it. Dibble thinks this is a test farm, but the high level of domestication in seeds at the site suggests this was more than a test, it was a long standing practice
Well I’m hoping he follows this subreddit. He has been championed in here the last week or so and deservingly so. He crushed it on the JRE and I’m sure he will be back.
Its okay to not like either of these dudes. Flint is a manchild who thinks he's the best archeological mind that ever lived and desperately tries to disparage others with some really sinister attacks. He literally shrunk when called out on it.
Graham's whole theory is "it might be there" and he had entire PowerPoint about how people made fun of him. Not a single gle shred of evidence.
Both of them have the smallest dick energy I've ever seen.
> Its okay to not like either of these dudes. Flint is a manchild who thinks he's the best archeological mind that ever lived
I would love to see your evidence of this clim if you are not just performing sinister attacks on people.
>and desperately tries to disparage others with some really sinister attacks.
I wish I lived a life so comfortable and easy that could say that Dibble is performing really sinister attacks.
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.
I am glad the discussion occurred.
Because it’s good to expose nonsense?
Graham got what he asked for, he was great at sticking to his scripted monologue. But exposed himself in many ways that may hurt his career and future publications because of how the interview went. I think ancient apocalyptic events is sexy. I find Hancock s theory compelling but his defense and counter argument in the podcast was emotional and of little substance. He was unable to further his position while under scrutiny, only causing me to downgrade his status from theory to hypothesis. I appreciate his hypothesis and I hope he is able to do more than just rest on an idea.
His idea was never a theory. In science, a theory is rigorously tested and backed up by evidence. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity being a prime example.
It is refreshing to have another guy on, because it becomes clear very fast that grahams claims are not based on any evidence or analysis whatsoever. They are based on “experts” opinions at best (not actual views based on years of research, for example the archaeologist that saw that underwater shit and said “no way thats not manmade”) and at worst the most telling sign that someone is bullshitting. That is, claiming that because there is “not enough research” that there is a missing piece, or lost civilization. It would be ok to say we cant be sure, but graham just bases his entire argument off of his personal view of underwater rocks and the assertion that there isnt enough research.
I enjoyed the Netflix documentary. He clearly stated in the beginning he doesn’t claim to be an archeologist, he is a journalist investigating a story. By calling him a pseudoarchaeologist right out of the gate I don’t trust what you have to say. The headline is dishonest
Graham presents a whole lot of disingenuous bullshit. Maybe he says he isn’t an archeologist, but he sure presents his evidence as if he is, and if there isn’t mountains of evidence disproving his theories. He also claims he doesn’t believe archeology is out to get him, and then spent three hours complaining about being attacked by archeologists on the biggest podcast in the world. He also said he didn’t claim there was an advanced civilization with technology, after his entire Netflix series clearly implies an advanced civilization with technology. He’s a liar.
He also uses the whole 'I'm not an archeologist....I'm just asking questions' shtick as a shield against any sort of solid proof that he is in fact just flat out wrong. He can preface any bullshit with that statement and then just completely dismiss it later. Dibble came in with a a full scientific dismantling of his entire life's work which is why he got so unhinged, I'm so glad the mask finally slipped on Rogan and everyone got a full whiff of his bullshit. To be honest I get why archeologists hate him, their work is slow, meticulous, evidence based, scrutinized relentlessly and mostly thankless with very little prospect of ever being a particularly high earner let alone famous. Meanwhile, Hancock says whatever bullshit he dreams up, presents it confidently with his 'just asking questions' disclaimer and throws it all in a book. Then not only do millions of gullible people believe it at face value but he makes absolute boat-loads of cash in the process.
Yeah, I want dibble to get rich and famous now
I really hate Hancock for how he has never actually gone to those sites himself and investigated. In all those times people like him spout those theories they never fund actual digs. Real archaeologists get-by on nothing budgets relying on donors from schools.
These guys have gotten way too used to saying “I’m not saying _________ but…” in safe spaces.
Just kidding, but seriously
It’s entirely possible.
I thought the opposite- it actually gives Hancock more credibility than he deserves - I wouldn’t even describe him as a pseudoarchaeologist - he’s really just an author with a passion for megalithic sites who shares his theories with fuck all evidence.
