Archaeologists should give a huge thanks to Hancock and Rogan, etc.. for bringing so much attention into history and archaeology. A whole demographic of people who never would have given history or archaeology a second thought. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, the more people interested in the past, the better
I credit my job with leading me into an interest in it. I've been on that job for about a decade. I work in tech support at a company that has an enormous interest in geology. I support their training group. Over the years I have had to go into classrooms and help students who are having an issue with their computers. Whilst in the room and working with the students I would listen to what the instructors were teaching. Much of it was way over my head as we're talking about people who have bachelors being taught by people who have masters or PhDs. After doing that for a while I started going to online videos (think, lectures from actual professors at colleges or community outreach/adult learning lectures) regarding geology of various regions. That lead me into geology adjacent topics, such as paleontology. From there it went to archaeology and the history of civilization. From there I got into anthropogeny. I think the history of our universe, our planet, our species, and our civilizations are all remarkable subjects. It's an endless fount of learning and embracing it will make us a better people.
I have to admit, I was in Hancock's camp prior to this debate. Hancock presents well and tells a compelling story, but when the lid is lifted, it becomes clear that his theories are not supported by anything other than his personality. I think that's part of the problem-as people, we love a great story and want to believe in it. Then, when a personality emerges claiming to have been wronged, we tend to support the underdog. This inclination is further amplified by the internet, which acts as an echo chamber, fueling the fantastical nature of these claims. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed the Joe Rogan debate and hope this kind of discussion continues. Thanks to Flint for changning my mind 🙂
Don't be so sure the ice core thing he said was garbage they haven't tested for smelting outside of a short time when they were looking for it. Another youtuber was verifying this with an ice core scientist and flint told him to not talk to him.
Randall Carlson is much the same as Hancock. Very interesting to listen to but when you dig deeper into many of the claims you'll find they aren't being completely honest with their viewers and play God's of the gaps.
It’s mad how many people just bent over and lapped what ever dribbled out of flint. You should probably fact check before you make a muppet out of yourself. Dribble lied about the ice core data failing to mention lead spikes going back tens of thousands of years. He lied about the glyph in the pyramid. He failed to mention that current flows and constant water changes would have made in next to impossible for any ships to preserve during the ice age. They say humans have used boats for 100,000 years but the oldest boat found is 9000 years old yet academics tell us they go back 100,000 years have a wee look into why. Ohh and don’t forget to look up the amount of crops that went extinct during the ice age and the evidence we have for plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be redomesticated. Or you could just bent over for you next dribble
@@Archaeos0up He said that's what people call him. I don't think Graham is 100% right on everything, but I'd much rather talk to him than Flint. I can't stand people that insult you then see themselves as so intelligent they can explain and convince how they didn't actually insult anyone. Carl Sagan said great claims require great evidence, but you have to actually look at the evidence objectively, not shit on it.
@@robbsclassics "evidence" lol. What? A hodge-podge of numbers supposed to sound profound because he keeps saying "precessional" and a few rocks which - most - geologists agree are natural. Great evidence *rolls eyes*
@@leep1667 So you disagree. Condicendingly, but you disagree. And I agree more with Graham than you. This is how science works. There are so many times a revolutionary scientist is demonized only to be proven right. Look into Semmelweis.
I had no idea he had overcome cancer recently 🤯 👏 he looked in fine form on the jre episode (I had it on in the background so maybe it did get a mention). As someone who loves the allure of Hancock's theories, and enjoys his rhetoric, I must say it was hard to come away from that debate still deeply convinced by them. However, I do think it’s important to not have a homogeny of thought and the level of detail on some of the old world maps is still intriguing. As and aside, my dad has recently been diagnosed so hearing Flint has made a full recovery is fantastic and a great source of hope.
There's no risk of a lack of variety of thought. Get five archaeologists to look at a site and you'll get five different spins on interpretation! Haha The key is that the conversation is based on recognisable evidence :)
Thank you Flint for going on Rogan. What I appreciate about Joe Rogan is that he is not tied to his beliefs if he is shown compelling evidence otherwise.
It’s mad how many people just bent over and lapped what ever dribbled out of flint. You should probably fact check before you make a muppet out of yourself. Dribble lied about the ice core data failing to mention lead spikes going back tens of thousands of years. He lied about the glyph in the pyramid. He failed to mention that current flows and constant water changes would have made in next to impossible for any ships to preserve during the ice age. They say humans have used boats for 100,000 years but the oldest boat found is 9000 years old yet academics tell us they go back 100,000 years have a wee look into why. Ohh and don’t forget to look up the amount of crops that went extinct during the ice age and the evidence we have for plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be redomesticated. Or you could just bent over for you next dribble
the only correct answer to the first question ''why graham would do the debate when he has nothing to gain?'' is that graham believes in what he says and he feels like he has been dismissed forever. We shouldnt just assume malice
Afraid your wrong their,if you took the time to look at his past you would be aware that he is the one who claims malice against him by the academic world (to whom most have never heard of him )here in the UK he is known as a liar and charlatan whom by his own admission is a stoner and bullies his wife.
Graeme is not honestly though. I think he knows he's wrong but it's too profitable for him to stop and playing the martyr with Rogan being so gullible is perfect for him
Totally agree that in the modern world we seem to not respect enough the value and need for a lot of domain knowledge to properly interpret what you see
That podcast was important and powerful. Its a tuff reminder of how easily the public is swayed, esp when we are simply not informed on issues. And why its important to conduct our science the way we do with peer review.
I wish people would realize that archeology is a humanities degree akin to history. Archeologists make use of hard science data to create their stories, but they themselves are not hard scientists. Archeologists create stories from data ....its not science.
What an absolutely moronic thing to say. Archeology takes hard scientific derrived facts, and then produce a hypothesis, that is tested by experiments, new facts and statistical analysis. You, dont seem get the difference between a Theory, a Hypothesis, and a personal opinion. Science dont deal with absolute truth. All Theory's can be proven wrong, but what makes it a theory and not a hypothesis is that it has withstood testing so far. The problem is not the science of archeology, but archeologists being human, and their field being so complex, leaving much room for asumptions and speculations !
@@realitymatters8720experimental archeology can only go so far. Much of it cannot be tested and isn't that scientific unfortunately. The tools are definitely there that it COULD be, but sadly it isn't currently the case.
I am sorry to hear that Mr Dibble is sick, and wish him the best. I whole-heartily disagree with his opinions. I felt like the main point between the Flint Dibble-Graham Hancock debate really came down to as simple as Graham believes that we haven't conducted enough work or in-depth, detailed archeology to draw a conclusive conclusion that evidence on Earth has been studied enough to come to the conclusion that there was NO that an advanced civilization definitively did not exist. His main point is less than 5% of many important locations that contain important archeological data has been studied. Mr Dibble's argument was based on what has been discovered as hard evidence that there was no advanced society, and only a hunter-gatherers society existed in areas that have been appropriately investigated, no evidence exists to say that an advanced society ever existed. Mr Dibble also backs this stance up w/ saying that there has been enough investigation and archeological digs to definitively state that an advanced society never existed, and that includes wide-area, low res scans with technologies such as Lidar to support that stance. I tend to believe that we as humans are very arrogant to form hypothesis' based on only relying on evidence that we have found that is hard evidence, as we humans have so much to still learn. I respect that science is based on hard data and evidence, but I do agree that the sample size is not big enough to definitely say that an advanced civilization did never exists, and the Younger-Dryess impact never happened. I beleive Randall Carlson has really brough forth a strong case based on the evidence he has logged that a major impact world-changing event did happen at the end of the ice age. What I was really sad to see is when Mr Dibble resorted to calling Graham racist, and make personal attacks against him because he did agree w/ mainstream archeology. There are just way too many arrogant "good 'ole boys" clubs with Professors and academics with MASSIVE Egos who think becasue they work in the field that they have "God"-like knowledge, and I think we as humas are still very ignorant to what exists in the Universe, and what has occurred in history of our own planet. I agree w/ Graham that we need to keep open minds as we investigate archeology, and not try to cover up evidence or launch a personal smear campaign against people who do not agree with you - that is where we as humans fall short....
No, Hancock doesn't dismiss or snub the previous archaeological work done at Gunung Padang because it wasn't written in English, he dismissed and snubbed it because it doesn't align with his narrative. Plain and simple. He explicitly states his standpoint when discussing the Great Sphinx water erosion theory. Dibble says a lot of geologists disagree with Schoch, Rogan says a lot of geologists disagree with Schoch and Hancock says he doesn't care, he only cares about what Schoch says.
@@Manbearpig4456first, I'm not an expert in that. Second, I take into account all the work done at the site. Schoch is the only expert that has come to that conclusion. Because of this, I lean towards the vast majority of experts who don't believe this. If a lot of experts came out and agreed with Schoch, in other words, if his conclusion held up to scrutiny, then I would say cool. However, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That's how science works. Every theory/hypothesis should be scrutinized. If it holds up, it gets accepted, if it doesn't hold up, it doesn't get accepted. Quite simple really.
@@garymaidman625 schoch would be the only geologist that has produced a peer review paper that most certainly has held up to scrutiny given that no other geologist has produced a paper to tell us why schochs reading of the erosion is incorrect. The paper still stands as the only peer reviewed paper on the erosion of the stone. There is no other peer reviewed work by any geologist to state otherwise. There’s a lot of poor science out there from people who are most certainly not experts in discussing the erosion on the stone that say it couldn’t be as old as he says it is based on assumptions. It’s why Hancocks doesn’t care about the work of other geologists who haven’t produced peer reviewed work on the dating of the erosion it’s quite simple really.
Why do people think Hancock is rejecting archaeological work? All he says about Gunang Padang is to dig deeper to get more information because it looks like it may have more history. What's wrong with that?
@@MrFraichebecause of the constant insults he throws towards archaeologists. He has no understanding of what archaeology is. He dismisses the surveying step of archaeology, which is crucial to finding sites to excavate. There is no point blindly excavating everywhere. He may have loads of money, these archaeologists do not. Hancock also doesn't acknowledged any archaeological findings that go against his narrative, which is 90% of them.
I was the same, i started very much in Hancocks corner, but this debate was very humbling and enlightening, Joe Rogan moderated brilliantly and i have to say after listening to Flint Dibble he made a fantastic case and good on him for going on
Well, it really shows someone's character when after the interview they make fun of and laugh about and back stab their opponents when they can't defend themselves themselves
If you say that his ideas are nazi ideas and comparable to white supremacy, racism etc then you're de facto saying that Hancock is all that. Flint tried to salvage himself in the Rogan show but failed miserably. Instead he proved Hancock right regarding the arrogance and ignorance of archeologists.
I thought the debate was great and that both sides had valid points but the agricultural aspect is one of the strongest evidence for Flint. I still love listening to Hancock because it is more entertaining.
Auld flinty didn’t tell the truth, the Chinese have been studying rice domestication going back 20,000 years which shows how it was domesticated returned to the wild to be domesticated again. Seems people never bothered to fact check the archaeologist who’s more interested in his youtube channel than telling the truth
@@Manbearpig4456 yes, and after this debate, I myself went on a research session looking at this aspect of domestication and return, and discovered that the genetics can revert much faster than what Dibble made it seem. If a lost civilization did domesticate crops, was wiped out, their crops returned to wild, and then survivor populations re-domesticated, this all could be done in much shorter time frames than he said it could.
@@AnunnakiAaronafter 3 generations the plant will loose the seed shattering trait that archaeologists use as the main marker for domestication if away from human influence . Its evolution the plant needs to thrive and survive. Pretty much everything flint said during the debate was a lie or a complete miss representation of the data. The agriculture and ship wreck preservation is where he basically lied. Good on you for doing the groundwork. It’s mental how people just lap up what someone says with out checking it for themselves.
*Hancock White supremacist?* Maybe not, but immediately after that discussion, he defended white Quetzalcoatl against the evidence. Hancock vaguely cited Bernardino de Sahagún, whose work may have been altered by church or Spanish authorities or he may have unconsciously inserted his millenarian beliefs that apostles had visited “New Spain” before the era of Spanish conquest/discovery and wanted there to have been a white Quetzalcoatl reflecting such apostles. (BdS did a lot of great work, but his last big project was commissioned with missionary work as a goal and he made major alterations to please his employers.) Seeing Gobekle Tepe, Hancock says he saw evidence for externally taught technology. But he was fine with Stone Henge being native. In this case GH he thinks advanced civilizations would not have sprung up in icy Europe, but the point is that the giant slabs of Stone Henge don’t require Atlantis-like input, but somehow Gobekle Tepe does.
I 100% agree with what Dibble says in regards to this. While Hancock himself may not be racist, the fact that he cites racist sources from hundreds of years ago without critiquing them on their racism is ignorant at best. He may not be explicitly racist, but he is racist by association.
@@Manbearpig4456 dude, I have a bachelor's in ancient history and archaeology. Of course I know how why the sources are considered racist. The thing is, Hancock, as a journalist, should also realize that these sources are considered racist and why. Using the source is fine if you are critical of the racism within the source. If you don't acknowledge the racism, then you are racist by association. Ignorance is no excuse.
@@Manbearpig4456 first, while not racist per se, the Spanish sources calling the native people Aztecs and not their real name, which was Mexica. The sources written by Spanish sources that made contact with the native people of Mesoamerica called them barbaric and tried to 'civilize' them. That is racist. Yes it's conquest, but it's still racist. The caste system introduced by the Spanish during this period and written about by the Spanish is also racist. If you don't know what the caste system is, it's separating people into social groups based on race, with the Spanish being the highest, the mixed race being further down and the indigestion people being at the bottom.
Oh shut up. Graham didn't even have the decency to concede that he was using spanish colonial litreature to further his point. He came in to the debate thinking he can squash a relatively unknown archeologist like a bug but instead got a new one torn open for him by someone who came much prepared to debate on the subject.
@@ferrumvirum723 calm down , bit touchy , my point of view that these two well educated men are coming across very pompous and arrogant . Which graham has pointed out . Didn’t matter if he lost the debate or not it feels like I’m being talked down to which was one of grahams points . And to cap it all you are coming across the same
@johnwelsh1077 buddy. Your point of view is not something I can change by debating with you but I wonder if there is merit in judging an academic by his vibes instead of the content of his discussion. A debate is about facts not feelings. I certainly don't care about your feelings enough to be "nice" to you. You won't get that from me. Graham was so arrogant he didn't even have facts prepared for his debate. He was entirely there to "critique Flint's media influence". Which is disrespectful and arrogant. A) He did not came prepared enough because he thought that was beneath him B) Even when proven wrong (as is in the case of quetzalcoatl), he still sticked to whatever his theory and displayed his true arrogant self. I have substantiated my claim that Graham was arrogant moreso than whatever arrogance his strawman archaeologists he believes to have. Are you gonna substantiate your claim or muddy up the internet with your "point of view" AKA your feelings?
