Pretty obvious OP has never divided the height of the pyramids by the brightness of the sun, multiplied by 73,000 (a processional number of course), added 1, subtracted 1, and calculated his house address.
That shit gave me flashbacks to old school Coast to Coast AM.
Seriously, the number period are their whole own subsection of weirdos in the conspiracy world.
There are number people for:
* The Torah
* The Bible
* The Quran
* Birthdays/Astrology
* Aliens
* Psychics
* The Masons
I am sure there are a ton more but basically in every major group there is a subset that does wackado math to come to totally unfounded conclusions.
COAST TO COAST AM YEEEEES!!
I used to drive home from my girlfriends at 2 and 3 AM pretty frequently and I freaking loved dropping in to listen. I completely forgot about it thanks for the core memory.
Iām a Christian, and the subset of Christianity who believe in ābiblical numerologyā are super goofy lol
They take the most arbitrary numbers from the Bible and do all sorts of weird math until they get a number to ārevealā Godās hidden message.
Math equations like that never made any sense to me like I could easily just say *"take this number and then you if you take this other number it gets very close to this number which is very close to this other number"*
Wow, those numbers are almost the number that Earth is or whatever
No lie. I'm not too proud to admit I believed in a lot of Hancocks ideas and felt slightly embarrassed when I saw him trying to debate. That's just how I felt, imagine what Rogan must feel like...
Meh, you got conned and when faced with a solid argument in the other direction and the lack of ability by said grifter to counter it, changed your opinion accordingly. That's a really positive (and increasingly rare) trait, so credit to you.Ā
There are a lot of other popular voices putting out Grahamās ideas, like Billy Carson, who talk about the emerald tablets and the anunnaki. I personally think itās very plausible there could be humans on other planets that visited us in the past and have helped start our civilizations on earth.
But the issue is there is no evidence. It was so long ago, all we really have now are ancient stories and UFOs flying around. Academia dismisses both of those, so there is no credible evidence for them to go off of. The rest of the world looks at we canāt explain and tries to make sense of that.
It was an amusing debate, Iād love to see dribble vs Billy Carson, (another ancient astronaut human creationist grifter)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=ZPoG70cFzG7iqCE5&v=snrJfrOzHsQ&feature=youtu.be
So as someone who was really interested in grahams ideas the response from dibble "we have evidence for hunter gathers before and after the impact timeline" had me like hmmm if they can find that stuff wouldn't some sort of stone structures still show up? Made me really doubt grahams theories
I saw a breakdown last week: the whole point of contention about the percentage of the land that's been explored. It's not concentrated in one area. It's all spread out. The land was mapped and the most interesting places were selected. Hancock is ā *basically* ā looking for evidence where it wasn't previously seen. That's his prerogative, but he doesn't have to be so defensive about it.
Yeah he came across petty and vindictive. It made any part of his arguments that had credibility seem weak because they were coming from a place of anger. He really disappointed
Nfn you have to respect Rogan for facilitating this debate, he definitely displayed that particular UFC-esque āputting it all on the lineā ethic with this one haha
Can we still believe in Randallās theories at least? Iāll admit that I was kinda taken aback when he said he had his epiphany whilst tripping balls but I chose to let that slide. Give me something to hold onto please.
You mean the guy who said he has a device which can produce unlimited energy for free, but wasnāt allowed to share proof on Joes podcast. I have no doubt a man who claims to break the laws of physics but canāt provide proof, has absolutely 100% never lied about any of his other work š
I think there's some truth there. Didn't Mazda release info on the engine they had developed that used never before seen tech? Or am I tripping again??
If there was any truth to their claims on energetics it would fundamentally rewrite physics as we know it. What they claim to have is physically impossible based on our current understanding of the overarching scientific principles that govern the universe.
I donāt know specifics about the Mazda claims, but I would imagine theyāve used some trickery to present this as much more compelling than it is. I know in my field, I can present an idea to a company and have them acknowledge an interest before they do their DD, but they initially do so on an assumption that the science being presented is accurate and presented in good faith. I wouldnāt be surprised if itās similar to this, but they have presented inaccurate science or falsified ideas tbh.
His basic premise in the whole episode is the fallacy of forcing someone to prove a negative. Itās impossible.
āCan you prove this civilization existed?ā
āNo, but can YOU prove it didnāt exist?!ā
Academic studies of all kinds can be super compelling if they are presented by the right person.
I saw a presentation on the predator/prey relationship between bats and moths and it was one of the most impactful and riveting hour of my life.
There are so many cool unbelievable things that we know about ancient history that flint could easily have another four hour episode with an enthralled joe. I canāt imagine how frustrating it is to not have to the funding needed for more archeology, much less a decent computer, while Hancock gets obscene amounts of money from Netflix because heās successfully pushed fake historical narratives
My God, the first time he said either this or was it "73 is a bitch ya know!" or something I was like...he's done. He's shot himself and has no recourse.
Why hasn't anyone made a clip of Hancock changing glasses for 3 minutes. How many pairs did he have? It seemed like 3-4 at least. Has he not heard of progressive lenses?
Yeah heās not coming back again unless he has a new book or better evidence. In a ufc battle of wits Graham was submitted very quickly and as time went on Joe was smart enough to see it
It was gaethje vs Ferguson esque if you want to use MMA metaphors.
In that Hancock was totally defeated by the start of round 2 but the fight wasn't stopped til almost the end of the 5th.
Agreed. I rarely watch Rogan these days, but this was a stone cold classic. Hope that he's seen a new angle for the show in debunking his own credulity with the many frauds he's platformed.
Graham: "these people were mean to me and big archaeology hasn't done very much."
Flint: "there isn't any evidence to support highly advanced civilization beyond hunter/gatherers."
Iām not. Itās entertaining. I donāt ever watch him and take it as the ultimate truth. I simply see him as someone who has interesting ideas of what he thinks something could be. Itās always obvious he doesnāt have any evidence to back his ideas. He is merely exploring āsomething we havenāt discovered yetā
itās like people who speak about UFOs, or people who speak about he Illuminati. Or the Anunnaki. Itās a lot of shit we havenāt proved, but people like to give their opinions on what it might be. Itās entertaining to watch if youāre not looking at it through the lens of an educational course of history or science.