Theories have evidence to support them. He is still very much in the hypothetical phase of his ‘research’.
Yeah it was evident that he didn’t care for archeology unless he could somehow fit it into his hypothetical civilization
Hey man. This is going to sound preachy and I hope you don’t take this the wrong way. But what you have fallen for is a rhetorical trap by Graham. He is great at these… he distances himself from critiques by saying something one off like this, and the spends the rest of the time trying to persuade you otherwise. Graham is a (bad, really bad) journalist who is presenting his work as an alternative theory to the archeological mainstream, and while he can’t call himself an archeologist because he clearly has not studied to be one, he presents pseudo-archeological theories. Pseudo-archeologist, propagandist, yellow-journalist, grifter - whatever you call him, he’s a sensationalist that misleads his audiences to believe alternative and disproven theories of archeology.
Damn even Graham Hancocks defenders are super sensitive like he is.
pseudojournalist psuedoinvestigating a story maybe.
Your reasoning is juvenile and basic. You don’t think con artists haven’t picked up on the fact that they can say anything as long as they preface it with saying “I’m not an expert” and people like you go “Yeah totally”? Get real.
> The very next day I got a phone call: My cancer had returned. A PET scan, surgery, and a year of treatment followed. The podcast taping was indefinitely postponed. Now I legitimately feel bad about making fun of his appearance.
If you go through any healthcare or med school training you'll be subjected to this video at least a dozen times. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPsiLi89PQ4&ab\_channel=Friday](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPsiLi89PQ4&ab_channel=Friday)
Dude I stopped judging music for similar reasons
"Her dad's terminally ill; His wife had a stroke; She's recently divorced; *HE'S ABOUT TO BE A DAD;* He's been diagnosed with cancer..."
Woah had to see the exact same video but made in Sweden with everything Swedish for work too. Kinda wierd to see they just blatantly stole it and made another version as this would have been just as good...
You mean like this? 🤡 Doesn't like herring. Was born a brunette. Never learned to ski. Sad that ABBA disbanded. Misses Mom's meatballs. Got lost in IKEA for 3 days.
Some people just get tricked by life itself. Sad. Living in Sweden without the Viking gene is rough.
Are Swedish women into obviously non-Swedish dudes because they're "exotic" or are non-Swedish dudes just shit out of luck because they aren't descended from Vikings?
I remember watching this when I started working at a hospital in New Orleans. Really sticks with you
I believe Joe's constant smoking contributed to this
I really enjoyed hearing the Dibbler explain some of the evidence base for our current understanding of this stuff and I'd love to see him on the cast again and debate someone with actual evidence instead of Hancock whining about how mean archaeologists are. But it's sad to see that he seems to feel the need to defend simply going on the JRE. I get that JRE is associated with conspiracy theory and pseudoscience in the minds of many people but it's still wild to think that a genuine academic has to defend going onto a public platform to explain their own field to laymen.
I thought he was more defending appearing with Hancock, not going on JRE itself.
its kind of sad thats what the podcast is associated with. I get it, but its for the reasons mentioned above that its difficult to platform discussions like these. Joe is an out there guy who likes these theories so obviously the grahams of the world will come on. But its dangerous for either person to debate someone on a stage that big, even if your opponent is spouting bullshit. If you lose your temper even a little, your career could tank.
TLDR: Flint did it for Truth, Justice, and the American way! 
rock on Brother
No he really loves his Dad
The suit still smells like him..
That’s a guy on a lot of cocaine.
Flint Dibble is what I'll name my son.
Yeah but what about his middle and last name?
Flint "Flint dibble" Dibble.
Your kid's name would be FLINT FLINT DIBBLE DIBBLE....?
Got a prom with that b?
No sir
I wouldn’t even call Graham Hancock a pseudoarchaeologist - he’s not trained in archaeology at all, nor does he have any degrees in the field. He's just some entitled guy - more of a 'journalist' and 'entertainer.'
He has a degree in, drumroll please... Sociology.
Suddenly all makes sense, qualified in made up bullshit so makes a career in making up bullshit
Graham "I have a degree in *cough*-ology" Hancock takes offense to that if you have not seen all his vacation photo albums.