@@ferrumvirum723your right a debate is about facts and flint lied through his teeth about the data. One of the leading scientists responsible for the ice core analysis posted the ice core data the day after the debate showing clear spikes in lead emissions going back 150,000 years. The absolute nonsense flint said about ship wreck data was also exposed by a specialist in ship wrecks highlighting the nonsense flint said that we should be finding ship wrecks from the ice age civilisation. Then there was the data posted by Chinese archaeologists showing how rice was domesticated 20,000 years ago for the plant to then return to the wild to then be domesticated again. It seems those who disagree with Hancock lapped everything up without actually checking things for themselves. Yeah sure Graham got roasted with a load of lies from a lying RUclips archeologist who is more interested in his RUclips channel than telling the truth about the data.
@@johnwelsh1077to be fair, Hancock comes across as extremely arrogant and pompous and yet he has the gall to call out archaeologists as being pompous and arrogant simply because they don't agree with the way he goes about things. I can guarantee you the archaeology community have zero issue with his theory. The issue they have is about the way he goes about 'gaining evidence' to support his narrative. He cherry picks individual experts while disregarding the numerous experts disagree with his theory. That is not how science of any type, let alone archaeology works.
I just wish they would have gotten to the more poignant questions. What would Graham like to be done about archeology not excavating enough sites? How else do you approach the situation unless everyone becomes archeologists?
Why did Gram care to gain? It was a great conversation and both perspectives was interesting and this conversation here is a condescending and smug one. Gram made to points that stand one there is no where near enough archaeology done to say there is not proof of civilization pre Stone Age two the sphinx is older that Flint believes it is. But I don’t think Gram did it for any other reason but to put the question to debate As gram said with out archaeological he couldn’t have the perspective he dose And Gram appreciates the Flint’s of the world as do we all
@@MossyMozart there is a lot of things about ancient Egypt that you’re going to have to acknowledge and accept The evidence is undeniable and mounting Egyptologists and the dogma is crumbling.
@@mvc4121 That The Sphinx can't be more than 6,000 years old or it wouldn't exist? THe evidence is cast-iron and not crumbling unlike hancock's last junkie induced alzheimer ravaged braincells.
That Rogan episode was one thing happening over and over again: Joe and Graham asking Dribble if he reallly said one of his rediculous claims about Hancock and him back pedaling on them, even though his own words were being shown to him on the screen right in front of his face 😂. But Graham is the shady one.... Riiight 👌
Yeah, Dibble messed up there. I wouldn't say Hancock is shady. He's just not got any evidence, but behaves like he does and calls 'mainstream' when that's pointed out.
@@Archaeos0up ya that was not a good showing lol. So many videos are coming out now of people fact checking things he denied saying about Graham and sure enough, not only has he said most of them he's actually tweeted a lot of it right from his own Twitter account 🤦🏼♂️. Did he really not think people were going to fact check the living crap out of a debate on the most watched podcast in the world? The internet remains undefeated.
@@CornPopWazABadDudehow about looking at the archaeological facts and not interpersonal drama? I know you won’t engage with the facts because they undermine your beliefs so instead you focus on immature drama. It’s easier to call flint out for a tweet than it is to engage with reality. Seriously the only fact checking you care about is what Flint said, not the archaeological facts. Embarrassing.
@@seanbeadles7421 I have. One example, this dufus tried to claim the perfectly round holes in granite made thousands of years ago were done with sand and water 😂😂😂.. I've been tweeting him asking for a live demo of that being done and he actually ended up deleting the tweet with the clip of him saying it on Rogan LMFAO. Don't have time to sit here and go through them all, but that's a good one to start with .. there's so many absurd things he's tried to claim as a way to shoot down Graham's theories.
Great discussion. I know nothing about archeology, but the JRE debate sparked my interest. If you allow me a suggestion: it is very topical to go into the conspiracy corner the past few years and throw out the baby with the bathwater, when it comes to science, as the corruption in other fields of science is rampant. I will not point at which field(s) in particular, but we all know which field in particular, which is cooperating with the commercial market. As a result, other fields of science are under heavy scrutiny, unjustly. My advice would be to avoid talking about "The Science", as it is increasingly having a very negative connotation. The paradox is of course that we HAVE to talk about science in order to do science. But the public perception is that science=scientists=scientific institutions=governmental institutions=corruption. Therefore it would be more helpful towards the general public to NOT equal archeology with "science", but to say that it is a scientific field with its own VERIFIABLE ruleset. And therein lies a strong argument: most other fields do not have tangible proof, only assumptions and theoretical experimentation. I think that if the legitimacy of archeology as a science is the goal, it would be more helpful to talk about the scientific method that archeology is using, based on evidence, highlighting that there is NO commercial interest in it. Therefore the odds of corruption are much lower. After all, you are not selling products, especially not ones that everyone "needs", definitely not any that can be forced on us.. I think that one of the strongest talking points of Hancock in branding Archeology as this big bad menace, is that even archeologists are trying to reason by claiming that "science" proves something. Instead of using the name, the more the method is used with specifics, the less people consider the SAA "just another corrupt institution". I appreciate that anyone working from within these circles would be deeply insulted by the slightest accusations, but unfortunately it is not sufficient to be good: one needs to LOOK good, too. And Hancock's press is far superior in that field, by sheer mass. Not by logic, but then, logic alone does not win arguments in today's world, where the recepients of information are unable to apply said logical rules, for lack of education in logic.
No matter what one builds, the chance that it aligns to celestial objects has a pretty good chance. Like in Chicago there is a road that I believe in the equinoxes and lines up with the rising or setting sun… I think it’s called Chicago henge… lol… but it wasn’t intended as any sort of mythic purpose other than they wanted a road to run that way… Sometimes it’s a by product of other intentions…
BBC Horizon Atlantis Reborn Again covered Hancock's theories back in the 1990s and covered this really well, with landmarks in New York mirroring a constellation. It also challenged some of the exact alignments that Hancock wanted to portray. Hancock just countered saying the builders weren't bureaucrats so were interested in symbolism rather than being exact.
It’s mad how many people just bent over and lapped what ever dribbled out of flint. You should probably fact check before you make a muppet out of yourself. Dribble lied about the ice core data failing to mention lead spikes going back tens of thousands of years. He lied about the glyph in the pyramid. He failed to mention that current flows and constant water changes would have made in next to impossible for any ships to preserve during the ice age. They say humans have used boats for 100,000 years but the oldest boat found is 9000 years old yet academics tell us they go back 100,000 years have a wee look into why. Ohh and don’t forget to look up the amount of crops that went extinct during the ice age and the evidence we have for plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be redomesticated. Or you could just bent over for you next dribble
The true intellectual understands their limitations of their scope… it’s so important… no one can know everything and generalists sacrifice a lot of detail understandings
It’s mad how many people just bent over and lapped what ever dribbled out of flint. You should probably fact check before you make a muppet out of yourself. Dribble lied about the ice core data failing to mention lead spikes going back tens of thousands of years. He lied about the glyph in the pyramid. He failed to mention that current flows and constant water changes would have made in next to impossible for any ships to preserve during the ice age. They say humans have used boats for 100,000 years but the oldest boat found is 9000 years old yet academics tell us they go back 100,000 years have a wee look into why. Ohh and don’t forget to look up the amount of crops that went extinct during the ice age and the evidence we have for plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be redomesticated. Or you could just bent over for you next dribble
To be honest, as much as I like Graham and enjoyed listening to his ideas in the beginning... He really hasn't presented any evidence and isn't even qualified in any of the fields he speaks about... He needs to grow thicker skin... Everytime he goes on Rogan, he attacks the other sides character I wouldn't want to debate him either to be truthful...
I adore Hancock, I've been following him for years. I love both Bauval and Carlston. But I never, ever took them as solid science. It is a genre, an exciting genre that stimulates the attention and intrigues the imagination. Besides, Hancock is right about some things like the case of Clovis 1st
He's right at Clovis 1sr, but what he neglects to say, is that it was archaeologists themselves who corrected the issue. Hancock had absolutely nothing to do with it. The debate on Clovis owes nothing to Hancock. You take him out of the picture and the situation is the same. Furthermore there were issues with the first sites and that is why there was discussion. Some of the Clovis 1st supporters, not all, were basically jerks and held back the issue for some time, but some of their points were at the time valid. Many of the radiocarbon dates of the first sites were problematic.
My own archaeology instructor helped debunk Clovist first. Graham Hancock didn't have anything to do with it. He could correctly cite that the world revolves around the sun, but that doesn't mean that it was at all up for debate by the time he showed up.
@@batandy23 But that is his mission. He publishes things, but also creates his own theories and conclusions. There are also objections to academic jealousy and egoism. This is not an unknown phenomenon in the academic world
Flint you would really get your point across better if you were so arrogant about it. You laughing at someone during a debate is straight up disrespectful. Graham at least has some class. And it’s funny when you’re confronted with your quotes calling him racist you try to act like you didn’t do it. Honestly dude you’re clearly smart and an expert in your field but your delivery needs a lot of work
1. Anyone would laugh at someone making childish, ignorant statements. Imagine talking to a flat earther and they’re drawing on the dumbest, most nonsensical information to present their theory. You would laugh. 2. You’ve bought into Hancocks mischaracterization of Dibble. Dibble was merely stating that the information Hancock was using to present his theories is extremely dated. He literally uses shit from the 17th century. He’s saying that the people of the time were often not in good faith when studying new cultures and often used racist ideologies to purport white supremacy. Which is true. I think even you would agree with that background. I encourage you to actually watch this video, he talks about this around 31-32 minutes in.
Sorry to hear Dibble has turbo cancer. There sure are tons of people getting turbo cancer over the past three years. I wonder if more people weren’t so conditioned to fear what’s promoted as “misinformation” more people wouldn’t be getting safe and effective turbo cancer.
Lets face it they dont like him bc exactly from the beginning of hiw this video starts. He is not a academic. These people are so stuck up and think there so smart. How dare anyone but them figuer something out
I’m mostly unfamiliar with Hancocks work. So I feel there is probably a lot of context I’m missing. But I honestly just feel like both of you talked past each other in a lot of the debate. Flint seemed to be refuting claims that Hancock wasn’t exactly making and Hancock seemed to be broad brushing archeology and dismissing rather interesting points flint was making. Ultimately I think them as just coming at the issue from different angles and I’m not quite sure why that is so contentious. Archeology, as flint said, must operate from what is known. Fair enough. That’s needed. But flint acts like Hancock is the first person to ever ask questions and push for investigation on what’s unknown? Is that not the spark of good science? I think graham is fairly pointing to some pretty significant gaps and big questions in our understanding of the past and he’s pointing out a number of things in conventional explanations that don’t quite add up and I don’t know why that’s such a problem
Then maybe you should be familiar with Hancock's work -(and archaeologists' criticisms of it, and Hancock's criticism of the criticisms) before commenting. It's generally understood that, in order to meaningfully contribute, you have to know what you're talking about rather than keep using words like "I feel" and "seemed".
@@leep1667 This is youtube, not a peer review publication. People are allowed to express their "feelings" and thoughts on this forum in whatever way they choose. If you don't "feel" my comment has any relevance than you are free to ignore it. I don't have time in my busy life to dedicate to reading up as much as I'd like on this subject because its not my job, but it still interests me so I pay as much attention to it as I can. In no way did I claim expertise in the field, I intentionally prefaced my comment with my lack of expertise because I was being transparent which is better than most people who comment. So instead of being a dick a bout it why don't you just ignore the comment and move along if it's not appealing to you? I don't have to be an expert in this field to have an opinion about the discussion I witnessed and how each of them talked past each other. That was clear to anyone skilled in the art of conversation or debate. There were numerous times that both of them failed to communicate effectively and I don't need to know anything about archeology or hancocks previous work to make a comment on that.
If you had a bit more background on Hancock you would see he isn’t doing as you say and just asking questions or proposing what if, which is fair enough. Hancock goes round stating absolutely proven falsehoods with authority. He mis uses evidence or outright lies about all manner of things to make them fit his viewpoint or feelings. I used to be a fan of his and was into his stuff on earlier JRE but then looked into it with proper archaeologists and realised he is just lying to everyone. Have a look at the latest video about Hancock by World of Antiquity on RUclips and you will see what I mean. Also check some of the videos debunking Ancient Apocalypse
@@StuartDayGuitars - Ms/Mr @leep1667 is correct. Hancock is a pseudoscientist, trained as a journalist, not a scientist. For example, he believes that the citizens of Atlantis built Egyptian and Mayan pyramids and that they are far older (without evidence) than archeologists say. ----- This civilization, of which "Atlantis" was part, spanned the globe and was "much more advanced than we are now". Hancock is trying to take away the legacy of indigenous peoples, Egyptians, Mayans, etc, by claiming they were too backward and inept to accomplish what they did. ----- He also thinks that psychedelic drugs opens his mind to other worlds so he can know the truth about this "ancient, highly advanced, globe-spanning culture". This is all rancid baloney.
I thought Dr. Dibble did a great job. One thing I think he should have kept more in mind was the audience he was talking to. I don't know the average education level of Joe Rogans audience but I believe Dr. Dibble made an assumption without realizing it that the people he was speaking to understood statistics. I think he should have tried to explain statistics a bit, so that people understood that when he talks about how many millions of hunter gatherer artifacts they have found that the probability of a large scale civilization remaining unfound is really not possible. You could compare it to a poll for presidential election here in the United States. A presidential poll here taken with only 30 thousand people or so can accurately predict the outcome not just of the major candidates but can even pick up the support for candidates with really small levels of support in the low single digits. So even if this advanced civilization only existed over a few % of the earths surface our searches should have yielded some evidence.
You know what, in just 2 hours, you totally changed my mind from being all about Hancock to being Team Dibble! Your words inspired me to dig into things myself, and I reached my own conclusions super quickly. Thanks a bunch for that, Flint! It's funny how the alternative can seem more thrilling, but once you know the facts, it's just mind-blowing!
So... You're siding with the guy who denied his own quoted statements from an article he wrote, right to Joe and Graham's faces while they had the article pulled up on screen? O... K....
10:20 - the fact you were suprised means you might be in a bit of an echo chamber...you admitted your own pop media illiteracy so it makes sense but I think engaging more with those outside groups would be good
The JR podcast was intriguing. While I initially valued Flint Dibble's expertise (the prebunking?), I find both of your attitudes towards Hancock to be disdainful. The aim of the debate was for the two factions to come together, yet it seems that both of you prefer to remain in your own echo chambers, labeling anyone outside of them as a pseudo-scientist. This perspective appears quite negative from an outsider's viewpoint. As an academic musician, I would never criticize AC/DC as a band simply because they fill stadiums, while classical music struggles to fill a theater. AC/DC are not pseudo-musicians, and the classical music industry must be failing in some aspect if it can't draw in larger crowds. Regarding the topic of racism, since when does an American archaeologist have the authority to define racism on a global scale? There are regions in Africa that are racist towards each other, indicating intra-racism within separate black populations. How can you determine racism between two distinct black communities? I found Dibble more agreeable before this interview, and overall, the debate left me with a positive impression of him. I wish the debate had focused solely on Egypt for four hours, because towards the end, Dibble claimed, "They used wooden levers" to lift enormous granite blocks, which is quite absurd.