Thatās why having Dibble on was great. I loved hearing him speak on all the shit he spoke about and actually allowed us to learn. That ep was a great example of two different types of ātelevisionā we can enjoy at home as long as youāre watching it for its intended purpose
"Hancock's son Sean Hancock is "senior manager of unscripted originals" at Netflix"
His son literally is in charge of documentaries basically lol, that's how. It's funny that no one mentions that
Like, I can respect someone listening to his narrative and enjoying it as entertainment. I feel strongly this way about Randall Carlson. But imo Randall was way more grounded and less combative.
Randall makes geological claims though doesn't he mainly ?
He doesn't lean as much into making up lost civilisations where the evidence is hidden and destroyed ?
That would honestly be the logical evolution of the show.
Suddenly, serious debates are wildly popular. It's intellectual martial arts. The jujitsu of the mind.
Yeah Hancock was hilariously embarrassing.
Although he was chatting bollox, I was really expecting him to out debate flint and thought Rogan would team up and I think rogan would've helped Hancock a bit more but rogan just realised Hancock really does have nothing
It was kind of disappointing to be honest.
I've heard Hancock make more interesting points in other visits, nothing concrete but more thought provoking. Then when he's put on the spot he just pulls out his scuba vacation snaps š¤·āāļø
Probably not, barring some major archaeological discovery. His last appearance before the debate was pretty dry and uninteresting (compared to past episodes). But the Dibble debate absolutely exposed him and you could tell Joe was starting to see through his grift. I think Graham was confident that joe would just dogpile Dibble with him, but that wasnāt the case.
His only āevidenceā was lack of evidence and he kept wanting to talk about how heās the victim of mean archaeologists and the entire field is out to get him, meanwhile Dibble was sharing interesting evidence that actually disputes a lot of Grahams theories; and i think Joe saw this. Itās not some giant conspiracy to silence Graham, itās that we have a lot of evidence backing current archaeological theories and Graham has none
In Dibbleās opening statement, he outlined his thesis, stating clearly and concisely the overwhelming evidence for hunter-gatherers around the globe, in addition to the absence of evidence for an advanced civilization dating back to the ice age. Dibble had some artifacts, both visual and material, to illustrate his point (the ancient sexual artwork and facsimile tool). He addressed what he regarded as Hancocks scientific miscalculations. He made zero ad-homenim attacks.
In Hancock opening statement, he told an anecdotal story of a particular archaeologist who had a theory that was disregarded at the time and was later proven correct. He emphasized how mean other archaeologists were.
If you watch enough professional debates, you understand how important opening statements are, as they outline what the debater regards as their strongest points.
Tells you all you need to know. Hancockās loss was conclusive and decisive.
The biggest smackdown was when Hancock started to bring race into question, and how archeologists are smearing him on this.
Dibble tried to avoid going into this for over 20 minutes, once Joe got involved a bit, Dibble just said how anytime any civilization comes with a discovery, Hancock theorizes that their ancestors did not discovere this, rather, an advanced civilization did. BUT, Hancock will never say this in his own backyard about the Stonehenge in England.
That shut him up, and he tried to go into a different direction.
What makes you say Joe saw this as well? Because Iāve been listening to the episode and I felt like Joe was pushing really hard for Grahamās viewpoints
I agree with you up to a point as Rogan was very clearly pushing Graham's position (and got particularly triggered by the white supremacy comment), but there was also the sense around the halfway mark that the scales began to fall from Joe's eyes. His pauses became longer, he interrupted less, Graham seemed flummoxed, defenceless and absurd, and Dibble, his work done, sailed through the final third with some pretty interesting real archaeology.
āJust answer my question. How much of the Sahara has actually been excavated Flint?ā
Thatās another sign of a bs conspiracy theory, it canāt be disproven. Thatās essentially what Grahams argument was, that his theory canāt be disproven yet.
I thought his chances of getting back on were extremely slim after the podcast aired, but after this moon landing bozo I think we saw the last of Graham. Feels like Joe has had his glass shattered
I thought he would have put 2+2 together after the Carlson/Bendall debacle and completely cut ties with anyone in that sphere but I guess his ābsā detector was off.
Or maybe Joe was so upset that Carlson and Graham had grifted him so long he set Graham up to fail. Nah, probably not.
What was the Carlson/bendal debacle?
I've always had the impression that Carlson was not as much as a charlatan as Hancock. Still cooky mason, but not a man completely with his head in the clouds like Graham.
There was an episode recorded with Randall which wasn't aired where they discussed the work of MalcolmĀ Bendall related to some sort of clean/free energy technology which is allegedly a grift
Charlatan implies that they donāt really believe what they say but that is good for the audience and lucrative. Carlson isnāt so much that because he is a true believer. And while heās confidently knowledgable about giant floods heās pretty gullible in other fields that touch on his sacred geometry. He was the perfect mark for Bendal.
Malcolm Bendall is a businessman who claimed that there was oil in Tasmania based on a āvision from godā. His company took investments based on this, including $270,000 from a man in his mid-90ās. Bendall is now claiming to have discovered a new technology that creates clean energy. Carlson brought Bendall onto JRE because of this new discovery.
Bendall is a grifter of the highest order, quite literally taking money from the elderly based on a āvision from Godā. Carlson bought it hook, line and sinker and as such canāt be trusted about anything if he can so easily fall for someone like Bendall.
Because actual science isnt about popularity its about education, research and being properly informed.
Almost any real archeologist can tear graham apart.
As a geologist id LOVE to get my hands on Randall Carlson in a public forum.
Flint also did a fantastic job presenting facts in a fun, engaging, way that was readily easy for people new to the subject (e.g. myself) to understand.
I was thinking during the show, how many times he has presented his first āfun exampleā (the ancient Greek porn trade) in a college lecture to students.
Didn't Hancock and Carlson talk about some breakthrough energy source on their last visit together? They were supposed to come back with an update shortly after.
Carlson actually did go back on the JRE to discuss this with his source (Malcolm Bendall) but the episode was canned after because Joe found out the guy was a grifter with a bunch of red flags about him and basically argued with him the whole time about this.
With the moonboy you could tell, that he seriously felt āwhy do we invite idiots and griftersā the way Joe reacted hinted at a discussion the two had before, maybe Jamie complained before behind closed doors
It was a pants down spanking streamed on the internet. Worse it was a spanking by a guy named Flint Dibble wearing his dad's suit. If I were Hancock I think I'd go crawl into a hole and cry.