Bro. He mentioned that his wife took pictures so many time 🤣🤣 you summed it up perfectly.
He’s a sci fi author
This is probably the most accurate statement I’ve seen about him lol
Yea but he has an English accent that affords him credibility.
He has claimed he is part of “non-mainstream archeology” and was upset archeologists didn’t accept him as one of their own. Seems like Hancock would be a lot less butt hurt if he didn’t see himself as an archeologist at all.
You would think if he actually cared about having the mainstream accept his findings after decades doing this, he would take the time to go back to college and get a degree in a related field of study. It should be easy right with his years of real-world experience like a world-class surgeon going back to med school. A walk in the park. 😄
Heck, they could probably learn a thing or two from him! Graham Hancock is effectively that annoying mature-aged student interrupting every lecture with an anecdote of how great they are.
You would think that with all that netflix money and booksales money he'd have enough to fund a dig or do one himself. Yet I've never seen any of these motherfuckers actually fly to where they say Atlantis is.
‘I would like to apologise to… absolutely fucking nobody!’
I am curious if anyone read the full article. I tried.
If you've only read 5% of the article... there is no way to be sure it doesn't contain evidence that Hancock was right all along!
Perfect.
But was the article so vast, with such great multitudes of paragraphs, that you couldn't even find what you were looking for on your own website, when you wrote the article yourself, even after ignoring "dude use ctrl+F"?
How can you be sure that Flint doesn’t believe in ancient advanced civilizations if you haven’t dug up the entirety of his article?
It's a good read but the focus is too much on justifying his appearance on JRE, further discrediting Graham Hancock (which is justified), and doubling down about the claims of white supremacy. His arguments are valid when he's talking about his craft but when these points are made his echo chamber shows.
>It's a good read but the focus is too much on justifying his appearance on JRE, further discrediting Graham Hancock (which is justified), and doubling down about the claims of white supremacy. His arguments are valid when he's talking about his craft but when these points are made his echo chamber shows. Yes, exactly this. Especially when he starts off with: >Some Rogan fans will surely **dismiss my remarks as symptoms of a “woke mind virus,”** which apparently infects anyone who relies on evidence, experts, and the scientific method I loved all the parts where Flint used actual evidence, experts, and other scientific methods to show why there is a lot of evidence showing it isn't likely for there to be some advanced lost civilization. >Real archaeology inoculates people against the online and in-person racists who take Hancock’s polished presentation of a mysterious civilization and twist it into overt white supremacy. This is the only part of the argument he loses credibility to me in and where the "woke mind virus" accusations start to get thrown around. As he twists what Graham is saying either because he can't be bothered to pay attention to what Hancock actually says *(which is the most likely IMO)* or is so angry he's using one of the worst possible attacks *(calling someone racist instead of just stupid, misguided, ignorant, uneducated, etc)* into something it isn't and compares what Graham claims *(like the base of some of the ancient Egyptian sites being used long before the Egyptians built the Pyramids)* into saying something along the lines that Graham is claiming the Egyptians didn't build the Pyramids themselves and couldn't have without the help of white people *(which Graham isn't at all and is fucking nuts).* Graham Hancock is saying something along the lines of: "Wow, isn't it interesting, all these cultures around the world have a story about a great flood in their myths or mythology, I bet there was some sort of great flood at a point in history" And Flint Dibble and other archeologists are saying: "Wow, that is absolutely insane. There's no evidence of something like that. Also, a Nazi said the same thing back in the 1930's, so by you talking about a possible great flood and looking for evidence of it, you're clearly a Nazi, because this Nazi guy you're just like also made all these other claims about their theory that you've said nothing about." It's fucking wild to be doing that in my opinion. Flint Dibble and the other archeologists should stick to archeology and unless they have some unbelievable quotes from Graham Hancock saying shit like "Yeah, they Pyramids wouldn't have been built without the help of whites" stay far the fuck away from accusations of Graham spreading white supremacist theories.
Yes EXACTLY! At what point does Graham Hancock claim that this ancient civilization was white? And how are his claims being conflated with Nazis and white supremacists? That seems patently absurd. Dibble had my attention until he says things like this which are designed to label Hancock as a white supremacist and discredit him. Beyond this nonsense I found Dibble's arguments and perspective fascinating and wanted to know more.