The issue with language is it doesn't always display reality. "The aim of the debate was for the two factions to come together" - the issue is that, rightfully, these 'two factions' are not equal. At all. Graham is not an archaeologist. He has never surveyed the ground. He repeats ideas from 19th Century authors and Plato. As Flint made clear, there is no echo chamber. Archaeologists are incredibly underfunded, and it is seen in a lot of modern places as a 'non-worthy' science. In the UK, it is being defunded. There is no cabal here. Comparing AC/DC to classical music is a complete misinterpretation of the situation and an awful analogy. The more appropriate analogy for music is Yoko Ono and John Lennon. "Regarding the topic of racism, since when does an American archaeologist have the authority to define racism on a global scale? There are regions in Africa that are racist towards each other, indicating intra-racism within separate black populations. How can you determine racism between two distinct black communities? I found Dibble more agreeable before this interview, and overall, the debate left me with a positive impression of him." I will try to dissect this, but it makes so little sense, I will struggle. 1. Being an American has no bearing on defining racist literature 2. The literature is clearly racist, specifically referencing Ignatius Donnelley - please read here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_L._Donnelly mylesdungan.com/2017/11/03/on-this-day-3-november-1831-birth-of-ignatius-donnelly/ www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/ignatius-donnelly-and-the-politics-of-atlantis 3.So all Flint did, was explain the fact that this work came from a different time, was unfounded, and has incredibly racist overtones. 4. Why are you referencing racist regions in Africa? What is this point? "Dibble claimed, "They used wooden levers" to lift enormous granite blocks, which is quite absurd." - Dibble did not claim this. He posited the idea. After all, Graham is the one who asked 'How might they have done this?'. No one has the answers to this, let me be clear. So he merely suggested an idea. I find it interesting that 'levers' is absurd. But a race of super-intelligent white men teaching savages to make pyramids, or using sound to vibrate rocks, is less absurd.
@@garyc2630 As someone well-versed in music theory, I can assure you that Yoko Ono possesses the same level of musical knowledge as AC/DC. The band members play by ear and lack formal training. Despite this, I appreciate their music (there is somebody that likes weird stuff like Yoko Ono also, as a result, that was not my point), however, within the classical academic world, they are often ridiculed, similar to how Dibble dismisses so-called pseudo-scientists. This elitism may alienate those interested in archaeology. Your analytical process feels like listening to Dibble repeat himself, and we're back at the echo chamber effect. The discussion about super-intelligent white men brings so much politics into the conversation that makes me throw up. The main point is, nobody knows how the pyramids were built. NOBODY. Therefore, why claim to have all the answers? Neither Dibble nor Hancock possess this knowledge. Everyone can only speculate, and each effort deserves respect. Drawing a parallel with music, possessing knowledge doesn't entitle one to mock others. Musical talent lies dormant in many, waiting to be awakened. It's not a piece of paper that makes someone a musician; it's the awakening of that talent. A diploma doesn't make you a deity. P.S Someone positing that wooden levers could lift 800 tons block a hundred meters into the air is far more absurd even than the Big Bang theory. I don't think the lost civilization theory involves super white men teaching savages. This is forcing politics in the matter, this is not trying to understand what the heck happened.
@@Faggianotti I'm surprised you decided to dedicate an entire paragraph on my Yoko Ono and John Lennon analogy... I am just a layman of music so I'm not sure what your point is there. If you honestly think AC/DC is similar to Yoko Ono then I'm not sure we'll ever agree on anything and you're being deliberately obtuse. Just my two cents. How is this an echo chamber? I'm not an archaeologist, I'm not sure you know what this word means! Okay, if you want to separate politics from the situation, that's fine. But you do know that Graham is the one who brought it up in the first place by referencing these sources, and referencing white skin? From Fingerprints of the gods: "who is described in multiple myths and traditions as being white skinned and bearded.”" From Magicians of the gods: "“Like the legends of Kon-Tiki Viracocha [...], the South American civilizing hero, white-skinned and bearded like Quetzalcoatl and the Apkallu sages [...], who was said to have come to the Andes during a terrifying period, thousands of years in the past, "when the earth had been inundated by a great flood and plunged into darkness by the disappearance of the sun."" "The main point is, nobody knows how the pyramids were built. NOBODY. Therefore, why claim to have all the answers? Neither Dibble nor Hancock possess this knowledge. Everyone can only speculate, and each effort deserves respect." - That's what I said. Nobody knows. You're just repeating me. Secondly, Hancock is actually claiming. That's the whole point of his civilisation. No. Not each effort deserves respect. Stating 'aliens did it' is just as valid as Hancocks claims. At least Dibble's ideas of levers, have been demonstrated historically as factually accurate as a way of lifting extremely heavy blocks, he even mentions it in his interview on Joe Rogan and it is a famous internet video! :ruclips.net/video/E5pZ7uR6v8c/видео.html "Drawing a parallel with music, possessing knowledge doesn't entitle one to mock others. Musical talent lies dormant in many, waiting to be awakened. It's not a piece of paper that makes someone a musician; it's the awakening of that talent. A diploma doesn't make you a deity. " What? If you're actually an expert in music, and I'm not, why would you not mock me for pretending I know more about music than you do? Do you realise what you're typing? It's babble. "P.S Someone positing that wooden levers could lift 800 tons block a hundred meters into the air is far more absurd even than the Big Bang theory. I don't think the lost civilization theory involves super white men teaching savages. This is forcing politics in the matter, this is not trying to understand what the heck happened." - This is called a strawman. Stay on subject. I know it's difficult. But stay with me here. I said lifting a block with levers is less absurd than claiming a historic atlantis-type civlisation, populated entirely by white men, predicted by plato and 19th century authors, who have left no traces, teaching savages to do it with sound. That's what I said. "I don't think the lost civilization theory involves super white men teaching savages. " Please actually click my links, read the quotes from Graham's writing, or look into the subject of european influence on South American culture, and culture in general. Why are you not addressing the clear ties to Ignatius Donnelley? It's obvious, he references him in his book! (Excerpt from Fingerprints of the gods) pbs.twimg.com/media/FhdxUgMWYAAiygi?format=png&name=900x900 (Read the footnote - it's Ignatius Donnelley): This book - about Atlantis, and his theory of Atlantis, is reference heavily in a lot of Graham's work, directly and indirectly: Here are excerpts from Ignatius' book, he is obsessed with race, he is a product of his time in the late 19th century: pbs.twimg.com/media/FhdysNiXEAARUQi?format=png&name=small pbs.twimg.com/media/FhdysOdXEAMC5Da?format=png&name=small pbs.twimg.com/media/FhdysN1XoAAgZN-?format=png&name=small pbs.twimg.com/media/FhdysNHXgAIN5bR?format=png&name=small P.s. this took me 10 minutes to find these excerpts, please do some fucking research.
@@garyc2630 I think my low-quality metaphor actually gets to the heart of the matter here. You seem to believe that I'd get upset if someone who knows nothing about music claims to know more than me, just because I'm an academic. But that wasn't even on my mind when I compared it to music. My point was that you can create amazing music even if you don't know much about music theory or technical skills. Now, my comparison with archaeology would be that you can make incredible discoveries even if you're not an academic. See the difference? All you guys seem to show is frustration that someone appears more knowledgeable than you, without the effort of going through the academic pedigree. I haven't even read one of Hancock's books, so I don't even know what you're talking about. All I'm saying is that this racism stuff, which we still haven't figured out the meaning of in today's society, is meaningless when it comes to the importance of discovering what exactly happened 10.000 years ago. You see, I'm Italian. more than a hundred years ago, Italians were called "dagos" in the States, which was kind of like the n-word for Italians at the time. Now, Italians are suddenly considered "white" just because they're part of Europe. Furthermore, I'm from Southern Italy, and here we share a lot of DNA with North African roots and Greece, for obvious reasons. Not long ago, let's say even 60 years ago, I couldn't go to Milan (Northern Italy) to get an apartment because being from the South, I'd be considered "dirty," and they'd label us with the word "terrone," just so you know. But now, if I go to New York and say I'm from Italy, for some reason, I suddenly am a white privileged asshole by default. This goes to show that the global meaning of racism is very complex and yes, should be studied and prevented in today's society, but it shouldn't interfere with archaeological discoveries that could shape the very reason why we're on this planet.
@@Faggianotti Ok mate, I'm going to move on from this analogy because it isn't really the point, I committed one to two sentences to it as a semi-joke about how bad Yoko Ono is. To be clear, you said this: "The discussion about super-intelligent white men brings so much politics into the conversation that makes me throw up. " I have just demonstrated that this was Graham's writing, from his books, and he referenced Ignatius Donnelley. You didn't address that. I posted the original source. I posted Graham's source. I even quoted 3 lines from 2 separate books. Are you going to admit that Graham is the one that brought this into the conversation? It is important because, what seems to me as obvious, is white writers from the 19th century and earlier saw monuments and structures built by non-white people and some of their first reactions was to go "no way they did this." this is then expanded on by writers like Ignatius Donnelley, and then this idea is bastardised further by the Nazis (their was an entire regiment dedicated to looking for the Aryan Atlantis). The idea that white people went around the globe 10,000 years ago and did it for them or showed them how to do it. I already linked direct sources to these writings. Your point about Italians is a non-sequitur. We need to stay on topic here. You have created an absolutely false narrative that the idea these ideas come from racist origins is 'stopping archaeology'. Let me be crystal clear again. What Graham does is not archaeology. It is postulation. He has stated that no archaeologist has ever found evidence of his civilisation - and he said this out loud on the podcast. I can link this timestamp to you if you need it. I will remind you of your initial claims that I took issue with. You insinuated these two 'factions' are equal - "The aim of the debate was for the two factions to come together". Considering Graham has found no evidence for his civilisation, this is not a fair analysis. The reality is this is more akin to a psychic and a therapist. You are asking them to come together as equals, as if both points are as valid, that is the fallacy. This is why we do not typically see moon landing deniers on the public forum debating astronauts. Your second point was this: "Regarding the topic of racism, since when does an American archaeologist have the authority to define racism on a global scale?". I took grievance with the use of the word 'American', as if it means anything. I then took grievance with you not understanding that this is not archaeologists defining it, it is just literature-based evidence and historical-based evidence that points to the sources Graham uses as inherently racist by their diction and contemporality within an almost wholly racist world of the 19th century. I linked extensive evidence to Donnelley's writings, and Graham referencing a book 100 years before his own, and you seem to have ignored that this was in response to you saying the archaeologists were defining it. There is absolutely nothing to gain in the academic world from how Graham conducts himself. There is zero difference between the way Graham postulates and someone who is convinced they have seen a UFO postulate. The only difference is is that Graham sounds intelligent due to his accent, age, and ability to public speak. He also does not back down and enjoys calling people out when they scorn him. Graham aligns himself deliberately with archaeologists and geologists, such as Ali Akbar and Danny Hillman, who both already believe there were pyramids 20,000 years ago in Indonesia. Based on nothing but GPR which showed a volcano to be a volcano. Graham has also doctored evidence within his own documentary, removing question marks from GPR posters. Made up lies within his show (stating archaeologists refuse to dig in places - that they didn't know things - Stefan Milo goes into detail on this). It is clear to me that Graham is not a conman. That would be insane. He has written a plethora of books on the subject showing his conviction. I am more inclined to believe he has seriously duped himself and does not posses an academic mind. An academic mind must be able to look at the pyramids, wonder, and then state "We don't know yet". Graham's first thought is "I know the answer", that is both unscientific and manipulative. I see absolutely no value in Graham's ideas. He has had the platform long enough. He is more famous than any archaeologist to ever exist. His moment should have been over long ago.
It’s mad how many people just bent over and lapped what ever dribbled out of flint. You should probably fact check before you make a muppet out of yourself. Dribble lied about the ice core data failing to mention lead spikes going back tens of thousands of years. He lied about the glyph in the pyramid. He failed to mention that current flows and constant water changes would have made in next to impossible for any ships to preserve during the ice age. They say humans have used boats for 100,000 years but the oldest boat found is 9000 years old yet academics tell us they go back 100,000 years have a wee look into why. Ohh and don’t forget to look up the amount of crops that went extinct during the ice age and the evidence we have for plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be redomesticated. Or you could just bent over for you next dribble
I found it frustrating watching Hancock and Rogan either conciously, or unconciously misinterpreting Flint's point regarding the racist origins of white bearded saviours etc. Flint's point was clear i.e. not calling Hancock racist, rather saying some of the sources he uses have racist origins, and that this should be acknowledged, scrutinised and challenged; rather than being unquestioningly accepted because it fits Hancock's insane "theories".
All the people that build up the alternative theory of ancient history are unconvinced that a bunch of ancient peoples came together to build up the pyramids. Do they not see the irony…
oh my days u spoke from my mind. This is the point im trying to get my head around. People 4000 years ago couldnt have built something that alternitive history proponents belive was built 7000-12000 years ago by peolpe wtf. why the need for an ancient globe spanning high tech civilisation that there is no evidence for. even if elements of ancient egypt are older then the current concensus couldnt they just of been built by previous cultures on the same sites by people in those same areas. Why the need to have an atlantean style civilisation to surplant stone work and agriculture. couldnt these things have multiple independent origins. rather then looking for evidence that fits your ideas why not let the evidence lead the way to your conclusions. Im puzzeld as to why this is even such a big deal for people. i just had a thought i would like to know what about gobekli tepli or ancient egypt people find impossible to think ancient people built and shaped them with the tools methods described by scolars and proffesionals in the field? as far as i can tell it boils down to "errrr i dont know how it was done there for" waffle
I’m starting to think they moved the stones in winter by wetting the ground and sliding them on top of the frozen soil, if the weather in that time was cold enough to permit this. I like all of the alternative ideas of building structures in ancient times, but those ideas are better suited for fictional books and games. Archaeology is in the golden age for discovery and the more it can be shared, the better for our understanding of the past.
If the temperature in those times permit, then maybe. Although, putting actual sails on the pyramid stones to move them in an ancient assembly line is much more entertaining now.
Seems to me Mr Dibble learned very little from Joe’s wise words at the end of that very long conversation - archaeology aside - Mr Dibble continues to insult Mr Hancock who has an obvious passion and a serious amount of knowledge gathered over his lifetime. At least Mr Hancock did not feel the need to express the same scorn of Mr Dibble’s work.