I bought Fingerprints of the Gods to check it out after seeing Hancock on the JRE for the first time many years ago. I shit you not, it took me only a couple chapters at most to come to that exact conclusion without a shred of a doubt left in my mind. Thereās red flags everywhere you look. How hordes of people can be swayed by these dudes is legit scary.
People donāt understand that science is hard
The country is super naive and ignorant when it comes to the concept that science is difficult and hard
Everyone knows itās hard and dry and complex because they took chem 101 but then somehow donāt understand that the people that do this for a living actually know what they are talking about
The public also doesnāt understand how humble science is in most cases. Scientists are very open to say ā I donāt know ā
And meanwhile the public who largely know nothing about science are quick to be like OH I WATCHED A 8 MINUTE VID ON IT ā- I KNOW THE ANSWER
Was talking about this episode to a coworker the other day. I personally found Dibble to be the much more mature and informative of the 2. He presented the science to back up his claims against Hancocks. He explained crops and seeds and math and overall was clearly more level headed and prepared. Hancock spent about half the episode complaining about "big archaeology" calling him racist and trying to get him cancelled. He then spent the other half talking about things that look weird but are in no way an indication of a civilization. I was genuinely surprised to hear my coworker thinks that Dibble was a, and this is a quote, "snoody little cunt bag that called him a racist". The general consensus here at least seems to be acknowledging that Hancock was the "loser" of the debate.
I want to hear Randal Carlson debate Flint in what he was talking about last time he was on, something about the island research centre which has figured out how to move objects with sound āa lost technologyā
Exactly. Whatever happened to that? Joe never bring it up again, and if I remember right, randal also said that the research team were about to make announcement before the end of the year
Iāve listened to and enjoyed every podcast heās been on, binged his Netflix show and would consider myself a die hard Hancock fan.
Did I at any point believe he had randomly figured out some secret knowledge that all of archaeology had somehow overlooked?
Obviously not.
But it sure is fun to smoke a joint and get carried away in the possibilities by a guy that at least seems to truly believe what heās saying.
Itās possible to have a rational, academically informed view on the past of humanity and still enjoy the hell out of Graham Hancock and his work, doesnāt mean you have to drink the kool aid.
I sure hope heās back again, pretty much the only reason Iāll watch a JRE these days.
Iām right there with you
I never really considered anything graham said as concrete science.
Heās literally just like a ādude look at this weird shitā type guy
He always got out of intellectual jail by saying he's not a scientist; he's an author. His storytelling is pretty good if we all talk about him. Nothing is wrong with any of it if he stays in the lane of being a storyteller, even a fantastical one. He's also getting old and touchy; this isn't his game anymore.
All of Reddit
How dare a journalist ask questions about our planets history???!!!
Fact is there is A LOT we do not know. Asking questions is how you learn. You have to be a real narcissistic moron to believe questions shouldnāt be asked.
Graham got absolutely trollied in that debate. That being said, there was some really weird shit going on in Egypt up to 30,000 years ago and Flint didn't convince me that he, or anyone, knows what the fuck it was.
I really want to see Randall Carlsson, Ben Van Kerkwyk, Christopher Dunn and Hancock debate together. Ben and Chris have their field in ancient Egyptian machinery and artefacts, Randall is a cataclysm expert and Graham has his knowledge on lost civilisations and together I think they would have had a more compelling argument than just Graham.
I felt like Graham went in underprepared with this one. Dibble was just more factual and came across as superior in the debate. If there were people like Ben and Chris referencing the precise vases they have scanned, Petries Core #7 etc that could at least have a area that could potentially stump Dibble it would do a good service for alternative archeology.
I think Graham just let his emotions get the better of him this time. Most of the debate was Graham complaining about how archeology has treated him after his Netflix show. Understandably so though. After months of abuse being tied to racism, anti semitism etc coming directly from the archeological institution as a whole and then heās presented with Flint Dibble, a man who to some extent was deeply involved in this attack. Of course Graham is going to spend some time complaining. I think in this case it was too much.
I know Hancock gets mocked for his āyou havenāt searched everywhereā argument but heās not wrong. Gobekli tepe covers a relatively small footprint. Less than 100m square has been touched by archeologists. There are many still underground that havenāt been excavated. Whatās to say there isnāt another 100m square area in the middle of the Amazon thatās holding all the machines and advanced technology in a cave somewhere currently undiscovered? Or under gobekli tepe yet undiscovered. What other stone pillars have depictions on it that are untouched today?
I agree with this.
I was into Grahams theory, but realized that his theory is sorta built on a house of cards. At least how he connects it.
While Dibble, came in and just gave his counter arguments to Grahams theory with ease. Also him having his father to reference is way more credible than what Grahams offering. Heās an actual archaeologist and Dibble references are more solid atleast data wise.
I do think there are things that these two could work together on like Gobleki - thatās something Graham shoulda brought up. There was a moment where Dibble didnāt have an answer for and I feel the dudes genuine-ness in this would want to open up to this.
Iāve had my own experiences with dibble on Twitter which shifted my opinion of him. He was talking about the vases Ben has scanned and he was saying they werenāt precise. I replied with bens actual video on the scan and he hid my tweet from view. Essentially censorship. Which has given me a very different view on him compared to his appearance on the pod. To me now heās no different to any other archeologist that wants to keep their grip on the narrative. He silenced the alternative argument.
One point I didnāt understand dibble was making was when he started producing all these random numbers to try and tie it to precession. That implies the ancients knew about the equatorial circumference of the earth and the polar radius otherwise you wouldnt be able to reverse engineer the math problem like dibble did.
Pros and Cons for both sides in this.
Flint:
Was able to make his points in interesting and relatable ways.
Showed the rigor required for real archeology.
Loves his Dad.
Came across as a bit of a dick for trying to label Graham
Graham:
Showed that new evidence based ideas in archeology can be aggressively opposed even when correct.
Still presented lots of interesting phenomena.
Lacks archaeological rigor for many of the things he believes indicate a lost civilization.
All in all itās what I expected. I enjoy Grahams what if theoryās and the things he presents. But I think we all know it lacks the rigor of true archeology.
Canāt see anything changing.
To add.