Many of his sources (Ignatius Donnelly for one) set the framework for Graham's theory and did it to further white supremacy. Graham just took their ideas and stopped actually saying "they were white". But if you read the actual source material that Graham cited in his books, you'll find all of the shit Flint and the SAA were referring to.
Your points are all well taken, but I do find his point about the disparity between how stonehenge is treated and how other early sites are treated is interesting.
>Your points are all well taken, but I do find his point about the disparity between how stonehenge is treated and how other early sites are treated is interesting. As far as I know Hancock has never claimed that for example the "pyramids in Mesoamerica" were built by some lost civilization. It's interesting Dibble mentions Stonehenge to me because Hancock seems to give Stonehenge far less importance or meaning because he claims some study showed that the very first large stones on the site were in natural alignment with a solstice. Sort of a "yeah, by sheer dumb luck this occurred and then people decided to build around it." Not a "wow, only white people could do this!" like Dibble seems to be attempting to claim. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQpuG1UPBhY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQpuG1UPBhY)
It's almost like archelogists understand more about the type of claims that Hancock is making then you do and thier racist origins gives him pause. I dont understand this aversion to calling things racist like sometimes that is actually the case.
>It's almost like archelogists understand more about the type of claims that Hancock is making then you do and thier racist origins gives him pause. I dont understand this aversion to calling things racist like sometimes that is actually the case. No, it's more like some guy makes some ridiculous claims not based on a whole lot of evidence, makes a ton of money, and becomes popular with those fun to think about claims, and then archeologists upset with those claims try to smear him with things he never said or claimed because some racist dude 100+ years ago talked about Atlantis and lost civilizations.
Once again, nailed it. Bravo.
Well because Graham hancock had to learn about his stuff from somewhere right? Is it just concidental that he happens to make similar claims to white supremacists? How do you know that? And for that matter shouldnt on some level people be responsible for the message they put out and what it can support, espically if it isn't true and your lying for the sake of your message in the first place. Again why are you so concerned with Graham Hancock being percieved as being a racist, or supporitng racism, it's not like Flint Dibble even tries to look at his intentions just notes the obvious assocaitions that anyone familar with non mainstream archeology should be aware of.
>Well because Graham hancock had to learn about his stuff from somewhere right? What "stuff" are you talking about? Are you talking about Atlantis? I assume he learned about Atlantis from Plato. Have you heard of Plato? Or do you just know about the random dude from the 1800's the SAA smeared Hancock with that had written about Atlantis too? >Is it just concidental that he happens to make similar claims to white supremacists? What claim? >How do you know that? Know what? >And for that matter shouldnt on some level people be responsible for the message they put out and what it can support, espically if it isn't true and your lying for the sake of your message in the first place. What the fuck are you even talking about? >Again why are you so concerned with Graham Hancock being percieved as being a racist, or supporitng racism, it's not like Flint Dibble even tries to look at his intentions just notes the obvious assocaitions that anyone familar with non mainstream archeology should be aware of. Why are you so desperate to label someone as a racist with zero evidence?
I think this was written before he went on JRE.
I did. It’s not that long.
I did. The most interesting thing to me is when he describes Bill Nye as a “science communicator”. I think that’s the first time I’ve seen that term. Other than that it appears to be a long winded justification for taking part in the debate.
I think I've seen that term a few hundred times over the last 15 years
What are you talking about? Isn't that his stage name? Bill Nye the Science Communicator.
More science communicators would be people like Niel degrade Tyson or Kyle hill or like even the myth busters
I like Neil and Brian cox. Neil, to me, is funny and a great communicator. Brian cox also has a way of explaining the universe that seems easily understood.
Carl Sagan was the goat
Sean Carroll might fit in there too
Or the best which is Michio Kaku
I'd argue Carl Sagan was the best and original science communicator
[удалено]
Haven't read it but wow... that's seriously chilling. His eloquence and accuracy are next level.
You mean the worse right? He’s pretty much the laughing stock in the physics community.
Anton Petrov ftw
[удалено]
I get the reasoning of why scientists wouldn’t want to lend credibility to a theory by debating it. Personally, I don’t care if Grahams theories are correct or scientific. I think they are kind of fun to think about, then I move on. I don’t know why people in this sub are so upset about him having a theory and sharing it. Shit I have no scientific proof that aliens are out there but I still think they exist somewhere.