I was hoping Flint would be able to put up a good debate but Graham smashed him. It's crazy how close minded Flint is and blinded by calling himself an academic. It seems Flint just wants funding so he can keep his job rather than wanting to do more research.
Crazy take dude. Graham has nothing but myths and the hope that something is found in the Amazon, Sahara or underwater. No existing sites point toward advanced ice age people. Underwater sites like the bimini roads are almost certainly geologic and should be considered such until proven otherwise. Find the quarries for the bimini blocks for example. Geology is a super interesting subject on its own, and it's amazing what tectonic forces and millions of years of erosion can create. An advanced ice age people would have left traces the same as other ancient people, like gold or bronze ornaments in graves, stone structures and pottery, rubbish dumps and ship wrecks etc. Nothing has been found. Also, how did they advance beyond hunter gatherers without their superior technology and agriculture spreading to their hunter gatherer neighbours, like it did after the ice age. Good ideas travel and are adopted pretty quickly by neighbouring populations. We know that there are many technological steps between hunter gatherers and advanced civilizations, so many that it would have taken thousands of years to develop just like it did in reality after the ice age. Much of that technology would have spread to other people, but none has been found. Yet hunter gatherer sites are found everywhere from that time, and they have strong evidence that no domesticated plants existed that far back. All Graham has is a very detailed hypothesis with nothing real to back it up. Until someone finds actual evidence there is no reason to think his hypothesis is remotely accurate.
@@black_stream we are all entitled to our own opinions dude! Graham isn’t claiming to have evidence he’s just pointing out that archeologists’ evidence is not much at all. He’s encouraging research which I would think archeologists would be excited about. Graham is bringing millions of people in to be interested in human history. Instead all I hear is whining and declaring racism 😂
I really think the fact that people dont understand what you were saying about racism shows more of our cultures ignorance about how racism works than anything else
People are beginning to understand that there is a new breed of neo-racists who can't see the racism in their own self while trying to point it out in everybody else.
@KrugerFS he forced your boy to admit that there is ZERO evidence to support his theory...despite the thousands upon thousands of excavations conducted and millions of artifacts found. ZERO evidence. He demonstrated all of this during the debate. In contrast, your boy Graham cried about getting his feelings hurt and showed pics of nifty looking rock formations in the water. Graham has been so far backed into a corner at this point, his 'argument' is that the archeologists haven't looked everywhere yet. What a king joke. I mean it's a fun fantasy. So yeah, of course Flint denied those fantasies as being supported by evidence. Of course he did.
The existence of Troy was "pseudo-history" until it was discovered -- and then the Kook crazy guy Schliemann became a brilliant archeologist. Çatalhöyük was "pseudo-history" dismissed as an aberration, some wandering culture must have done it, until more evidence was discovered and archaeologists were forced to admit it didn't fit current dogma and are now re-writing human history. The idea of a great Black Sea Deluge was also "pseudo-history" until a Ballard expedition discovered ancient shorelines, freshwater snail shells, drowned river valleys, tool-worked timbers 100m below sea level. My point is, that many advances in the knoweldge of human history were made by people who questioned orthodoxy and saw the pieces to a puzzle they wanted to solve. All Hancock is doing is questioning a flawed orthodoxy that hates to self-examine, he's pointing out puzzle pieces to a deeper human history than orthodoxy is comfortable with -- like the existence of ancient structures around the world with similarities in design and function, and asking does this mean anything? Are we to believe that in the 300,000+ year history of Homo Sapiens that no advanced culture arose, perhaps one with global trade or reach? You don't need UFOs and Pyramid Power to sail around the world spreading cultural influences. So why are people like Dibble so agitated about the idea when people in his field of study have been proven wrong time and time again about Human history and civilizations?
4:12 Hancock self-describes, or refers to himself as a journalist. He tries to explain that he's interested in opening up the field to new ideas... not the normal path, of closing them down. Whether Hancock is wrong or right... doesn't really matter. People were excited by the possibility of there being 'more stories to tell'. That history is deeper and richer than the general consensus. But more importantly, it's indicative of the cultural zeitgeist... that people distrust those firmly entrenched in their own righteous dogma. Dogma, which is a typical masculine trait... to solve puzzles irrefutably. To not let the chaos of anxiety, enter their closed worldview. To listen to righteously disgusted self-described 'experts' ...double down even further, is not a surprise.
Thing is, he's not even a journalist. He WAS a journalist back when he worked at the Economist, now he is a writer on speculative theories of human history. He may well be right, but, as the Rogan interview showed, he has no interest in approaching archaeology in the terms that archaeology actually operates...while at the same time demanding respect from archaeologists. Instead he brow beats them with factoids about the size of blocks and says things like "it seems to me that..." and "I am utterly convinced that..." and then cries victim when archaeologists (because he has only given them opinion and speculation and NO evidence) say his work is not archaeological.
Dibble came off as a bit of an arrogant jerk with his laughing at everything and the whole white supremacy smear stuff is a bad look I can't get past. Edit: FFS He just doubled down on his denial in this interview too, this guy is dishonest. Period.
ok why so bitter towards Hancock? Straight out of the starting gate you both attacked him. If his ideas are insignificant then they will vanish over time . Most of his and your ideas are theories Albite some based on serious research , there then comes a gap that has to be filled with Educated Guesses . IMO anyone else's guess is as good as the next. If Hancock went and got a degree in archaeology somewhere, would that change the validity of his ideas or guesses.? His academic standing and your academic standing seem to be the issue here only. That is not a reason to dismiss ideas alien to your own. Academics do not own the sciences. Humanity does. When these arguments pop up as they always do isn't it possible somewhere in the middle lies the actual truth. maybe the dismissal by Both Hancock and academics of each other is purely egoic and if you worked together you would better reveal the past more accurately? We all make mistakes .To err is human after all and we all own the sciences.
Somewhere in the middle of this video, Flint admits that you don't need to be a "qualified archeologist" to do some good research. Yet, he calls Graham a pseudo-archeologist. I believe that Graham would have read more papers and books than Flint has, definitely would have experienced more sites. Why does Archeology despise people who are not academics? Is that because they have not been endoctrinated? One big debate to come this year will be between Biden and a pseudo-politician. Many people don't have an issue with that. Julian Assange never achieved a formal diploma, I don't think he's been called a pseudo-engineer or a pseudo-Hacker.
Dibble meant proper research, i.e. - Theory - Generate hypothesis (from theory) - Collect data using appropriate methodology Report findings appropriately (e.g. to relevant experts within the field) - Hypothesis is either shown to strengthen or weaken theory. - Generate further hypothesis.......and so on. Hancock does not engage in this process.
Well done Flint. A very thorough and entertaining debate. You certainly dismantled his theories convincingly. I love that people are curious, especially archeologists! We need to follow the science and I hope Graham lays to bed his well-worn rhetoric that archeologists are dismissing and ignoring his theories that have no physical evidence! Well done Flint, wishing you the best in your medical treatment
You must have missed the part where flint told lie after lie about the data. Did you bother to fact check flint or did you just lap it up? If you bothered to look into what flint said you’d realise all he done was highlight how dogmatic archaeology really is. The lies the man told was a joke
Flint dibble is full of you know what.... This is the argument Oh Flint you have proof ok let's see it... Blah blah blah repeats the same bull verbatim when done he's asked..."Where did you get that information from?" .... He answers...." I don't know man, i read it"..... Hahahahaha
Grant funding goes to research, not into the archaeologists pocket. For instance, you might have $30,000 to do a dig. One single radiocarbon date test typically costs $500, US. If you spent all your money, that's 60 things you could test the age on. Not a lot. What if you wanted to test a whole series of objects through time? Typically, grant funding is just enough to answer the question you want, and no more. Keep in mind it's also feeding a dozen students for 6 weeks in God only knows what conditions, transport, equipment, and so on. Archaeologists who work for the government get paid set salaries. Archaeologists who work "for hire" get paid either by the dig or by the hour. Archaeologists who work for academia get paid salaries as well. Academic and government based archaeologists both have to fight for funding, and justify that by writing reports. Typically they go out and dig, report on thier findings, and then if they indicate that there might be more out there to find, ask for more. If they get it, then they can go out and do it again. Rise and repeat. Digs are usually in the summer, reports in the winter. Source: I'm an undergraduate archaeology student. Someone correct me if I left anything out or misrepresented anything.
@hoffmanfiles - Grant writing itself is an art that most people don't have. Grantors want to see certain goals and phrases outlined. In life, my friend, who had the skill set and experience, wrote grants for people who could not write grants themselves. Sometimes, she even got paid for her hard work, but she didn't charge the poor church-mice archeology programs for her help. She had a good record of success, too.
It's "pseudo" because it is not real. That's what pseudo means - Hancock presents no actual evidence, and he cherry picks other people's evidence to suit his own narrative whilst ignoring any evidence that goes against his narrative. He has never published any peer reviewed theories and calls himself a journalist whilst actually proposing outlandish and fantastic theories that people take as real facts that are being "suppressed by mainstream academia' - all those factors make him a definite "pseudo-scientist" without any doubt. 😎
I have watched most of Hancocks videos. And he got me more interested in history and inspired me to travel to Egypt , which is a good thing. My daughter is an archeologist so she rolled her eyes at me 😂 I have a brain and enjoy listening to both sides. I thought Hancock was disappointing on JR spending most of his time defending himself. At the end of the day most of it is just theory’s. we weren’t there so we don’t no most of ancient ways. I never understood why we bring colour into this.
i guess you have already heard it from your daughter but many things are not theory. It is not a theory that what Hancock says has no evidence on the issue of a lost civilization. A theory is not any claim without any supporting evidence. A theory needs some evidence, but perhaps is still missing in some issues. For instance, it is a fact that the Gobleki Tepe is prior to agriculture, as far as we know. It is a theory that this is a ritual and temple complex. We are not exactly sure how they built it, but we have theories on how this could be done. In archaeology many issues are like this. But this does not allow us to say Gobleki Tepe was built by aliens. Hancock is basically saying something that is similar to aliens in the quality of evidence.
To my mind, Flint pulled off the most impressive debunk in youtube history! Over 4 hours on Rogan with a lifelong purveyor of Brandolinis law faced across you... That's like an Herculean task. This was like the Ultra-marathon of debunking. 4 plus hours of beating back bullshit! I can't imagine how much work went into preparing for this. Unbelievable effort!
It was an awesome Rogan episode. I still see how Graham AND mainstream archeologists can be right. Absolutely no one can explain how and why these ancient monuments exist or where we come from. And in my opinion when your debate resorts to personal attacks and insults you've already lost.
When someone writes a history of some figure we talk about it without examining the authors degrees so if you have someone like graham writng on his interest why call him pseudo surely if you think it's important then use the fair appellation amateur! After all many of the discoveries in many fields have been by those who didn't finish relevant degrees even if they existed. 🤡
Flint was was projecting. This was good for flint and hancock. Trust me us in the alt archaeology preferred a much more seasoned archaelogist. I used to call him Dr. But he is very unprofessional thumbs down. Gh is an author and you put him in peer level. Leave the guy alone
For what it’s worth I thought you did an exceptional job in very challenging circumstances! Also thought the outfit was smart and appropriate for the setting - 10/10
These are interesting comments. Yonaguni is in my opinion man-interfered, where Flint puts forth there is no clear evidence. There are channels that span dozens of feet and are almost perfectly straight, this is not the work of the ocean. Any good search should help steer you in one direction or the other, but it would be more fascinating if it is entirely natures luck.
I think if Flint actually did some research instead of doing goofy content creator video's his lies would pull half truths at least lmao Just sad at this point.
This academic paywall issue is such a problem and not unique to archeology but is also an issue for other sciences as well
It's an issue in all of academia.
Didn't know Flint was ill, hope he's ok.
Yes. I think that may have contributed to the neck stiffness which some commented on during the JRE recording.
Archaeologists should give a huge thanks to Hancock and Rogan, etc.. for bringing so much attention into history and archaeology. A whole demographic of people who never would have given history or archaeology a second thought.
Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, the more people interested in the past, the better
well the youngest generations dont seem to understand the saying "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
I credit my job with leading me into an interest in it. I've been on that job for about a decade.
I work in tech support at a company that has an enormous interest in geology. I support their training group. Over the years I have had to go into classrooms and help students who are having an issue with their computers. Whilst in the room and working with the students I would listen to what the instructors were teaching. Much of it was way over my head as we're talking about people who have bachelors being taught by people who have masters or PhDs.
After doing that for a while I started going to online videos (think, lectures from actual professors at colleges or community outreach/adult learning lectures) regarding geology of various regions. That lead me into geology adjacent topics, such as paleontology. From there it went to archaeology and the history of civilization. From there I got into anthropogeny.
I think the history of our universe, our planet, our species, and our civilizations are all remarkable subjects. It's an endless fount of learning and embracing it will make us a better people.
I have to admit, I was in Hancock's camp prior to this debate. Hancock presents well and tells a compelling story, but when the lid is lifted, it becomes clear that his theories are not supported by anything other than his personality. I think that's part of the problem-as people, we love a great story and want to believe in it. Then, when a personality emerges claiming to have been wronged, we tend to support the underdog. This inclination is further amplified by the internet, which acts as an echo chamber, fueling the fantastical nature of these claims. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed the Joe Rogan debate and hope this kind of discussion continues. Thanks to Flint for changning my mind 🙂
Yeah I came in like that 😊
Don't be so sure the ice core thing he said was garbage they haven't tested for smelting outside of a short time when they were looking for it. Another youtuber was verifying this with an ice core scientist and flint told him to not talk to him.
But that's why they tend to be more popular these pseudos archaeologists. They're great storytellers basically car salesmans in my opinion.
Randall Carlson is much the same as Hancock. Very interesting to listen to but when you dig deeper into many of the claims you'll find they aren't being completely honest with their viewers and play God's of the gaps.
It’s mad how many people just bent over and lapped what ever dribbled out of flint. You should probably fact check before you make a muppet out of yourself. Dribble lied about the ice core data failing to mention lead spikes going back tens of thousands of years. He lied about the glyph in the pyramid. He failed to mention that current flows and constant water changes would have made in next to impossible for any ships to preserve during the ice age. They say humans have used boats for 100,000 years but the oldest boat found is 9000 years old yet academics tell us they go back 100,000 years have a wee look into why. Ohh and don’t forget to look up the amount of crops that went extinct during the ice age and the evidence we have for plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be redomesticated. Or you could just bent over for you next dribble
Flint Dibble is such a well spoken, reasonable, and diplomatic man.
Such a valuable asset.
Very refreshing.
Thanks for this discussion host.
Not even a minute in and you're calling Graham Hancock a pseudo archeologist. So I guess you already made your mind up. I'm out.