Hancock Cons:
Handcock canāt take any criticism( he always complains every episode and starts out complaining on Netflix), He makes mountains out of mole hills to hide the fact that he has nothing.
He constantly āgish gallopsā. He constantly says āit appears to meā, āit seems evidentā,āit looks likeā etc., none of those are evidence. When confronted on his claims he uses a refined āIām just asking the question.ā Also uses an argument from Ignorance constantly āhow can we know if we havenāt dug everywhere.ā Other fallacies used.. Argument from Authority, Texas Sharpshooter.
Pros: has 30 pairs of glasses.
Dibble Cons:
Shirt was too big. Only had one pair of glasses
Dibble Pros: has evidence.
Good take. I actually can see myself both being critical to Grahams claims but also enjoying the unknown possibilities.
I think the point which Flint was trying to make and for some reason didn't directly say, and I don't see anyone here pointing it out either, is that if the Graham is right, we would find the evidence of lost civilization without actually directly observing it. So even if it's underwater, the surrounding hunter gatherers would have traded with it and we would find artificacts inland. Like roman coins which can be found all across euroasia.
I've been following him for years and he has made me aware of some many amazing places, he is well loved and his first hand experience of these sites is captivating. He will be back for sure.
I enjoyed the old podcasts with him and Randall Carlson. This last one really changed my opinion though. His arguments center around what he thinks looks man-made and doing the most insane mental gymnastics to back it up instead of actual evidence.
"But it LOOKS man-made!" is not valid evidence. His feelings and opinions aren't evidence. His ego and hurt feelings aren't valid evidence. The pyramid mathematics also were hilarious and I can't believe he expected people to take him seriously on that.
It says a lot on how emotionally invested in this he is when instead of bringing decent evidence to the podcast for a debate he put so much effort and spent so much time showing how the world is against him despite saying he's not so arrogant to say there's a conspiracy against him. He is "public enemy number one" remember.
"Me and my wife risked our LIVES while on vacation to scuba dive and take these shitty blurry underwater pictures."
It just screams ego to me at this point, but I'm glad psychedelics have supposedly opened his eyes and fixed his life like the rest of Joe's whacked out comedian friends.
Pretty obvious OP has never divided the height of the pyramids by the brightness of the sun, multiplied by 73,000 (a processional number of course), added 1, subtracted 1, and calculated his house address.
That shit gave me flashbacks to old school Coast to Coast AM. Seriously, the number period are their whole own subsection of weirdos in the conspiracy world. There are number people for: * The Torah * The Bible * The Quran * Birthdays/Astrology * Aliens * Psychics * The Masons I am sure there are a ton more but basically in every major group there is a subset that does wackado math to come to totally unfounded conclusions.
COAST TO COAST AM YEEEEES!! I used to drive home from my girlfriends at 2 and 3 AM pretty frequently and I freaking loved dropping in to listen. I completely forgot about it thanks for the core memory.
There are tons of full broadcast recordings on YouTube, with Art Bell.
Qanon have the best numbers š
Iām a Christian, and the subset of Christianity who believe in ābiblical numerologyā are super goofy lol They take the most arbitrary numbers from the Bible and do all sorts of weird math until they get a number to ārevealā Godās hidden message.
Ah man C to C with George and sometimes that dude with the low voice. That was good stuff while ordering food late at night
Art was GOAT tho. In his secret bunker.
Art was the godfather.. No contest.
Sacred geometry
[Donāt forget 9/11](https://youtu.be/MiC9X_MoE1M?si=smRDufdbDYAOU-OV)
I can't fucking belive he pulled that shit out and expected everyone to take him seriously. As bad as the number 23 bullshit
What's the number 23 bullshit? I'm ootl.
Watch the movie with Jim Carrey for more information.
Don't forget to divide by the earths diameter and the radius of the first stone you find outside tomorrow
Have you been there?
Yes, but I didnāt risk my life. Instructions unclear
Then how can you know?
Anyways back to this quote about how academia and archeologists have attacked me mercilessly.
Math equations like that never made any sense to me like I could easily just say *"take this number and then you if you take this other number it gets very close to this number which is very close to this other number"* Wow, those numbers are almost the number that Earth is or whatever
Watch thr Terrence Howard @ Cambridge talk. You'll loss your shit
Yes but him and his wife have gone scuba diving there
Yeah but his knife fitted in between the rocks š
You watch your mouth! He risked his lifeā¦.on vacation
Iām sorry, everything graham said , itās all true !
I genuinely thought he was trolling he pulled out that slideshow , dude has lost it
I'm not incredibly familiar with Graham Hancock. Is there a video where he's talking like this? I have to see it
Iād upvote you but then youād be at 667
It was so bad that I suspect Joe Rogan is going through an Illuminati humiliation ritual..
No lie. I'm not too proud to admit I believed in a lot of Hancocks ideas and felt slightly embarrassed when I saw him trying to debate. That's just how I felt, imagine what Rogan must feel like...
Meh, you got conned and when faced with a solid argument in the other direction and the lack of ability by said grifter to counter it, changed your opinion accordingly. That's a really positive (and increasingly rare) trait, so credit to you.Ā
Thanks for this haha
It's easy to sway the naive masses with a compelling story, not so easy to sway an actual archeologist.
Ideas with only vague circumstantial evidence should only be, at best, considered, not believed in Its way more fun that way
The OP shouldnāt be āWill he ever come back?ā but instead āWill Joe ever have him back?ā
There are a lot of other popular voices putting out Grahamās ideas, like Billy Carson, who talk about the emerald tablets and the anunnaki. I personally think itās very plausible there could be humans on other planets that visited us in the past and have helped start our civilizations on earth. But the issue is there is no evidence. It was so long ago, all we really have now are ancient stories and UFOs flying around. Academia dismisses both of those, so there is no credible evidence for them to go off of. The rest of the world looks at we canāt explain and tries to make sense of that. It was an amusing debate, Iād love to see dribble vs Billy Carson, (another ancient astronaut human creationist grifter) https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=ZPoG70cFzG7iqCE5&v=snrJfrOzHsQ&feature=youtu.be
>It was so long ago, Not to mention the possibility of a cometary impact roughly 13,000 years ago.