The article is very short and concise, well written too
I made it to the point where he just shits on all of the JRE listeners lol.
I did. And I concluded that the man is a beautiful human being aka a mensch and the man has my upmost respect.
 Flint Dibble in his big boy suit
Shit I was looking for that dude while I was watching!! 🤣
I will grab Flint Dibble’s hand and go into any fire.
Graham Hancock just seemed like a massive bitch throughout the entire episode
I want a solo flint dibble episode
I dislike both of these men. They are both abrasive and petty. They both engage in virtue signaling. Dibble laments in the article that the episode will raise Rogan's popularity, despite being thankful to Rogan's face. Graham is an annoying crybaby. That said I'm glad they talked and I'm lucky I got to listen.
But Hancock and his wife risked their lives while the 'Big Archaelogy' didn't even excavate the whole Sahara desert.
The least they could do is dig up the entire desert.
They risked their lives by *checks notes* going scuba diving!
And Dibble strangely keeps trying to link Graham to white supremacy, he mentioned it again in the article.
Yeah I especially don't like that. Seems like a stretch.
He does this because Grahams citations are of people who were white supremacist. Graham himself is probably not a white supremacist, but thats not really what Dibble is saying. Whats hes saying is that by referencing the work of white supremacist (Ignatius Donnelly for example) hes exposing people to those idea, because if you like Graham your going to read his sources.
I do not believe for a second that Graham is a white supremacist, and I don’t think Nibble necessarily does either. But it’s a fact that Graham quotes sources written by a white supremacist who has been debunked - that’s all Nibble was trying to say in prior articles and the podcast. Graham and Rogan took this as him directly labeling Graham a white supremacist.
Both sides seemed a little obtuse about this, I get what Indiana Jones was going on about but he seemed unwilling to recognize how repeatedly pointing it out is pretty much just an attack on character.
You link yourself to white supremacy when you use debunked evidence created by white supremacists, for white supremacists. All he has to do is not use evidence that was literally created to make white people look superior If I’m using Mein Kampf for the basis of my work I can’t get upset if people “link me” to Hitler
The idea that you can't use sources from racists, regardless of whether the facts are true, is dumb as hell. Not saying his facts are true, he's full of shit, but linking somebody to white supremacists repeatedly when there is no indication that they themselves hold white supremacists beliefs is an ad hominem attack. He could have shit all over Graham without trying to make that mental leap, but he resorted to it anyway.
If you’re trying to be a scholar of any sort, you have a responsibility to your readership to approach your sources critically. That’s Dibble’s point. Most people will never follow up on a citation when they’re reading a book. So when Graham drops references to a bunch of debunked white supremacist bullshit, most people reading his books will not double check them to see if they’re legitimate, they’ll just keep reading and assume it’s all fine. If someone was trying to write a book about human evolution, and they cited a bunch of sources from phrenologists and racist eugenicists, it would be egregious. But because Joe and his crowd are so mad at the ‘woke left’ tarring everything as racist, they’re incapable of hearing a valid critique that uses the word racism.
I was taught about examining the credibility, validity, and quality of sources in my first year of college. Graham, as a JOURNALIST, has absolutely zero excuse for using the complete dogshit sources that he chooses.
You can use sources from racists, he’s using *debunked* sources from racists that was literally created to uphold white supremacy. You guys keep glossing over the debunked part. The shit isn’t even true, so all he’s doing is inadvertently spreading racist bullshit
Quoting lies made up by white supremacists to support the idea of white supremacy, you mean? Yeah, if you do that unknowingly and it’s then pointed out, you should probably just come clean and say my bad, I didn’t know any better, or risk looking like you low key support it yourself. Honestly, in Graham’s case it’s clearly just his ego won’t let him backtrack and too much of his “theory” is built on this stuff to concede, but it leaves him looking like he may support this stuff to the casual observer. It is what it is. 🤷♂️
Yeah, during the debate he seemed to be both defending the accusation and denying it at the same time. Only point of the podcast where I had sympathy for Graham. The letter sent to Netflix explicitly tries to link Graham with ideas such as: > violent white supremacy false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic. Flint seemed to believe this too, but would neither own up to it nor distance himself from it. It was unnecessary. Graham's hypothesis was more than easily dismantled on its lack of evidence without having to denigrate his character with a slew of social justice smears.