To be fair he himself claims to be part of the pseudoarchaeological community in the JRE episode. 🤷♂️
@@Archaeos0up He said that's what people call him. I don't think Graham is 100% right on everything, but I'd much rather talk to him than Flint. I can't stand people that insult you then see themselves as so intelligent they can explain and convince how they didn't actually insult anyone. Carl Sagan said great claims require great evidence, but you have to actually look at the evidence objectively, not shit on it.
He literally IS a pseudo-archaeologist.
@@robbsclassics "evidence" lol. What? A hodge-podge of numbers supposed to sound profound because he keeps saying "precessional" and a few rocks which - most - geologists agree are natural. Great evidence *rolls eyes*
@@leep1667 So you disagree. Condicendingly, but you disagree. And I agree more with Graham than you. This is how science works. There are so many times a revolutionary scientist is demonized only to be proven right. Look into Semmelweis.
I had no idea he had overcome cancer recently 🤯 👏 he looked in fine form on the jre episode (I had it on in the background so maybe it did get a mention). As someone who loves the allure of Hancock's theories, and enjoys his rhetoric, I must say it was hard to come away from that debate still deeply convinced by them. However, I do think it’s important to not have a homogeny of thought and the level of detail on some of the old world maps is still intriguing. As and aside, my dad has recently been diagnosed so hearing Flint has made a full recovery is fantastic and a great source of hope.
There's no risk of a lack of variety of thought. Get five archaeologists to look at a site and you'll get five different spins on interpretation! Haha
The key is that the conversation is based on recognisable evidence :)
Thank you Flint for going on Rogan. What I appreciate about Joe Rogan is that he is not tied to his beliefs if he is shown compelling evidence otherwise.
It’s mad how many people just bent over and lapped what ever dribbled out of flint. You should probably fact check before you make a muppet out of yourself. Dribble lied about the ice core data failing to mention lead spikes going back tens of thousands of years. He lied about the glyph in the pyramid. He failed to mention that current flows and constant water changes would have made in next to impossible for any ships to preserve during the ice age. They say humans have used boats for 100,000 years but the oldest boat found is 9000 years old yet academics tell us they go back 100,000 years have a wee look into why. Ohh and don’t forget to look up the amount of crops that went extinct during the ice age and the evidence we have for plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be redomesticated. Or you could just bent over for you next dribble
the only correct answer to the first question ''why graham would do the debate when he has nothing to gain?'' is that graham believes in what he says and he feels like he has been dismissed forever. We shouldnt just assume malice
Malice? I suspect confidence, as you say, that is closer. For whatever reason, he was confident :)
I agree. He pitches he has been wronged by academia. Hence it got personal, was a great debate tho.
Afraid your wrong their,if you took the time to look at his past you would be aware that he is the one who claims malice against him by the academic world (to whom most have never heard of him )here in the UK he is known as a liar and charlatan whom by his own admission is a stoner and bullies his wife.
Graeme is not honestly though. I think he knows he's wrong but it's too profitable for him to stop and playing the martyr with Rogan being so gullible is perfect for him
@@gorbalsboyHe bullies his wife? Do tell. Fascinating.
Totally agree that in the modern world we seem to not respect enough the value and need for a lot of domain knowledge to properly interpret what you see
That podcast was important and powerful. Its a tuff reminder of how easily the public is swayed, esp when we are simply not informed on issues. And why its important to conduct our science the way we do with peer review.
I wish people would realize that archeology is a humanities degree akin to history. Archeologists make use of hard science data to create their stories, but they themselves are not hard scientists. Archeologists create stories from data ....its not science.
Quantum physicists create stories from data ....its not science.
What an absolutely moronic thing to say. Archeology takes hard scientific derrived facts, and then produce a hypothesis, that is tested by experiments, new facts and statistical analysis. You, dont seem get the difference between a Theory, a Hypothesis, and a personal opinion.
Science dont deal with absolute truth. All Theory's can be proven wrong, but what makes it a theory and not a hypothesis is that it has withstood testing so far.
The problem is not the science of archeology, but archeologists being human, and their field being so complex, leaving much room for asumptions and speculations !
@@realitymatters8720experimental archeology can only go so far. Much of it cannot be tested and isn't that scientific unfortunately. The tools are definitely there that it COULD be, but sadly it isn't currently the case.
Glad to hear your health has improved, Flint.
I am sorry to hear that Mr Dibble is sick, and wish him the best. I whole-heartily disagree with his opinions. I felt like the main point between the Flint Dibble-Graham Hancock debate really came down to as simple as Graham believes that we haven't conducted enough work or in-depth, detailed archeology to draw a conclusive conclusion that evidence on Earth has been studied enough to come to the conclusion that there was NO that an advanced civilization definitively did not exist. His main point is less than 5% of many important locations that contain important archeological data has been studied. Mr Dibble's argument was based on what has been discovered as hard evidence that there was no advanced society, and only a hunter-gatherers society existed in areas that have been appropriately investigated, no evidence exists to say that an advanced society ever existed. Mr Dibble also backs this stance up w/ saying that there has been enough investigation and archeological digs to definitively state that an advanced society never existed, and that includes wide-area, low res scans with technologies such as Lidar to support that stance. I tend to believe that we as humans are very arrogant to form hypothesis' based on only relying on evidence that we have found that is hard evidence, as we humans have so much to still learn. I respect that science is based on hard data and evidence, but I do agree that the sample size is not big enough to definitely say that an advanced civilization did never exists, and the Younger-Dryess impact never happened. I beleive Randall Carlson has really brough forth a strong case based on the evidence he has logged that a major impact world-changing event did happen at the end of the ice age. What I was really sad to see is when Mr Dibble resorted to calling Graham racist, and make personal attacks against him because he did agree w/ mainstream archeology. There are just way too many arrogant "good 'ole boys" clubs with Professors and academics with MASSIVE Egos who think becasue they work in the field that they have "God"-like knowledge, and I think we as humas are still very ignorant to what exists in the Universe, and what has occurred in history of our own planet. I agree w/ Graham that we need to keep open minds as we investigate archeology, and not try to cover up evidence or launch a personal smear campaign against people who do not agree with you - that is where we as humans fall short....
No, Hancock doesn't dismiss or snub the previous archaeological work done at Gunung Padang because it wasn't written in English, he dismissed and snubbed it because it doesn't align with his narrative. Plain and simple. He explicitly states his standpoint when discussing the Great Sphinx water erosion theory. Dibble says a lot of geologists disagree with Schoch, Rogan says a lot of geologists disagree with Schoch and Hancock says he doesn't care, he only cares about what Schoch says.
It’s called his opinion, what’s your opinion on the erosion theory?
@@Manbearpig4456first, I'm not an expert in that. Second, I take into account all the work done at the site. Schoch is the only expert that has come to that conclusion. Because of this, I lean towards the vast majority of experts who don't believe this. If a lot of experts came out and agreed with Schoch, in other words, if his conclusion held up to scrutiny, then I would say cool. However, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That's how science works. Every theory/hypothesis should be scrutinized. If it holds up, it gets accepted, if it doesn't hold up, it doesn't get accepted. Quite simple really.
@@garymaidman625 schoch would be the only geologist that has produced a peer review paper that most certainly has held up to scrutiny given that no other geologist has produced a paper to tell us why schochs reading of the erosion is incorrect. The paper still stands as the only peer reviewed paper on the erosion of the stone. There is no other peer reviewed work by any geologist to state otherwise. There’s a lot of poor science out there from people who are most certainly not experts in discussing the erosion on the stone that say it couldn’t be as old as he says it is based on assumptions. It’s why Hancocks doesn’t care about the work of other geologists who haven’t produced peer reviewed work on the dating of the erosion it’s quite simple really.
Why do people think Hancock is rejecting archaeological work? All he says about Gunang Padang is to dig deeper to get more information because it looks like it may have more history. What's wrong with that?
@@MrFraichebecause of the constant insults he throws towards archaeologists. He has no understanding of what archaeology is. He dismisses the surveying step of archaeology, which is crucial to finding sites to excavate. There is no point blindly excavating everywhere. He may have loads of money, these archaeologists do not. Hancock also doesn't acknowledged any archaeological findings that go against his narrative, which is 90% of them.
Thank you for your content
I was the same, i started very much in Hancocks corner, but this debate was very humbling and enlightening, Joe Rogan moderated brilliantly and i have to say after listening to Flint Dibble he made a fantastic case and good on him for going on
Team tiny hands unite. 🎉
Well, it really shows someone's character when after the interview they make fun of and laugh about and back stab their opponents
when they can't defend themselves themselves
Flint went and crunched the numbers during his therapy, i loved that story and how he countered that number gaslighting.
If you say that his ideas are nazi ideas and comparable to white supremacy, racism etc then you're de facto saying that Hancock is all that. Flint tried to salvage himself in the Rogan show but failed miserably. Instead he proved Hancock right regarding the arrogance and ignorance of archeologists.
*groan* still not getting it, are we?
Where is your hat?
You lost that debate as soon as u lied about your comments of white supremacy
im sorry i missed that when did it happen?
I'm curious. What did Dibble say that was a lie when it came to white supremacy?
Yessss! 🎉
I thought the debate was great and that both sides had valid points but the agricultural aspect is one of the strongest evidence for Flint. I still love listening to Hancock because it is more entertaining.
Hancock had no points whatsoever. Name one.
@@peterg9729 The age of the erosion around the Sphinx.
Auld flinty didn’t tell the truth, the Chinese have been studying rice domestication going back 20,000 years which shows how it was domesticated returned to the wild to be domesticated again. Seems people never bothered to fact check the archaeologist who’s more interested in his youtube channel than telling the truth
@@Manbearpig4456 yes, and after this debate, I myself went on a research session looking at this aspect of domestication and return, and discovered that the genetics can revert much faster than what Dibble made it seem. If a lost civilization did domesticate crops, was wiped out, their crops returned to wild, and then survivor populations re-domesticated, this all could be done in much shorter time frames than he said it could.
@@AnunnakiAaronafter 3 generations the plant will loose the seed shattering trait that archaeologists use as the main marker for domestication if away from human influence . Its evolution the plant needs to thrive and survive. Pretty much everything flint said during the debate was a lie or a complete miss representation of the data. The agriculture and ship wreck preservation is where he basically lied. Good on you for doing the groundwork. It’s mental how people just lap up what someone says with out checking it for themselves.
He has you stressing, gain more bearing.
*Hancock White supremacist?*
Maybe not, but immediately after that discussion, he defended white Quetzalcoatl against the evidence.
Hancock vaguely cited Bernardino de Sahagún, whose work may have been altered by church or Spanish authorities or he may have unconsciously inserted his millenarian beliefs that apostles had visited “New Spain” before the era of Spanish conquest/discovery and wanted there to have been a white Quetzalcoatl reflecting such apostles. (BdS did a lot of great work, but his last big project was commissioned with missionary work as a goal and he made major alterations to please his employers.)
Seeing Gobekle Tepe, Hancock says he saw evidence for externally taught technology. But he was fine with Stone Henge being native. In this case GH he thinks advanced civilizations would not have sprung up in icy Europe, but the point is that the giant slabs of Stone Henge don’t require Atlantis-like input, but somehow Gobekle Tepe does.
I 100% agree with what Dibble says in regards to this. While Hancock himself may not be racist, the fact that he cites racist sources from hundreds of years ago without critiquing them on their racism is ignorant at best. He may not be explicitly racist, but he is racist by association.
@@garymaidman625 do you even know why the sources are considered racist. I bet you don’t
@@Manbearpig4456 dude, I have a bachelor's in ancient history and archaeology. Of course I know how why the sources are considered racist. The thing is, Hancock, as a journalist, should also realize that these sources are considered racist and why. Using the source is fine if you are critical of the racism within the source. If you don't acknowledge the racism, then you are racist by association. Ignorance is no excuse.
@@garymaidman625care to enlighten me then why the sources are considered racist or are you just going to ignore that part?
@@Manbearpig4456 first, while not racist per se, the Spanish sources calling the native people Aztecs and not their real name, which was Mexica. The sources written by Spanish sources that made contact with the native people of Mesoamerica called them barbaric and tried to 'civilize' them. That is racist. Yes it's conquest, but it's still racist. The caste system introduced by the Spanish during this period and written about by the Spanish is also racist. If you don't know what the caste system is, it's separating people into social groups based on race, with the Spanish being the highest, the mixed race being further down and the indigestion people being at the bottom.
I think grahams points of the archeologist arrogance has just been proven in this interview .
Oh shut up. Graham didn't even have the decency to concede that he was using spanish colonial litreature to further his point. He came in to the debate thinking he can squash a relatively unknown archeologist like a bug but instead got a new one torn open for him by someone who came much prepared to debate on the subject.
@@ferrumvirum723 calm down , bit touchy , my point of view that these two well educated men are coming across very pompous and arrogant . Which graham has pointed out . Didn’t matter if he lost the debate or not it feels like I’m being talked down to which was one of grahams points . And to cap it all you are coming across the same
@johnwelsh1077 buddy. Your point of view is not something I can change by debating with you but I wonder if there is merit in judging an academic by his vibes instead of the content of his discussion.
A debate is about facts not feelings. I certainly don't care about your feelings enough to be "nice" to you. You won't get that from me.
Graham was so arrogant he didn't even have facts prepared for his debate. He was entirely there to "critique Flint's media influence". Which is disrespectful and arrogant.
A) He did not came prepared enough because he thought that was beneath him
B) Even when proven wrong (as is in the case of quetzalcoatl), he still sticked to whatever his theory and displayed his true arrogant self.
I have substantiated my claim that Graham was arrogant moreso than whatever arrogance his strawman archaeologists he believes to have. Are you gonna substantiate your claim or muddy up the internet with your "point of view" AKA your feelings?
@@ferrumvirum723your right a debate is about facts and flint lied through his teeth about the data. One of the leading scientists responsible for the ice core analysis posted the ice core data the day after the debate showing clear spikes in lead emissions going back 150,000 years. The absolute nonsense flint said about ship wreck data was also exposed by a specialist in ship wrecks highlighting the nonsense flint said that we should be finding ship wrecks from the ice age civilisation. Then there was the data posted by Chinese archaeologists showing how rice was domesticated 20,000 years ago for the plant to then return to the wild to then be domesticated again. It seems those who disagree with Hancock lapped everything up without actually checking things for themselves. Yeah sure Graham got roasted with a load of lies from a lying RUclips archeologist who is more interested in his RUclips channel than telling the truth about the data.
@@johnwelsh1077to be fair, Hancock comes across as extremely arrogant and pompous and yet he has the gall to call out archaeologists as being pompous and arrogant simply because they don't agree with the way he goes about things. I can guarantee you the archaeology community have zero issue with his theory. The issue they have is about the way he goes about 'gaining evidence' to support his narrative. He cherry picks individual experts while disregarding the numerous experts disagree with his theory. That is not how science of any type, let alone archaeology works.