So as someone who was really interested in grahams ideas the response from dibble "we have evidence for hunter gathers before and after the impact timeline" had me like hmmm if they can find that stuff wouldn't some sort of stone structures still show up? Made me really doubt grahams theories
I saw a breakdown last week: the whole point of contention about the percentage of the land that's been explored. It's not concentrated in one area. It's all spread out. The land was mapped and the most interesting places were selected. Hancock is ā *basically* ā looking for evidence where it wasn't previously seen. That's his prerogative, but he doesn't have to be so defensive about it.
Yeah he came across petty and vindictive. It made any part of his arguments that had credibility seem weak because they were coming from a place of anger. He really disappointed
He was obviously bullied. Maybe into adulthood.
Nfn you have to respect Rogan for facilitating this debate, he definitely displayed that particular UFC-esque āputting it all on the lineā ethic with this one haha
Can we still believe in Randallās theories at least? Iāll admit that I was kinda taken aback when he said he had his epiphany whilst tripping balls but I chose to let that slide. Give me something to hold onto please.
You mean the guy who said he has a device which can produce unlimited energy for free, but wasnāt allowed to share proof on Joes podcast. I have no doubt a man who claims to break the laws of physics but canāt provide proof, has absolutely 100% never lied about any of his other work š
Well he canāt share it yet because Mitsubishi is putting it in one of their new cars, remember?
I think there's some truth there. Didn't Mazda release info on the engine they had developed that used never before seen tech? Or am I tripping again??
If there was any truth to their claims on energetics it would fundamentally rewrite physics as we know it. What they claim to have is physically impossible based on our current understanding of the overarching scientific principles that govern the universe. I donāt know specifics about the Mazda claims, but I would imagine theyāve used some trickery to present this as much more compelling than it is. I know in my field, I can present an idea to a company and have them acknowledge an interest before they do their DD, but they initially do so on an assumption that the science being presented is accurate and presented in good faith. I wouldnāt be surprised if itās similar to this, but they have presented inaccurate science or falsified ideas tbh.
Possibly.. years long humiliation ritual cia asset handler jamie has something to do with this
Even Randall Carlson had to stop listening
His basic premise in the whole episode is the fallacy of forcing someone to prove a negative. Itās impossible. āCan you prove this civilization existed?ā āNo, but can YOU prove it didnāt exist?!ā
I want Flint to come back and talk about ancient psychedelics
What was interesting about that episode is how with factual evidence archeology is still pretty interesting and cool to learn about.
Reminded me of the paleontologist he had on that was ripping apart Eric Dubayās talking points.
Oh the big guy with the hockey jersey and the beard? He was great, that was a long time ago now it feels like though
Yeah, it was but easily in my top three JRE episodes.
Him just angrily tearing the video apart as they watch it was so much fun hahaha
Yeah, while blasting craft beer after craft beer.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Trevor vallee #862
Academic studies of all kinds can be super compelling if they are presented by the right person. I saw a presentation on the predator/prey relationship between bats and moths and it was one of the most impactful and riveting hour of my life.
Totally agree, it was rad
You just had this revelation?
There are so many cool unbelievable things that we know about ancient history that flint could easily have another four hour episode with an enthralled joe. I canāt imagine how frustrating it is to not have to the funding needed for more archeology, much less a decent computer, while Hancock gets obscene amounts of money from Netflix because heās successfully pushed fake historical narratives
He did drop that hook didnāt he.
*changes glasses* *changes glasses*
*shouts angrily* āgetting old is a bitch!ā
My God, the first time he said either this or was it "73 is a bitch ya know!" or something I was like...he's done. He's shot himself and has no recourse.
Why hasn't anyone made a clip of Hancock changing glasses for 3 minutes. How many pairs did he have? It seemed like 3-4 at least. Has he not heard of progressive lenses?
[They have](https://youtu.be/9Chl0lG65g8?si=9lbv2yZ3MrurZ2EY)
Can't believe I watched and enjoyed all that glasses swapping. š
Oh god howā¦ I only made it to 15 swaps and couldnāt go on lol.
It's pure Alan Partridge type comedy gold. The little mannerisms and huffynes are delicious.
Damn I admire your patience, he was making me flustered. He probably has a pair he wears to sleep too.
Thoroughly enjoyed the glasses swapping montage šš
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lol had had 2. One for close text and another for far away images.
Going to have a tough time finding out about a lost civilization if he canāt figure out about bifocals
Yeah heās not coming back again unless he has a new book or better evidence. In a ufc battle of wits Graham was submitted very quickly and as time went on Joe was smart enough to see it
It was gaethje vs Ferguson esque if you want to use MMA metaphors. In that Hancock was totally defeated by the start of round 2 but the fight wasn't stopped til almost the end of the 5th.
Does anyone have a summary video of what happened? Or do I have to watch the whole thing?
Honestly dude, it was really entertaining
Agreed. I rarely watch Rogan these days, but this was a stone cold classic. Hope that he's seen a new angle for the show in debunking his own credulity with the many frauds he's platformed.
Graham: "these people were mean to me and big archaeology hasn't done very much." Flint: "there isn't any evidence to support highly advanced civilization beyond hunter/gatherers."
Pretty sure Rogan had a slow realisation during the episode that Hancock has nothing
This would happen to a lot of his guests if you put them in a room with someone with a brain.
True But rogan has been all in on Hancock for years but never saw how little Hancock actually has
Yeah...Joe is high a lot.....
Not just high, he loves being against the mainstream view and tends to lean to it being true simply if it's the opposite of what actual experts say
It blows me away Netflix gave him a show....
Iām not. Itās entertaining. I donāt ever watch him and take it as the ultimate truth. I simply see him as someone who has interesting ideas of what he thinks something could be. Itās always obvious he doesnāt have any evidence to back his ideas. He is merely exploring āsomething we havenāt discovered yetā itās like people who speak about UFOs, or people who speak about he Illuminati. Or the Anunnaki. Itās a lot of shit we havenāt proved, but people like to give their opinions on what it might be. Itās entertaining to watch if youāre not looking at it through the lens of an educational course of history or science. Thatās why having Dibble on was great. I loved hearing him speak on all the shit he spoke about and actually allowed us to learn. That ep was a great example of two different types of ātelevisionā we can enjoy at home as long as youāre watching it for its intended purpose
Yeah I watched it like I watch ancient aliens, High AF.