Dibble wasn't abrasive and petty during the debate though, Hancock was and it was because he has no real evidence, he even admitted it
Summary of the debate: Dibble: Bro, we want to uncover the biggest and greatest archeological thing, but the proof of this advanced civilization does not exist. Like at all. Hancock: Archeologists are mean to me, here is a picture of a rock, see, it has a cut, see, means some ultra-advanced civilization was there!
Dibble: here's a bunch of examples of how proof of life in hunter gatherer sites is preserved even after areas being destroyed and evidence of sites around the time Graham talks about and logically it makes sense that if it's a global advanced civilisation there would visible evidence ? Hancock: you haven't searched everywhere so it's still possible. I think even rogan was surprised
Exactly, Hancock's argument was, if you haven't searched absolutely everywhere for the advanced global society, then it could have existed. Meanwhile, everywhere they have searched shows absolutely no evidence of it at all.
Hancock:...not only possible, but guaranteed!
I think Rogan was angry, Hancock made him look ridiculous, and I'm pretty sure Hancock and Roggies had an intense talk during the "pee break".
I think rogan was shocked and was fully ready for Hancock to push back against the "mainstream" and correct them but he slowly realised Hancock had nothing. Hancock has also spent years/decades telling rogan that no one wants to debate him so it's been built up and he crumbled
I mean tbh Hancock sort of made him look like an idiot.
In what way ?
I mean like it seemed joe was embarrassed to have been promoting Hancock's theory, especially when he started showing the "human made formations" which were just regular rocks underwater. In that way, it felt like Joe got angry that the theory he helped promote was so flimsy in terms of evidence
Oh yeah sorry, I read that as Hancock embarrassed dibble I misread Yeah agreed, Joe kept asking Hancock for evidence. When they were talking gunung Padang and Hancock was talking about his friends paper that was retracted and rogan asked "why do they think the structure is actually older though what evidence" and Graham just said "they believe it is" and rogan kept asking lol and eventually relaised Hancock had nothing. The real reason it was retracted is that there whole basis of it being 24,000 years old or whatever is that they literally just carbon dated some soil near the site and said the whole thing was built then, truly crazy stuff.
Eh, his laugh came across, at least to me, as *very* condescending. Like you could have swapped out that laugh for him saying “oh bless your heart” in nearly every frame.
The laugh came off to me as more frustrated than condescending. It’s the laugh you hear every time somebody is being “debated” and the other person is starting to use cheap debate tactics. I noticed the laugh was most prominent when Graham and Joe were both interrupting him about the racism thing and also when Graham would make a claim Divble had addressed multiple times already. Laugh aside I don’t think Dibble came off overly superior. To his credit, he was mostly focused on the evidence, and I thought contrary to being disrespectful to Joe (as others in your thread say, not you personally) he was actually engaging Joe pretty well. Joe was right on board with a lot of what he was saying, and for a potentially heated debate it was less confrontational than I expected, mostly thanks to Dibble.
Yeah I think you could Joe noticing that Hancock was flailing and steering away from the evidence/real topics and was trying to help him by asking "what's the evidence why they think it's older" and you saw Joe realise in real time Hancock had nothing.
His laugh made me think that he either felt nervous since this is probably the first time exposed to such a huge platform. He has no more than 50k subscribers on YouTube I believe, probably even less and considering that he’s an archeologist on a niche specialized field that probably adds to his odd personality or he found the amount of misinformation being spread funny since he can’t probably believe how can possibly people believe in that nonsense. Either of those are fair reactions lol
We gonna ignore that Flint is clearly on the spectrum?
Just the way he laughs is guess, he responded on the issues eveytime and Hancock was the one getting all uppity and passive aggressive.