I just wish they would have gotten to the more poignant questions. What would Graham like to be done about archeology not excavating enough sites? How else do you approach the situation unless everyone becomes archeologists?
The thing is, Hancock is extremely repugnant of archaeologists, yet he would be nowhere without archaeologists. It's somewhat of a paradox.
These bozos are so disingenuous.
Why did Gram care to gain?
It was a great conversation and both perspectives was interesting and this conversation here is a condescending and smug one.
Gram made to points that stand one there is no where near enough archaeology done to say there is not proof of civilization pre Stone Age two the sphinx is older that Flint believes it is.
But I don’t think Gram did it for any other reason but to put the question to debate
As gram said with out archaeological he couldn’t have the perspective he dose
And Gram appreciates the Flint’s of the world as do we all
@mvc4121 - The Sphinx is NOT 10s of 1,000s of years old. And you are gentler with Hancock than he deserves.
@@MossyMozart there is a lot of things about ancient Egypt that you’re going to have to acknowledge and accept The evidence is undeniable and mounting Egyptologists and the dogma is crumbling.
@@mvc4121 That The Sphinx can't be more than 6,000 years old or it wouldn't exist? THe evidence is cast-iron and not crumbling unlike hancock's last junkie induced alzheimer ravaged braincells.
I think that Narnia is real, and blame archeologists for not searching every wardrobe in the world to prove it's real.
That Rogan episode was one thing happening over and over again: Joe and Graham asking Dribble if he reallly said one of his rediculous claims about Hancock and him back pedaling on them, even though his own words were being shown to him on the screen right in front of his face 😂.
But Graham is the shady one.... Riiight 👌
Yeah, Dibble messed up there. I wouldn't say Hancock is shady. He's just not got any evidence, but behaves like he does and calls 'mainstream' when that's pointed out.
@@Archaeos0up ya that was not a good showing lol. So many videos are coming out now of people fact checking things he denied saying about Graham and sure enough, not only has he said most of them he's actually tweeted a lot of it right from his own Twitter account 🤦🏼♂️. Did he really not think people were going to fact check the living crap out of a debate on the most watched podcast in the world?
The internet remains undefeated.
@@CornPopWazABadDude exactly
@@CornPopWazABadDudehow about looking at the archaeological facts and not interpersonal drama? I know you won’t engage with the facts because they undermine your beliefs so instead you focus on immature drama. It’s easier to call flint out for a tweet than it is to engage with reality.
Seriously the only fact checking you care about is what Flint said, not the archaeological facts. Embarrassing.
@@seanbeadles7421 I have. One example, this dufus tried to claim the perfectly round holes in granite made thousands of years ago were done with sand and water 😂😂😂..
I've been tweeting him asking for a live demo of that being done and he actually ended up deleting the tweet with the clip of him saying it on Rogan LMFAO.
Don't have time to sit here and go through them all, but that's a good one to start with
.. there's so many absurd things he's tried to claim as a way to shoot down Graham's theories.
Great discussion. I know nothing about archeology, but the JRE debate sparked my interest.
If you allow me a suggestion: it is very topical to go into the conspiracy corner the past few years and throw out the baby with the bathwater, when it comes to science, as the corruption in other fields of science is rampant. I will not point at which field(s) in particular, but we all know which field in particular, which is cooperating with the commercial market.
As a result, other fields of science are under heavy scrutiny, unjustly. My advice would be to avoid talking about "The Science", as it is increasingly having a very negative connotation.
The paradox is of course that we HAVE to talk about science in order to do science. But the public perception is that science=scientists=scientific institutions=governmental institutions=corruption.
Therefore it would be more helpful towards the general public to NOT equal archeology with "science", but to say that it is a scientific field with its own VERIFIABLE ruleset. And therein lies a strong argument: most other fields do not have tangible proof, only assumptions and theoretical experimentation. I think that if the legitimacy of archeology as a science is the goal, it would be more helpful to talk about the scientific method that archeology is using, based on evidence, highlighting that there is NO commercial interest in it. Therefore the odds of corruption are much lower. After all, you are not selling products, especially not ones that everyone "needs", definitely not any that can be forced on us..
I think that one of the strongest talking points of Hancock in branding Archeology as this big bad menace, is that even archeologists are trying to reason by claiming that "science" proves something. Instead of using the name, the more the method is used with specifics, the less people consider the SAA "just another corrupt institution".
I appreciate that anyone working from within these circles would be deeply insulted by the slightest accusations, but unfortunately it is not sufficient to be good: one needs to LOOK good, too. And Hancock's press is far superior in that field, by sheer mass. Not by logic, but then, logic alone does not win arguments in today's world, where the recepients of information are unable to apply said logical rules, for lack of education in logic.
No matter what one builds, the chance that it aligns to celestial objects has a pretty good chance. Like in Chicago there is a road that I believe in the equinoxes and lines up with the rising or setting sun… I think it’s called Chicago henge… lol… but it wasn’t intended as any sort of mythic purpose other than they wanted a road to run that way…
Sometimes it’s a by product of other intentions…
Pull your head out of your hole, that is an absolute nonsense statement
BBC Horizon Atlantis Reborn Again covered Hancock's theories back in the 1990s and covered this really well, with landmarks in New York mirroring a constellation. It also challenged some of the exact alignments that Hancock wanted to portray. Hancock just countered saying the builders weren't bureaucrats so were interested in symbolism rather than being exact.
It’s Flint Dibble’s world and we’re just living in it
It’s mad how many people just bent over and lapped what ever dribbled out of flint. You should probably fact check before you make a muppet out of yourself. Dribble lied about the ice core data failing to mention lead spikes going back tens of thousands of years. He lied about the glyph in the pyramid. He failed to mention that current flows and constant water changes would have made in next to impossible for any ships to preserve during the ice age. They say humans have used boats for 100,000 years but the oldest boat found is 9000 years old yet academics tell us they go back 100,000 years have a wee look into why. Ohh and don’t forget to look up the amount of crops that went extinct during the ice age and the evidence we have for plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be redomesticated. Or you could just bent over for you next dribble
Pretty sure flint has been proven to have been talking bollocks, and lying and/or manipulating in this debate 😂
God, you're dense
losts of talk no point
The true intellectual understands their limitations of their scope… it’s so important… no one can know everything and generalists sacrifice a lot of detail understandings
It appears flint doesn’t know anything as he told lie after lie throughout
It appears auld flinty doesn’t know anything given all he done was lie
Flint did a fantastic job, I really liked his presentations
It’s mad how many people just bent over and lapped what ever dribbled out of flint. You should probably fact check before you make a muppet out of yourself. Dribble lied about the ice core data failing to mention lead spikes going back tens of thousands of years. He lied about the glyph in the pyramid. He failed to mention that current flows and constant water changes would have made in next to impossible for any ships to preserve during the ice age. They say humans have used boats for 100,000 years but the oldest boat found is 9000 years old yet academics tell us they go back 100,000 years have a wee look into why. Ohh and don’t forget to look up the amount of crops that went extinct during the ice age and the evidence we have for plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be redomesticated. Or you could just bent over for you next dribble
Right off the bat this starts with a lie. If Graham was so obviously wrong, you would have to misrepresent his claims.
To be honest, as much as I like Graham and enjoyed listening to his ideas in the beginning... He really hasn't presented any evidence and isn't even qualified in any of the fields he speaks about... He needs to grow thicker skin... Everytime he goes on Rogan, he attacks the other sides character I wouldn't want to debate him either to be truthful...
he never claims to have evidence to be fair to him (Hancock) he clearly states it is a hypothesis.
@@juliandeacon3394 By all definitions to form a hypothesis means you literally present evidence for that hypothesis...
I adore Hancock, I've been following him for years. I love both Bauval and Carlston. But I never, ever took them as solid science. It is a genre, an exciting genre that stimulates the attention and intrigues the imagination. Besides, Hancock is right about some things like the case of Clovis 1st
He's right at Clovis 1sr, but what he neglects to say, is that it was archaeologists themselves who corrected the issue. Hancock had absolutely nothing to do with it. The debate on Clovis owes nothing to Hancock. You take him out of the picture and the situation is the same. Furthermore there were issues with the first sites and that is why there was discussion. Some of the Clovis 1st supporters, not all, were basically jerks and held back the issue for some time, but some of their points were at the time valid. Many of the radiocarbon dates of the first sites were problematic.
He wasnt right on his own all he ever did was take reports other people have made and claim he was somehow part of the research
My own archaeology instructor helped debunk Clovist first. Graham Hancock didn't have anything to do with it. He could correctly cite that the world revolves around the sun, but that doesn't mean that it was at all up for debate by the time he showed up.
@@nicholastaylor8613 - Very cool about your archeology instructor. Learn as much as you can!
@@batandy23 But that is his mission. He publishes things, but also creates his own theories and conclusions. There are also objections to academic jealousy and egoism. This is not an unknown phenomenon in the academic world
Flint you would really get your point across better if you were so arrogant about it. You laughing at someone during a debate is straight up disrespectful. Graham at least has some class. And it’s funny when you’re confronted with your quotes calling him racist you try to act like you didn’t do it. Honestly dude you’re clearly smart and an expert in your field but your delivery needs a lot of work
1. Anyone would laugh at someone making childish, ignorant statements. Imagine talking to a flat earther and they’re drawing on the dumbest, most nonsensical information to present their theory. You would laugh.
2. You’ve bought into Hancocks mischaracterization of Dibble. Dibble was merely stating that the information Hancock was using to present his theories is extremely dated. He literally uses shit from the 17th century. He’s saying that the people of the time were often not in good faith when studying new cultures and often used racist ideologies to purport white supremacy. Which is true. I think even you would agree with that background. I encourage you to actually watch this video, he talks about this around 31-32 minutes in.
Ad hominem attacks from the off... please!
Ad hominem
Doo do doo doo doo
Ad hominem
Do doo do do
Ad hominem
Do do doo do do do do do do do doo do doo do do doot do.
Sorry to hear Dibble has turbo cancer. There sure are tons of people getting turbo cancer over the past three years. I wonder if more people weren’t so conditioned to fear what’s promoted as “misinformation” more people wouldn’t be getting safe and effective turbo cancer.
Lets face it they dont like him bc exactly from the beginning of hiw this video starts. He is not a academic. These people are so stuck up and think there so smart. How dare anyone but them figuer something out
Love Flint Dibble..."if you see what I mean" 😃
I’m mostly unfamiliar with Hancocks work. So I feel there is probably a lot of context I’m missing. But I honestly just feel like both of you talked past each other in a lot of the debate. Flint seemed to be refuting claims that Hancock wasn’t exactly making and Hancock seemed to be broad brushing archeology and dismissing rather interesting points flint was making. Ultimately I think them as just coming at the issue from different angles and I’m not quite sure why that is so contentious.
Archeology, as flint said, must operate from what is known. Fair enough. That’s needed. But flint acts like Hancock is the first person to ever ask questions and push for investigation on what’s unknown? Is that not the spark of good science? I think graham is fairly pointing to some pretty significant gaps and big questions in our understanding of the past and he’s pointing out a number of things in conventional explanations that don’t quite add up and I don’t know why that’s such a problem
Jumping from gaps to lost civilisation, with zero evidence, is not the spark of good science.
Then maybe you should be familiar with Hancock's work -(and archaeologists' criticisms of it, and Hancock's criticism of the criticisms) before commenting. It's generally understood that, in order to meaningfully contribute, you have to know what you're talking about rather than keep using words like "I feel" and "seemed".
@@leep1667 This is youtube, not a peer review publication. People are allowed to express their "feelings" and thoughts on this forum in whatever way they choose. If you don't "feel" my comment has any relevance than you are free to ignore it. I don't have time in my busy life to dedicate to reading up as much as I'd like on this subject because its not my job, but it still interests me so I pay as much attention to it as I can. In no way did I claim expertise in the field, I intentionally prefaced my comment with my lack of expertise because I was being transparent which is better than most people who comment. So instead of being a dick a bout it why don't you just ignore the comment and move along if it's not appealing to you? I don't have to be an expert in this field to have an opinion about the discussion I witnessed and how each of them talked past each other. That was clear to anyone skilled in the art of conversation or debate. There were numerous times that both of them failed to communicate effectively and I don't need to know anything about archeology or hancocks previous work to make a comment on that.
If you had a bit more background on Hancock you would see he isn’t doing as you say and just asking questions or proposing what if, which is fair enough.
Hancock goes round stating absolutely proven falsehoods with authority. He mis uses evidence or outright lies about all manner of things to make them fit his viewpoint or feelings.
I used to be a fan of his and was into his stuff on earlier JRE but then looked into it with proper archaeologists and realised he is just lying to everyone.
Have a look at the latest video about Hancock by World of Antiquity on RUclips and you will see what I mean. Also check some of the videos debunking Ancient Apocalypse
@@StuartDayGuitars - Ms/Mr @leep1667 is correct. Hancock is a pseudoscientist, trained as a journalist, not a scientist. For example, he believes that the citizens of Atlantis built Egyptian and Mayan pyramids and that they are far older (without evidence) than archeologists say.
-----
This civilization, of which "Atlantis" was part, spanned the globe and was "much more advanced than we are now". Hancock is trying to take away the legacy of indigenous peoples, Egyptians, Mayans, etc, by claiming they were too backward and inept to accomplish what they did.
-----
He also thinks that psychedelic drugs opens his mind to other worlds so he can know the truth about this "ancient, highly advanced, globe-spanning culture". This is all rancid baloney.
I thought Dr. Dibble did a great job. One thing I think he should have kept more in mind was the audience he was talking to. I don't know the average education level of Joe Rogans audience but I believe Dr. Dibble made an assumption without realizing it that the people he was speaking to understood statistics. I think he should have tried to explain statistics a bit, so that people understood that when he talks about how many millions of hunter gatherer artifacts they have found that the probability of a large scale civilization remaining unfound is really not possible. You could compare it to a poll for presidential election here in the United States. A presidential poll here taken with only 30 thousand people or so can accurately predict the outcome not just of the major candidates but can even pick up the support for candidates with really small levels of support in the low single digits. So even if this advanced civilization only existed over a few % of the earths surface our searches should have yielded some evidence.
You know what, in just 2 hours, you totally changed my mind from being all about Hancock to being Team Dibble! Your words inspired me to dig into things myself, and I reached my own conclusions super quickly. Thanks a bunch for that, Flint! It's funny how the alternative can seem more thrilling, but once you know the facts, it's just mind-blowing!
In other words, you've just admitted that you cannot think for yourself.
So... You're siding with the guy who denied his own quoted statements from an article he wrote, right to Joe and Graham's faces while they had the article pulled up on screen?
O... K....