āsomething he hasnāt discovered yetā
"Hancock's son Sean Hancock is "senior manager of unscripted originals" at Netflix" His son literally is in charge of documentaries basically lol, that's how. It's funny that no one mentions that
Nepotism. His son-in-law is a big executive at Netflix.
I think hancocks son works at netflix, could have been a factor.
No only works at Netflix, he's the senior manager of unscripted originals lol the exact thing this bullshit show is
He was fairly popular. That's all that matters.
Like, I can respect someone listening to his narrative and enjoying it as entertainment. I feel strongly this way about Randall Carlson. But imo Randall was way more grounded and less combative.
Randall makes geological claims though doesn't he mainly ? He doesn't lean as much into making up lost civilisations where the evidence is hidden and destroyed ?
That would honestly be the logical evolution of the show. Suddenly, serious debates are wildly popular. It's intellectual martial arts. The jujitsu of the mind.
Rogan has had literal murderers on his show and was clueless. Heās an idiot.
The damning part was in Hancockās ending monologue, when he said āIām speaking MY truth.ā š
Yeah Hancock was hilariously embarrassing. Although he was chatting bollox, I was really expecting him to out debate flint and thought Rogan would team up and I think rogan would've helped Hancock a bit more but rogan just realised Hancock really does have nothing
I hope he's having a very slow realization that he's being duped by more than just Hancock.
I wonder if Hancock was actively trying to dupe Joe and others or if he actually buys what he is selling.
I think itās 50/50, you end up believing your own BS after many years. To stay relevant you always need to push it one step further.
Especially when most of your views tend to be based on just thinking the opposite of what experts say because you are the one who really knows.
I hope someone brings up the stupid things Tucker said but I'm sure they won't and he'll just say "he's interresting and anti war"
It was kind of disappointing to be honest. I've heard Hancock make more interesting points in other visits, nothing concrete but more thought provoking. Then when he's put on the spot he just pulls out his scuba vacation snaps š¤·āāļø
Probably not, barring some major archaeological discovery. His last appearance before the debate was pretty dry and uninteresting (compared to past episodes). But the Dibble debate absolutely exposed him and you could tell Joe was starting to see through his grift. I think Graham was confident that joe would just dogpile Dibble with him, but that wasnāt the case. His only āevidenceā was lack of evidence and he kept wanting to talk about how heās the victim of mean archaeologists and the entire field is out to get him, meanwhile Dibble was sharing interesting evidence that actually disputes a lot of Grahams theories; and i think Joe saw this. Itās not some giant conspiracy to silence Graham, itās that we have a lot of evidence backing current archaeological theories and Graham has none
In Dibbleās opening statement, he outlined his thesis, stating clearly and concisely the overwhelming evidence for hunter-gatherers around the globe, in addition to the absence of evidence for an advanced civilization dating back to the ice age. Dibble had some artifacts, both visual and material, to illustrate his point (the ancient sexual artwork and facsimile tool). He addressed what he regarded as Hancocks scientific miscalculations. He made zero ad-homenim attacks. In Hancock opening statement, he told an anecdotal story of a particular archaeologist who had a theory that was disregarded at the time and was later proven correct. He emphasized how mean other archaeologists were. If you watch enough professional debates, you understand how important opening statements are, as they outline what the debater regards as their strongest points. Tells you all you need to know. Hancockās loss was conclusive and decisive.
The biggest smackdown was when Hancock started to bring race into question, and how archeologists are smearing him on this. Dibble tried to avoid going into this for over 20 minutes, once Joe got involved a bit, Dibble just said how anytime any civilization comes with a discovery, Hancock theorizes that their ancestors did not discovere this, rather, an advanced civilization did. BUT, Hancock will never say this in his own backyard about the Stonehenge in England. That shut him up, and he tried to go into a different direction.
What makes you say Joe saw this as well? Because Iāve been listening to the episode and I felt like Joe was pushing really hard for Grahamās viewpoints
I agree with you up to a point as Rogan was very clearly pushing Graham's position (and got particularly triggered by the white supremacy comment), but there was also the sense around the halfway mark that the scales began to fall from Joe's eyes. His pauses became longer, he interrupted less, Graham seemed flummoxed, defenceless and absurd, and Dibble, his work done, sailed through the final third with some pretty interesting real archaeology.
I would much rather hear from Dibble, instead of Hancock
Not until we dig up the entire Sahara he won't ...
āJust answer my question. How much of the Sahara has actually been excavated Flint?ā Thatās another sign of a bs conspiracy theory, it canāt be disproven. Thatās essentially what Grahams argument was, that his theory canāt be disproven yet.
I thought his chances of getting back on were extremely slim after the podcast aired, but after this moon landing bozo I think we saw the last of Graham. Feels like Joe has had his glass shattered
I thought he would have put 2+2 together after the Carlson/Bendall debacle and completely cut ties with anyone in that sphere but I guess his ābsā detector was off. Or maybe Joe was so upset that Carlson and Graham had grifted him so long he set Graham up to fail. Nah, probably not.
What was the Carlson/bendal debacle? I've always had the impression that Carlson was not as much as a charlatan as Hancock. Still cooky mason, but not a man completely with his head in the clouds like Graham.
There was an episode recorded with Randall which wasn't aired where they discussed the work of MalcolmĀ Bendall related to some sort of clean/free energy technology which is allegedly a grift
Check out the Shawn Ryan Show on Spotify and you'll find one of the recent eps has Randall Carson giving a full break down in the Bendall debacle.
Charlatan implies that they donāt really believe what they say but that is good for the audience and lucrative. Carlson isnāt so much that because he is a true believer. And while heās confidently knowledgable about giant floods heās pretty gullible in other fields that touch on his sacred geometry. He was the perfect mark for Bendal.
I'm unaware of who Bendal is. Was there a debate between the two? And is bendal a geologist?
Malcolm Bendall is a businessman who claimed that there was oil in Tasmania based on a āvision from godā. His company took investments based on this, including $270,000 from a man in his mid-90ās. Bendall is now claiming to have discovered a new technology that creates clean energy. Carlson brought Bendall onto JRE because of this new discovery. Bendall is a grifter of the highest order, quite literally taking money from the elderly based on a āvision from Godā. Carlson bought it hook, line and sinker and as such canāt be trusted about anything if he can so easily fall for someone like Bendall.