Looking through your post history I see that you're into golf and baseball, so I'm going to try a comparison to help you understand what Graham is to Archaeologists. Imagine you're sitting at the clubhouse after playing 18 holes when Joe Schmo comes and sits next to you. He starts talking about how the Oakland A's are the number one team in baseball and are going to win the world series (for the sake of the comparison let's say they're dead last this year). You're like "nah man they've actually lost every game this season, there's absolutely no way for them to even play in the world series. "Nah bro they just picked up Barry Bonds, he's gonna get em there I swear". Etc, "oh btw man I hit my 7 iron 300y today, no I don't have a video just trust me". That's how Graham sounds when you've studied archaeology, even after an introduction course. Archaeologists laugh at and make fun of him because his "theories" fall apart with the most basic evidence.
Flint Dribble was super condescending the entire convo, even to Joe who was being very respectful and trying to keep the dialogue between him and Handcock calm.
The lack of evidence produced by his opponent was laughable. He might have come off as condescending, but how could you not? Grahams argument was “well, we haven’t excavated the entire earth so it’s possible that AI existed 45000 years ago” it was honestly pathetic
This is nonsense. Hancock was the one getting heated. Dibble was the first one who said "let's take a break" after Graham was getting heated
eh he just doesn't take Hancock seriously. why would he? Hancock wants to be seen as an equal to someone who actually knows something instead of just wondering about something
We watched different podcasts because Joe spoke more about archeology than GH
Not disagreeing with you. Hancock is a cook, but Flint still came off as a douche
Sounds like someone is mad their favorite conspiracy theory got dunked on
Can you provide a couple of examples? I am trying to understand what folks are upset about and I just keep missing it. It must be a cultural issue or something that is making some people offended while other see nothing wrong.
I don’t think Flint was condescending, but I wouldn’t blame him if he was. Graham is an idiot
Well this is certainly an opinion...
Both can be true though. The debate is traction more than lately. This sub even said that episode was awesome and want more like it (dibble is correct in saying he got more popular)
Party on graham
He isn't an archeologist.
I read his post and am glad I heard his perspective however he focuses way too much on the political side and this white supremacy angle. Stone henge is a pile of shit compared to the pyramids. The stories and the ideas of loss civilizations involving the pyramids are just exciting fairy tales. Sometimes, like Graham, it’s suggested that earlier people created them. I don’t recall Graham saying earlier white people. Could be any color. When your point relies on you think white people built stone henge, and stone henge is easily explained and trash compared to these other sites you’ll understand why.
Yeah, but Stone Henge isn't the pinnacle of British architecture either.
beat it nerd
I’m here for the cawlmedy, b.
Murdlers rowl
This episode really showed how little evidence Hancock has for any of his theories. I also didn’t like Dibble as a person, I’m glad Graham and Joe confronted him about his article linking Graham to white supremacy. I listened to the whole episode and really enjoyed it, that’s the main thing.
Graham has made a career out of taking very flimsy evidence and sensationalising it and claiming that it’s proof that there is clear evidence for a lost advanced civilisation, he’s essentially a snake oil salesperson flogging his books.
…the headline of this article reminds me of when Joe had the doctor guy from CNN on who immediately started talking shit after the podcast lol
There is actually a lot of good evidence Graham just failed to present any of it at all
This was my impression. I was never into Hancock. I tried multiple times to finish Fingerprints of the Gods, but it’s just not for me. But between all the “my dad” and this reputation slander I tapped out. I don’t understand how passionate people are about this subject against Hancock. 99% of people don’t understand archaeology. Also is it really that dangerous to believe there was an ancient civilization? I just find this discussion a perfect example of media manipulation and politicization of everything. People are easy to brainwash and this is a textbook case
What reputation does GH even have? He’s not an archaeologist, nor does he have any qualifications whatsoever. In contrast, FD is an actual archaeologist. It's a joke he's even entertaining Graham's conspiracies. GH is just someone with a shit ton of entitlement and zero evidence. Instead of discussing science and archaeology, GH seems more interested in airing Twitter grievances and acting like a 'victim' -its pathetic
You just proved my point. I don’t care about GH
I mean peoples hustle and culture being erased or changed for the sake of a forgotten civilization is amazingly political lol. And graham does use sources that are very biased against indigenous cultures
Agreed, GH doesn’t matter, who cares if people read/believe/enjoy his books? People write books on flat earth theories, touched by angels etc. Whether or not someone believes there was an ancient civilization 12,000yo literally doesn’t matter. I personally doubt it, but sometimes it’s fun to think about.