10:20 - the fact you were suprised means you might be in a bit of an echo chamber...you admitted your own pop media illiteracy so it makes sense but I think engaging more with those outside groups would be good
God bless you flint, you did a great job. Keep going!
If telling lies is a good job then keep believing the lies.
The JR podcast was intriguing. While I initially valued Flint Dibble's expertise (the prebunking?), I find both of your attitudes towards Hancock to be disdainful. The aim of the debate was for the two factions to come together, yet it seems that both of you prefer to remain in your own echo chambers, labeling anyone outside of them as a pseudo-scientist. This perspective appears quite negative from an outsider's viewpoint. As an academic musician, I would never criticize AC/DC as a band simply because they fill stadiums, while classical music struggles to fill a theater. AC/DC are not pseudo-musicians, and the classical music industry must be failing in some aspect if it can't draw in larger crowds.
Regarding the topic of racism, since when does an American archaeologist have the authority to define racism on a global scale? There are regions in Africa that are racist towards each other, indicating intra-racism within separate black populations. How can you determine racism between two distinct black communities? I found Dibble more agreeable before this interview, and overall, the debate left me with a positive impression of him.
I wish the debate had focused solely on Egypt for four hours, because towards the end, Dibble claimed, "They used wooden levers" to lift enormous granite blocks, which is quite absurd.
The issue with language is it doesn't always display reality.
"The aim of the debate was for the two factions to come together" - the issue is that, rightfully, these 'two factions' are not equal. At all. Graham is not an archaeologist. He has never surveyed the ground. He repeats ideas from 19th Century authors and Plato.
As Flint made clear, there is no echo chamber. Archaeologists are incredibly underfunded, and it is seen in a lot of modern places as a 'non-worthy' science. In the UK, it is being defunded. There is no cabal here.
Comparing AC/DC to classical music is a complete misinterpretation of the situation and an awful analogy.
The more appropriate analogy for music is Yoko Ono and John Lennon.
"Regarding the topic of racism, since when does an American archaeologist have the authority to define racism on a global scale? There are regions in Africa that are racist towards each other, indicating intra-racism within separate black populations. How can you determine racism between two distinct black communities? I found Dibble more agreeable before this interview, and overall, the debate left me with a positive impression of him." I will try to dissect this, but it makes so little sense, I will struggle.
1. Being an American has no bearing on defining racist literature
2. The literature is clearly racist, specifically referencing Ignatius Donnelley - please read here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_L._Donnelly mylesdungan.com/2017/11/03/on-this-day-3-november-1831-birth-of-ignatius-donnelly/ www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/ignatius-donnelly-and-the-politics-of-atlantis
3.So all Flint did, was explain the fact that this work came from a different time, was unfounded, and has incredibly racist overtones.
4. Why are you referencing racist regions in Africa? What is this point?
"Dibble claimed, "They used wooden levers" to lift enormous granite blocks, which is quite absurd." - Dibble did not claim this. He posited the idea. After all, Graham is the one who asked 'How might they have done this?'. No one has the answers to this, let me be clear. So he merely suggested an idea. I find it interesting that 'levers' is absurd. But a race of super-intelligent white men teaching savages to make pyramids, or using sound to vibrate rocks, is less absurd.
@@garyc2630 As someone well-versed in music theory, I can assure you that Yoko Ono possesses the same level of musical knowledge as AC/DC. The band members play by ear and lack formal training. Despite this, I appreciate their music (there is somebody that likes weird stuff like Yoko Ono also, as a result, that was not my point), however, within the classical academic world, they are often ridiculed, similar to how Dibble dismisses so-called pseudo-scientists. This elitism may alienate those interested in archaeology.
Your analytical process feels like listening to Dibble repeat himself, and we're back at the echo chamber effect. The discussion about super-intelligent white men brings so much politics into the conversation that makes me throw up. The main point is, nobody knows how the pyramids were built. NOBODY. Therefore, why claim to have all the answers? Neither Dibble nor Hancock possess this knowledge. Everyone can only speculate, and each effort deserves respect.
Drawing a parallel with music, possessing knowledge doesn't entitle one to mock others. Musical talent lies dormant in many, waiting to be awakened. It's not a piece of paper that makes someone a musician; it's the awakening of that talent. A diploma doesn't make you a deity.
P.S Someone positing that wooden levers could lift 800 tons block a hundred meters into the air is far more absurd even than the Big Bang theory. I don't think the lost civilization theory involves super white men teaching savages. This is forcing politics in the matter, this is not trying to understand what the heck happened.
@@Faggianotti I'm surprised you decided to dedicate an entire paragraph on my Yoko Ono and John Lennon analogy... I am just a layman of music so I'm not sure what your point is there. If you honestly think AC/DC is similar to Yoko Ono then I'm not sure we'll ever agree on anything and you're being deliberately obtuse. Just my two cents.
How is this an echo chamber? I'm not an archaeologist, I'm not sure you know what this word means!
Okay, if you want to separate politics from the situation, that's fine. But you do know that Graham is the one who brought it up in the first place by referencing these sources, and referencing white skin? From Fingerprints of the gods: "who is described in multiple myths and traditions as being white skinned and bearded.”"
From Magicians of the gods: "“Like the legends of Kon-Tiki Viracocha [...], the South American civilizing hero, white-skinned and bearded like Quetzalcoatl and the Apkallu sages [...], who was said to have come to the Andes during a terrifying period, thousands of years in the past, "when the earth had been inundated by a great flood and plunged into darkness by the disappearance of the sun.""
"The main point is, nobody knows how the pyramids were built. NOBODY. Therefore, why claim to have all the answers? Neither Dibble nor Hancock possess this knowledge. Everyone can only speculate, and each effort deserves respect." - That's what I said. Nobody knows. You're just repeating me. Secondly, Hancock is actually claiming. That's the whole point of his civilisation. No. Not each effort deserves respect. Stating 'aliens did it' is just as valid as Hancocks claims. At least Dibble's ideas of levers, have been demonstrated historically as factually accurate as a way of lifting extremely heavy blocks, he even mentions it in his interview on Joe Rogan and it is a famous internet video! :ruclips.net/video/E5pZ7uR6v8c/видео.html
"Drawing a parallel with music, possessing knowledge doesn't entitle one to mock others. Musical talent lies dormant in many, waiting to be awakened. It's not a piece of paper that makes someone a musician; it's the awakening of that talent. A diploma doesn't make you a deity. " What? If you're actually an expert in music, and I'm not, why would you not mock me for pretending I know more about music than you do? Do you realise what you're typing? It's babble.
"P.S Someone positing that wooden levers could lift 800 tons block a hundred meters into the air is far more absurd even than the Big Bang theory. I don't think the lost civilization theory involves super white men teaching savages. This is forcing politics in the matter, this is not trying to understand what the heck happened." - This is called a strawman. Stay on subject. I know it's difficult. But stay with me here. I said lifting a block with levers is less absurd than claiming a historic atlantis-type civlisation, populated entirely by white men, predicted by plato and 19th century authors, who have left no traces, teaching savages to do it with sound. That's what I said.
"I don't think the lost civilization theory involves super white men teaching savages. " Please actually click my links, read the quotes from Graham's writing, or look into the subject of european influence on South American culture, and culture in general.
Why are you not addressing the clear ties to Ignatius Donnelley? It's obvious, he references him in his book! (Excerpt from Fingerprints of the gods)
pbs.twimg.com/media/FhdxUgMWYAAiygi?format=png&name=900x900
(Read the footnote - it's Ignatius Donnelley):
This book - about Atlantis, and his theory of Atlantis, is reference heavily in a lot of Graham's work, directly and indirectly:
Here are excerpts from Ignatius' book, he is obsessed with race, he is a product of his time in the late 19th century:
pbs.twimg.com/media/FhdysNiXEAARUQi?format=png&name=small
pbs.twimg.com/media/FhdysOdXEAMC5Da?format=png&name=small
pbs.twimg.com/media/FhdysN1XoAAgZN-?format=png&name=small
pbs.twimg.com/media/FhdysNHXgAIN5bR?format=png&name=small
P.s. this took me 10 minutes to find these excerpts, please do some fucking research.
@@garyc2630 I think my low-quality metaphor actually gets to the heart of the matter here. You seem to believe that I'd get upset if someone who knows nothing about music claims to know more than me, just because I'm an academic. But that wasn't even on my mind when I compared it to music. My point was that you can create amazing music even if you don't know much about music theory or technical skills. Now, my comparison with archaeology would be that you can make incredible discoveries even if you're not an academic. See the difference? All you guys seem to show is frustration that someone appears more knowledgeable than you, without the effort of going through the academic pedigree. I haven't even read one of Hancock's books, so I don't even know what you're talking about.
All I'm saying is that this racism stuff, which we still haven't figured out the meaning of in today's society, is meaningless when it comes to the importance of discovering what exactly happened 10.000 years ago.
You see, I'm Italian. more than a hundred years ago, Italians were called "dagos" in the States, which was kind of like the n-word for Italians at the time. Now, Italians are suddenly considered "white" just because they're part of Europe.
Furthermore, I'm from Southern Italy, and here we share a lot of DNA with North African roots and Greece, for obvious reasons. Not long ago, let's say even 60 years ago, I couldn't go to Milan (Northern Italy) to get an apartment because being from the South, I'd be considered "dirty," and they'd label us with the word "terrone," just so you know. But now, if I go to New York and say I'm from Italy, for some reason, I suddenly am a white privileged asshole by default. This goes to show that the global meaning of racism is very complex and yes, should be studied and prevented in today's society, but it shouldn't interfere with archaeological discoveries that could shape the very reason why we're on this planet.
@@Faggianotti Ok mate, I'm going to move on from this analogy because it isn't really the point, I committed one to two sentences to it as a semi-joke about how bad Yoko Ono is.
To be clear, you said this: "The discussion about super-intelligent white men brings so much politics into the conversation that makes me throw up. " I have just demonstrated that this was Graham's writing, from his books, and he referenced Ignatius Donnelley. You didn't address that. I posted the original source. I posted Graham's source. I even quoted 3 lines from 2 separate books.
Are you going to admit that Graham is the one that brought this into the conversation?
It is important because, what seems to me as obvious, is white writers from the 19th century and earlier saw monuments and structures built by non-white people and some of their first reactions was to go "no way they did this." this is then expanded on by writers like Ignatius Donnelley, and then this idea is bastardised further by the Nazis (their was an entire regiment dedicated to looking for the Aryan Atlantis). The idea that white people went around the globe 10,000 years ago and did it for them or showed them how to do it. I already linked direct sources to these writings.
Your point about Italians is a non-sequitur. We need to stay on topic here.
You have created an absolutely false narrative that the idea these ideas come from racist origins is 'stopping archaeology'. Let me be crystal clear again. What Graham does is not archaeology. It is postulation. He has stated that no archaeologist has ever found evidence of his civilisation - and he said this out loud on the podcast. I can link this timestamp to you if you need it.
I will remind you of your initial claims that I took issue with.
You insinuated these two 'factions' are equal - "The aim of the debate was for the two factions to come together". Considering Graham has found no evidence for his civilisation, this is not a fair analysis. The reality is this is more akin to a psychic and a therapist. You are asking them to come together as equals, as if both points are as valid, that is the fallacy. This is why we do not typically see moon landing deniers on the public forum debating astronauts.
Your second point was this: "Regarding the topic of racism, since when does an American archaeologist have the authority to define racism on a global scale?". I took grievance with the use of the word 'American', as if it means anything. I then took grievance with you not understanding that this is not archaeologists defining it, it is just literature-based evidence and historical-based evidence that points to the sources Graham uses as inherently racist by their diction and contemporality within an almost wholly racist world of the 19th century. I linked extensive evidence to Donnelley's writings, and Graham referencing a book 100 years before his own, and you seem to have ignored that this was in response to you saying the archaeologists were defining it.
There is absolutely nothing to gain in the academic world from how Graham conducts himself. There is zero difference between the way Graham postulates and someone who is convinced they have seen a UFO postulate. The only difference is is that Graham sounds intelligent due to his accent, age, and ability to public speak. He also does not back down and enjoys calling people out when they scorn him.
Graham aligns himself deliberately with archaeologists and geologists, such as Ali Akbar and Danny Hillman, who both already believe there were pyramids 20,000 years ago in Indonesia. Based on nothing but GPR which showed a volcano to be a volcano.
Graham has also doctored evidence within his own documentary, removing question marks from GPR posters. Made up lies within his show (stating archaeologists refuse to dig in places - that they didn't know things - Stefan Milo goes into detail on this).
It is clear to me that Graham is not a conman. That would be insane. He has written a plethora of books on the subject showing his conviction. I am more inclined to believe he has seriously duped himself and does not posses an academic mind. An academic mind must be able to look at the pyramids, wonder, and then state "We don't know yet". Graham's first thought is "I know the answer", that is both unscientific and manipulative.
I see absolutely no value in Graham's ideas. He has had the platform long enough. He is more famous than any archaeologist to ever exist. His moment should have been over long ago.
Graham Hancock did it out of hubris!
It’s mad how many people just bent over and lapped what ever dribbled out of flint. You should probably fact check before you make a muppet out of yourself. Dribble lied about the ice core data failing to mention lead spikes going back tens of thousands of years. He lied about the glyph in the pyramid. He failed to mention that current flows and constant water changes would have made in next to impossible for any ships to preserve during the ice age. They say humans have used boats for 100,000 years but the oldest boat found is 9000 years old yet academics tell us they go back 100,000 years have a wee look into why. Ohh and don’t forget to look up the amount of crops that went extinct during the ice age and the evidence we have for plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be redomesticated. Or you could just bent over for you next dribble
I found it frustrating watching Hancock and Rogan either conciously, or unconciously misinterpreting Flint's point regarding the racist origins of white bearded saviours etc.
Flint's point was clear i.e. not calling Hancock racist, rather saying some of the sources he uses have racist origins, and that this should be acknowledged, scrutinised and challenged; rather than being unquestioningly accepted because it fits Hancock's insane "theories".
All the people that build up the alternative theory of ancient history are unconvinced that a bunch of ancient peoples came together to build up the pyramids.
Do they not see the irony…
oh my days u spoke from my mind. This is the point im trying to get my head around.
People 4000 years ago couldnt have built something that alternitive history proponents belive was built 7000-12000 years ago by peolpe wtf.
why the need for an ancient globe spanning high tech civilisation that there is no evidence for.
even if elements of ancient egypt are older then the current concensus couldnt they just of been built by previous cultures on the same sites by people in those same areas. Why the need to have an atlantean style civilisation to surplant stone work and agriculture. couldnt these things have multiple independent origins. rather then looking for evidence that fits your ideas why not let the evidence lead the way to your conclusions. Im puzzeld as to why this is even such a big deal for people.
i just had a thought i would like to know what about gobekli tepli or ancient egypt people find impossible to think ancient people built and shaped them with the tools methods described by scolars and proffesionals in the field? as far as i can tell it boils down to "errrr i dont know how it was done there for" waffle
I’m starting to think they moved the stones in winter by wetting the ground and sliding them on top of the frozen soil, if the weather in that time was cold enough to permit this.