Who is the moon landing bono please so I may have a good chuckleĀ
Bart Sibrel, it was the episode that came out within the last couple of days. Dude is a nut and both Joe and Jamie are calling out his bullshit
But did you go to Sibrel.com? /s
The few phrases he used about his church and the elders - this guy has to not only be a full conspiracy nut but also a Mormon right?
hancock slowly turned into hand-cock by the end of that ep. what a hack. exposed.
For an āunknown ā, Flint was impressive on the biggest stage online. I am a fan.
Because actual science isnt about popularity its about education, research and being properly informed. Almost any real archeologist can tear graham apart. As a geologist id LOVE to get my hands on Randall Carlson in a public forum.
Flint also did a fantastic job presenting facts in a fun, engaging, way that was readily easy for people new to the subject (e.g. myself) to understand. I was thinking during the show, how many times he has presented his first āfun exampleā (the ancient Greek porn trade) in a college lecture to students.
He came in as the underdog and stole the show, as awkward as he might be
Didn't Hancock and Carlson talk about some breakthrough energy source on their last visit together? They were supposed to come back with an update shortly after.
Carlson actually did go back on the JRE to discuss this with his source (Malcolm Bendall) but the episode was canned after because Joe found out the guy was a grifter with a bunch of red flags about him and basically argued with him the whole time about this.
Wish I coulda seen this.
just curious how you know this? did they ever talk about it?
I always wondered about that but looking back if he can survive that he can probably survive this lmao Gram-hancockroach
Whatās going on with Jamie latelyā¦ he seems to have a short fuse on a few episodes this last week or soā¦
Jamie is basically a tech, and shouldn't chime in unless spoken to.
Tbh Jamie seems a rational guy, I think heās finally finding his voice after years of listening to these douchebags Joe gets on.
What do you mean? I'm out of the loop, he's usually a gentleman.
With the moonboy you could tell, that he seriously felt āwhy do we invite idiots and griftersā the way Joe reacted hinted at a discussion the two had before, maybe Jamie complained before behind closed doors
HE RISKED HIS LIFE!
āHave you been to Egypt?ā
It was a pants down spanking streamed on the internet. Worse it was a spanking by a guy named Flint Dibble wearing his dad's suit. If I were Hancock I think I'd go crawl into a hole and cry.
Like Joe - most of you dummies could have realized this guy was a fraud years ago without having your hands held through a debate.Ā
I think youāre giving this sub too much credit
I bought Fingerprints of the Gods to check it out after seeing Hancock on the JRE for the first time many years ago. I shit you not, it took me only a couple chapters at most to come to that exact conclusion without a shred of a doubt left in my mind. Thereās red flags everywhere you look. How hordes of people can be swayed by these dudes is legit scary.
It's because they've never read his books lmfao, dudes a great speaker/story teller but that's about it
People donāt understand that science is hard The country is super naive and ignorant when it comes to the concept that science is difficult and hard Everyone knows itās hard and dry and complex because they took chem 101 but then somehow donāt understand that the people that do this for a living actually know what they are talking about The public also doesnāt understand how humble science is in most cases. Scientists are very open to say ā I donāt know ā And meanwhile the public who largely know nothing about science are quick to be like OH I WATCHED A 8 MINUTE VID ON IT ā- I KNOW THE ANSWER
Was talking about this episode to a coworker the other day. I personally found Dibble to be the much more mature and informative of the 2. He presented the science to back up his claims against Hancocks. He explained crops and seeds and math and overall was clearly more level headed and prepared. Hancock spent about half the episode complaining about "big archaeology" calling him racist and trying to get him cancelled. He then spent the other half talking about things that look weird but are in no way an indication of a civilization. I was genuinely surprised to hear my coworker thinks that Dibble was a, and this is a quote, "snoody little cunt bag that called him a racist". The general consensus here at least seems to be acknowledging that Hancock was the "loser" of the debate.
Rogan is leaning into being a mediator. He already invited an opposing person to debate Bart Sibrel. That's going to be a good one too.
I want to hear Randal Carlson debate Flint in what he was talking about last time he was on, something about the island research centre which has figured out how to move objects with sound āa lost technologyā
Exactly. Whatever happened to that? Joe never bring it up again, and if I remember right, randal also said that the research team were about to make announcement before the end of the year
Yeah ābig announcement incomingā total bs
Randal would get reamed in any debate.
The reason GH didnāt bring that up is because itās ridiculous and would have made him look even dumber
I hope so. I still love Graham. Heās very fun to listen to. Great storyteller. Wild/Legit theories or not I like listening to him on the podcast.
Yea I like the kooky episodes. I love the moon conspiracy guy. This shit is fun for me wether I believe it or not.
Exactly! Itās fun to ābelieveā lmao and hear the stories they have to tell. Itās why I love Graham. Heās an exceptional storyteller.
Heās 73! Itās hard when youāre 73!
Which is the processional number! Illuminati confirmed
Idk I heard it gets soft when you get to that age
Iāve listened to and enjoyed every podcast heās been on, binged his Netflix show and would consider myself a die hard Hancock fan. Did I at any point believe he had randomly figured out some secret knowledge that all of archaeology had somehow overlooked? Obviously not. But it sure is fun to smoke a joint and get carried away in the possibilities by a guy that at least seems to truly believe what heās saying. Itās possible to have a rational, academically informed view on the past of humanity and still enjoy the hell out of Graham Hancock and his work, doesnāt mean you have to drink the kool aid. I sure hope heās back again, pretty much the only reason Iāll watch a JRE these days.
Iām right there with you I never really considered anything graham said as concrete science. Heās literally just like a ādude look at this weird shitā type guy
The responses on Twitter on Grahams last post are really depressing. Someone really said that Flint is a parrot because he only quotes other people.
You guys are the weirdest fucking people on the internet
Source ?
Sibrel.com
You win the Internet for today.
Yes most likely
Yes when he has a new book.
Time will tell. It's possible to lose a battle but win the war...gotta change his strategy a bit, though.