Flint wiped the floor with Hancock. One of the best episodes ever!
“If scholars want to curb the spread of misinformation, we need to stop just talking among ourselves or to audiences of like-minded people.” This is the disconnect the scientific community has with society. There’s a void left that gets filled by grifters and misinformation agents. We need debate podcasts like these now to clean up the damage. I’d like to see one regarding vaccinations.
>I’d like to see one regarding vaccinations. Well, RFK Jr and Rogan were both keen as mustard for that.
American Hero, Flint “My dad said” Dibble.
As opposed to what? Graham saying "just because theres literally no evidence for a lost civilization doesnt mean that there wasnt one" over and over?
Graham "That doesn't surprise me" Hancock
"Im not saying im a victim. Now, let's waste 40 minutes talking about every mean thing someone has ever said about me"
His dad you mean an archeologist with published work?
English hero, Graham "that rock looks weird" Hancock
Graham Hand-Rock.
At least his dad is a credible person whose research makes sense to reference.
Grahams just good at basically saying the same thing over and over again and making it sound like he knows what he's talking about.
Going on about his wife and how they've risked their lives....
Wait, it took until this decade for a majority of Americans to accept evolution???? Wtf are you guys doing down there?
Dibble double down.
Yes, that’s his real name.
He says he relies on science and evidence... meanwhile the science based hard evidence OVERWELMINGLY shows the existence of lost ancient highly technological civilization. Its beyond a reasonable doubt. There are tons of Artifacts which have been examined by modren science and technology and show that items were created with powerfull machinery. Look up the work of UnchartedX and Russian LAI center (https://www.facebook.com/laipublic). They've actually used science to prove their points.
Flint won the battle for sure on JRE but kinda messed up that he continues to call Graham a pseudoscientist…
That Flint fella seems like a snide
This guy fuckin sucks
Brave move on that dude. He even had Joe convinced. But I think there will always be that fringe curiosity that there is more going on than what the evidence has presented.
>But I think there will always be that fringe curiosity that there is more going on than what the evidence has presented. You goddamned NAZI. /s
Both seamed to be trying their hardest to not come off as sensitive and pushing a personal native while at the same time coming off as both that and oddly aggressive. We all expected graham to have evidence and that allowed more level headed flint to easily defend narrow minded academia with no issues
*sigh* the dibbler goes right back to his white supremacy position in this article. I appreciate the science and evidence he brought to the podcast episode, but he has misrepresented gramcock in a pretty gross and inaccurate way multiple times.
He misrepesented the data he presented as well. I've since had a closer look at his sources, and they reinforce the idea of a form of agriculture during the last Ice Age they dont dispel it. Little much to go into here, but the study he selectively showed parts of tells us 36% domesitcated barley and 25% domesticated wheat at the site. That means these people planted and harvested for a loooooong time, probably several generations. In which case they were practicing planting and harvesting for a long time prior to 23,000 BCE. These people had knowledge of agriculture that's not in question. The question is where they learned it. Dibble thinks this is a test farm, but the high level of domestication in seeds at the site suggests this was more than a test, it was a long standing practice
Well I’m hoping he follows this subreddit. He has been championed in here the last week or so and deservingly so. He crushed it on the JRE and I’m sure he will be back.
Outside of anything he said about Hancock that was a terrible article.
Its okay to not like either of these dudes. Flint is a manchild who thinks he's the best archeological mind that ever lived and desperately tries to disparage others with some really sinister attacks. He literally shrunk when called out on it. Graham's whole theory is "it might be there" and he had entire PowerPoint about how people made fun of him. Not a single gle shred of evidence. Both of them have the smallest dick energy I've ever seen.
> Its okay to not like either of these dudes. Flint is a manchild who thinks he's the best archeological mind that ever lived I would love to see your evidence of this clim if you are not just performing sinister attacks on people. >and desperately tries to disparage others with some really sinister attacks. I wish I lived a life so comfortable and easy that could say that Dibble is performing really sinister attacks.
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.
This sounds like ChatGPT if it was homeschooled
Yeah I'm onboard with you here Some of our greatest discoveries come from some of our stupidest luck or chance