I like all of the alternative ideas of building structures in ancient times, but those ideas are better suited for fictional books and games.
Archaeology is in the golden age for discovery and the more it can be shared, the better for our understanding of the past.
@@garafanvou6586 Similar to the Sailing Stones of Death Valley moving on a layer of ice. This might also coincide with using Mammoths for traction.
If the temperature in those times permit, then maybe.
Although, putting actual sails on the pyramid stones to move them in an ancient assembly line is much more entertaining now.
who dressed Flint
Joe said it best. "Both could be right".
@Doug-xx3eh - How is that possible?
Seems to me Mr Dibble learned very little from Joe’s wise words at the end of that very long conversation - archaeology aside - Mr Dibble continues to insult Mr Hancock who has an obvious passion and a serious amount of knowledge gathered over his lifetime. At least Mr Hancock did not feel the need to express the same scorn of Mr Dibble’s work.
I was hoping Flint would be able to put up a good debate but Graham smashed him. It's crazy how close minded Flint is and blinded by calling himself an academic. It seems Flint just wants funding so he can keep his job rather than wanting to do more research.
Crazy take dude. Graham has nothing but myths and the hope that something is found in the Amazon, Sahara or underwater. No existing sites point toward advanced ice age people. Underwater sites like the bimini roads are almost certainly geologic and should be considered such until proven otherwise. Find the quarries for the bimini blocks for example. Geology is a super interesting subject on its own, and it's amazing what tectonic forces and millions of years of erosion can create.
An advanced ice age people would have left traces the same as other ancient people, like gold or bronze ornaments in graves, stone structures and pottery, rubbish dumps and ship wrecks etc. Nothing has been found.
Also, how did they advance beyond hunter gatherers without their superior technology and agriculture spreading to their hunter gatherer neighbours, like it did after the ice age.
Good ideas travel and are adopted pretty quickly by neighbouring populations. We know that there are many technological steps between hunter gatherers and advanced civilizations, so many that it would have taken thousands of years to develop just like it did in reality after the ice age. Much of that technology would have spread to other people, but none has been found. Yet hunter gatherer sites are found everywhere from that time, and they have strong evidence that no domesticated plants existed that far back.
All Graham has is a very detailed hypothesis with nothing real to back it up. Until someone finds actual evidence there is no reason to think his hypothesis is remotely accurate.
@@black_stream we are all entitled to our own opinions dude! Graham isn’t claiming to have evidence he’s just pointing out that archeologists’ evidence is not much at all. He’s encouraging research which I would think archeologists would be excited about. Graham is bringing millions of people in to be interested in human history. Instead all I hear is whining and declaring racism 😂
Lol, Graham didn't do a thing except whine about how real scientists don't accept his fantasies as truth and show pictures of his vacations.
I really think the fact that people dont understand what you were saying about racism shows more of our cultures ignorance about how racism works than anything else
People are beginning to understand that there is a new breed of neo-racists who can't see the racism in their own self while trying to point it out in everybody else.
0:26 How can you consider someone a friend and an acquaintance?
Great video, but you need microphones. It’s hard to listen to.
I commented at the beginning. I want to reiterate, great video/discussion.
The host especially just needs a microphone.
And get something nice with a high dynamic range. Audio is the most important part.
Nice echo chamber here.
Flint just denied everything and debated nothing.
Was he supposed to not deny things that are clearly bullshit?
@@chiznowtch Denial of something does not automatically prove it to be false.
@KrugerFS he forced your boy to admit that there is ZERO evidence to support his theory...despite the thousands upon thousands of excavations conducted and millions of artifacts found. ZERO evidence. He demonstrated all of this during the debate. In contrast, your boy Graham cried about getting his feelings hurt and showed pics of nifty looking rock formations in the water.
Graham has been so far backed into a corner at this point, his 'argument' is that the archeologists haven't looked everywhere yet. What a king joke. I mean it's a fun fantasy. So yeah, of course Flint denied those fantasies as being supported by evidence. Of course he did.
Grahams vacation pics.......
Shame you can’t all get on, for the quest of knowledge at the very least. Considering none of you have the actual undeniable truth.
The existence of Troy was "pseudo-history" until it was discovered -- and then the Kook crazy guy Schliemann became a brilliant archeologist. Çatalhöyük was "pseudo-history" dismissed as an aberration, some wandering culture must have done it, until more evidence was discovered and archaeologists were forced to admit it didn't fit current dogma and are now re-writing human history. The idea of a great Black Sea Deluge was also "pseudo-history" until a Ballard expedition discovered ancient shorelines, freshwater snail shells, drowned river valleys, tool-worked timbers 100m below sea level. My point is, that many advances in the knoweldge of human history were made by people who questioned orthodoxy and saw the pieces to a puzzle they wanted to solve. All Hancock is doing is questioning a flawed orthodoxy that hates to self-examine, he's pointing out puzzle pieces to a deeper human history than orthodoxy is comfortable with -- like the existence of ancient structures around the world with similarities in design and function, and asking does this mean anything? Are we to believe that in the 300,000+ year history of Homo Sapiens that no advanced culture arose, perhaps one with global trade or reach? You don't need UFOs and Pyramid Power to sail around the world spreading cultural influences. So why are people like Dibble so agitated about the idea when people in his field of study have been proven wrong time and time again about Human history and civilizations?
Came out in his favor???? Hahahahaha he's so full ..... Lol. Flint absolutely lost in every way
4:12 Hancock self-describes, or refers to himself as a journalist.
He tries to explain that he's interested in opening up the field to new ideas... not the normal path, of closing them down.
Whether Hancock is wrong or right... doesn't really matter. People were excited by the possibility of there being 'more stories to tell'.
That history is deeper and richer than the general consensus.
But more importantly, it's indicative of the cultural zeitgeist... that people distrust those firmly entrenched in their own righteous dogma.
Dogma, which is a typical masculine trait... to solve puzzles irrefutably. To not let the chaos of anxiety, enter their closed worldview.
To listen to righteously disgusted self-described 'experts' ...double down even further, is not a surprise.
Thing is, he's not even a journalist. He WAS a journalist back when he worked at the Economist, now he is a writer on speculative theories of human history. He may well be right, but, as the Rogan interview showed, he has no interest in approaching archaeology in the terms that archaeology actually operates...while at the same time demanding respect from archaeologists. Instead he brow beats them with factoids about the size of blocks and says things like "it seems to me that..." and "I am utterly convinced that..." and then cries victim when archaeologists (because he has only given them opinion and speculation and NO evidence) say his work is not archaeological.
Dibble came off as a bit of an arrogant jerk with his laughing at everything and the whole white supremacy smear stuff is a bad look I can't get past.
Edit: FFS He just doubled down on his denial in this interview too, this guy is dishonest. Period.
ok why so bitter towards Hancock? Straight out of the starting gate you both attacked him. If his ideas are insignificant then they will vanish over time . Most of his and your ideas are theories Albite some based on serious research , there then comes a gap that has to be filled with Educated Guesses . IMO anyone else's guess is as good as the next. If Hancock went and got a degree in archaeology somewhere, would that change the validity of his ideas or guesses.? His academic standing and your academic standing seem to be the issue here only. That is not a reason to dismiss ideas alien to your own. Academics do not own the sciences. Humanity does. When these arguments pop up as they always do isn't it possible somewhere in the middle lies the actual truth. maybe the dismissal by Both Hancock and academics of each other is purely egoic and if you worked together you would better reveal the past more accurately? We all make mistakes .To err is human after all and we all own the sciences.
Does Flint realise that his shit smells too.
Open your eyes
Somewhere in the middle of this video, Flint admits that you don't need to be a "qualified archeologist" to do some good research. Yet, he calls Graham a pseudo-archeologist. I believe that Graham would have read more papers and books than Flint has, definitely would have experienced more sites. Why does Archeology despise people who are not academics? Is that because they have not been endoctrinated? One big debate to come this year will be between Biden and a pseudo-politician. Many people don't have an issue with that. Julian Assange never achieved a formal diploma, I don't think he's been called a pseudo-engineer or a pseudo-Hacker.
Dibble meant proper research, i.e.
- Theory
- Generate hypothesis (from theory)
- Collect data using appropriate methodology
Report findings appropriately (e.g. to relevant experts within the field)
- Hypothesis is either shown to strengthen or weaken theory.
- Generate further hypothesis.......and so on.
Hancock does not engage in this process.
@@Lee-bv6ivWell said!!
Well done Flint. A very thorough and entertaining debate. You certainly dismantled his theories convincingly. I love that people are curious, especially archeologists! We need to follow the science and I hope Graham lays to bed his well-worn rhetoric that archeologists are dismissing and ignoring his theories that have no physical evidence! Well done Flint, wishing you the best in your medical treatment
You must have missed the part where flint told lie after lie about the data. Did you bother to fact check flint or did you just lap it up? If you bothered to look into what flint said you’d realise all he done was highlight how dogmatic archaeology really is. The lies the man told was a joke
Flint dibble is full of you know what.... This is the argument Oh Flint you have proof ok let's see it... Blah blah blah repeats the same bull verbatim when done he's asked..."Where did you get that information from?" .... He answers...." I don't know man, i read it"..... Hahahahaha
Is it true that archeologist work for grant money?
Grant funding goes to research, not into the archaeologists pocket. For instance, you might have $30,000 to do a dig. One single radiocarbon date test typically costs $500, US. If you spent all your money, that's 60 things you could test the age on. Not a lot. What if you wanted to test a whole series of objects through time? Typically, grant funding is just enough to answer the question you want, and no more. Keep in mind it's also feeding a dozen students for 6 weeks in God only knows what conditions, transport, equipment, and so on.
Archaeologists who work for the government get paid set salaries. Archaeologists who work "for hire" get paid either by the dig or by the hour. Archaeologists who work for academia get paid salaries as well. Academic and government based archaeologists both have to fight for funding, and justify that by writing reports.
Typically they go out and dig, report on thier findings, and then if they indicate that there might be more out there to find, ask for more. If they get it, then they can go out and do it again. Rise and repeat. Digs are usually in the summer, reports in the winter.
Source: I'm an undergraduate archaeology student. Someone correct me if I left anything out or misrepresented anything.
Archaeologists are notoriously underpaid. Graham Hancock is far more wealthy than any archaeologist who has ever lived.
@hoffmanfiles - Grant writing itself is an art that most people don't have. Grantors want to see certain goals and phrases outlined. In life, my friend, who had the skill set and experience, wrote grants for people who could not write grants themselves. Sometimes, she even got paid for her hard work, but she didn't charge the poor church-mice archeology programs for her help. She had a good record of success, too.
6 million?
Socialism keeled welsh education
The nazi points he makes is a little absurd
Bloody disrespectful to anyone involved, turned off after hearing pseudo, come on people why we still doing this.
That dibble Dude did Not "debunk" Hancock at all.
Hancock has done more for archeology than this filthy dibble Dude can Imagine.
It's "pseudo" because it is not real. That's what pseudo means - Hancock presents no actual evidence, and he cherry picks other people's evidence to suit his own narrative whilst ignoring any evidence that goes against his narrative. He has never published any peer reviewed theories and calls himself a journalist whilst actually proposing outlandish and fantastic theories that people take as real facts that are being "suppressed by mainstream academia' - all those factors make him a definite "pseudo-scientist" without any doubt. 😎
@tomtomlinson1045 - Because it's a truth that you don't seem to want to face.
I have watched most of Hancocks videos. And he got me more interested in history and inspired me to travel to Egypt , which is a good thing. My daughter is an archeologist so she rolled her eyes at me 😂 I have a brain and enjoy listening to both sides. I thought Hancock was disappointing on JR spending most of his time defending himself. At the end of the day most of it is just theory’s. we weren’t there so we don’t no most of ancient ways. I never understood why we bring colour into this.
i guess you have already heard it from your daughter but many things are not theory. It is not a theory that what Hancock says has no evidence on the issue of a lost civilization. A theory is not any claim without any supporting evidence. A theory needs some evidence, but perhaps is still missing in some issues. For instance, it is a fact that the Gobleki Tepe is prior to agriculture, as far as we know. It is a theory that this is a ritual and temple complex. We are not exactly sure how they built it, but we have theories on how this could be done. In archaeology many issues are like this. But this does not allow us to say Gobleki Tepe was built by aliens. Hancock is basically saying something that is similar to aliens in the quality of evidence.
@@pablokaufervinent8012 🙄
@@jennywilloughby3236 :/
To my mind, Flint pulled off the most impressive debunk in youtube history! Over 4 hours on Rogan with a lifelong purveyor of Brandolinis law faced across you... That's like an Herculean task.
This was like the Ultra-marathon of debunking. 4 plus hours of beating back bullshit! I can't imagine how much work went into preparing for this. Unbelievable effort!
It was an awesome Rogan episode. I still see how Graham AND mainstream archeologists can be right.
Absolutely no one can explain how and why these ancient monuments exist or where we come from.
And in my opinion when your debate resorts to personal attacks and insults you've already lost.
When someone writes a history of some figure we talk about it without examining the authors degrees so if you have someone like graham writng on his interest why call him pseudo surely if you think it's important then use the fair appellation amateur! After all many of the discoveries in many fields have been by those who didn't finish relevant degrees even if they existed. 🤡
Flint was was projecting. This was good for flint and hancock. Trust me us in the alt archaeology preferred a much more seasoned archaelogist. I used to call him Dr. But he is very unprofessional thumbs down. Gh is an author and you put him in peer level. Leave the guy alone
His response "I was about to come to that" to flin mentioning the graphic pottery art had me dying
There's an old saying in archiology. When in doubt ask a sociologist
Can you please link Flint's website? He referred to it, I don't see it in the transcripts.
nvm found it: "Archaeology with Flint Dibble"
sigh, bebate with a fantasy conspiracy writer against an expert , what are we doin?
Dude is drowning in all the attention and ego from his echo chamber. Daddy’s boy
Hancock had a father? Bet his mother doesn't know who he was.
@@peterg9729 sorry about your dad mate. What he did to you was just a dibble I’m sure you will cope
For what it’s worth I thought you did an exceptional job in very challenging circumstances! Also thought the outfit was smart and appropriate for the setting - 10/10
These are interesting comments. Yonaguni is in my opinion man-interfered, where Flint puts forth there is no clear evidence. There are channels that span dozens of feet and are almost perfectly straight, this is not the work of the ocean. Any good search should help steer you in one direction or the other, but it would be more fascinating if it is entirely natures luck.
I think if Flint actually did some research instead of doing goofy content creator video's his lies would pull half truths at least lmao
Just sad at this point.