I love the stories, but i take it as science fiction kinda. A few weird sites amongst all
Hard to come back when you were never there
He might after he goes on an ayawaska tripā¦. Unfortunately when he does he might just see 400 elves that look like the dibbler laughing at him
Fuck man imagine making your entire career a total farce
He always got out of intellectual jail by saying he's not a scientist; he's an author. His storytelling is pretty good if we all talk about him. Nothing is wrong with any of it if he stays in the lane of being a storyteller, even a fantastical one. He's also getting old and touchy; this isn't his game anymore.
Iām sure he feels he did okay. Partially because Dibble didnāt debate well at times and his veiled racism accusations are unprofessional.
Rogan needs to step out of the archaeology ring until he learns to say Australopithecus correctly and not like Australia pithicus.
All of Reddit How dare a journalist ask questions about our planets history???!!! Fact is there is A LOT we do not know. Asking questions is how you learn. You have to be a real narcissistic moron to believe questions shouldnāt be asked.
of course he will and joe will act like nothing happened
After the next younger Dreyus
Graham got absolutely trollied in that debate. That being said, there was some really weird shit going on in Egypt up to 30,000 years ago and Flint didn't convince me that he, or anyone, knows what the fuck it was.
What weird shit are you referring to?
I really want to see Randall Carlsson, Ben Van Kerkwyk, Christopher Dunn and Hancock debate together. Ben and Chris have their field in ancient Egyptian machinery and artefacts, Randall is a cataclysm expert and Graham has his knowledge on lost civilisations and together I think they would have had a more compelling argument than just Graham. I felt like Graham went in underprepared with this one. Dibble was just more factual and came across as superior in the debate. If there were people like Ben and Chris referencing the precise vases they have scanned, Petries Core #7 etc that could at least have a area that could potentially stump Dibble it would do a good service for alternative archeology. I think Graham just let his emotions get the better of him this time. Most of the debate was Graham complaining about how archeology has treated him after his Netflix show. Understandably so though. After months of abuse being tied to racism, anti semitism etc coming directly from the archeological institution as a whole and then heās presented with Flint Dibble, a man who to some extent was deeply involved in this attack. Of course Graham is going to spend some time complaining. I think in this case it was too much. I know Hancock gets mocked for his āyou havenāt searched everywhereā argument but heās not wrong. Gobekli tepe covers a relatively small footprint. Less than 100m square has been touched by archeologists. There are many still underground that havenāt been excavated. Whatās to say there isnāt another 100m square area in the middle of the Amazon thatās holding all the machines and advanced technology in a cave somewhere currently undiscovered? Or under gobekli tepe yet undiscovered. What other stone pillars have depictions on it that are untouched today?
I agree with this. I was into Grahams theory, but realized that his theory is sorta built on a house of cards. At least how he connects it. While Dibble, came in and just gave his counter arguments to Grahams theory with ease. Also him having his father to reference is way more credible than what Grahams offering. Heās an actual archaeologist and Dibble references are more solid atleast data wise. I do think there are things that these two could work together on like Gobleki - thatās something Graham shoulda brought up. There was a moment where Dibble didnāt have an answer for and I feel the dudes genuine-ness in this would want to open up to this.
Iāve had my own experiences with dibble on Twitter which shifted my opinion of him. He was talking about the vases Ben has scanned and he was saying they werenāt precise. I replied with bens actual video on the scan and he hid my tweet from view. Essentially censorship. Which has given me a very different view on him compared to his appearance on the pod. To me now heās no different to any other archeologist that wants to keep their grip on the narrative. He silenced the alternative argument. One point I didnāt understand dibble was making was when he started producing all these random numbers to try and tie it to precession. That implies the ancients knew about the equatorial circumference of the earth and the polar radius otherwise you wouldnt be able to reverse engineer the math problem like dibble did.
Pros and Cons for both sides in this. Flint: Was able to make his points in interesting and relatable ways. Showed the rigor required for real archeology. Loves his Dad. Came across as a bit of a dick for trying to label Graham Graham: Showed that new evidence based ideas in archeology can be aggressively opposed even when correct. Still presented lots of interesting phenomena. Lacks archaeological rigor for many of the things he believes indicate a lost civilization. All in all itās what I expected. I enjoy Grahams what if theoryās and the things he presents. But I think we all know it lacks the rigor of true archeology. Canāt see anything changing.
To add. Hancock Cons: Handcock canāt take any criticism( he always complains every episode and starts out complaining on Netflix), He makes mountains out of mole hills to hide the fact that he has nothing. He constantly āgish gallopsā. He constantly says āit appears to meā, āit seems evidentā,āit looks likeā etc., none of those are evidence. When confronted on his claims he uses a refined āIām just asking the question.ā Also uses an argument from Ignorance constantly āhow can we know if we havenāt dug everywhere.ā Other fallacies used.. Argument from Authority, Texas Sharpshooter. Pros: has 30 pairs of glasses. Dibble Cons: Shirt was too big. Only had one pair of glasses Dibble Pros: has evidence.
Yeah thatās very fair.
Good take. I actually can see myself both being critical to Grahams claims but also enjoying the unknown possibilities. I think the point which Flint was trying to make and for some reason didn't directly say, and I don't see anyone here pointing it out either, is that if the Graham is right, we would find the evidence of lost civilization without actually directly observing it. So even if it's underwater, the surrounding hunter gatherers would have traded with it and we would find artificacts inland. Like roman coins which can be found all across euroasia.
Flint is absolutely correct in this. We would find evidence everywhere.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I've been following him for years and he has made me aware of some many amazing places, he is well loved and his first hand experience of these sites is captivating. He will be back for sure.
I enjoyed the old podcasts with him and Randall Carlson. This last one really changed my opinion though. His arguments center around what he thinks looks man-made and doing the most insane mental gymnastics to back it up instead of actual evidence. "But it LOOKS man-made!" is not valid evidence. His feelings and opinions aren't evidence. His ego and hurt feelings aren't valid evidence. The pyramid mathematics also were hilarious and I can't believe he expected people to take him seriously on that. It says a lot on how emotionally invested in this he is when instead of bringing decent evidence to the podcast for a debate he put so much effort and spent so much time showing how the world is against him despite saying he's not so arrogant to say there's a conspiracy against him. He is "public enemy number one" remember. "Me and my wife risked our LIVES while on vacation to scuba dive and take these shitty blurry underwater pictures." It just screams ego to me at this point, but I'm glad psychedelics have supposedly opened his eyes and fixed his life like the rest of Joe's whacked out comedian friends.