If you liked this video, you might also like: When Fake Archaeology Uses Fake Science ruclips.net/video/j0OMxE_D1pE/видео.html The Age of the Sphinx ruclips.net/video/DaJWEjimeDM/видео.html Who Made the Pyramids? Giza Uncovered ruclips.net/video/PHQkREcbcOE/видео.html
I fell down the Hancock rabbit hole a long time ago. After many interviews I found that all he does is ask open ended questions followed by accusations that are unfounded. He always plays the victim that is being targeted by a group of rogue archaeologists. I like facts and that's not what you're gonna hear if you listen to him or read his books. My opinion.
So all the damage found on these ancient sites are faked, younger dryas also? Either you people are actively trying to hide the truth or just refuse to accept the real fact and evidence left behind. Crazy that people like you actually exists even tho there's tons of available data. You study people and cultures not rocks or physics, stay in your lane you old quackademic.
already watched and shared your "When Fake Archeology Uses Fake Science" Today video is another amazing tool for enhancing the critical thinking skills across the fellow humans. THANK you!
Yep, hes had evolution-deniers and flat-earthers on and didn't seem to push back at the lies a single bit, so it kinda seems like he believed them. 😬😵💫
@@MaryAnnNytowlyou do know that evolution is still a theory? Neither evolution or creation have been proven to be true, they are both theories. So you can’t say that a person that doesn’t agree with either is lying.
@@randylahey1822if by “years of shit from Flint’s peers” you mean years of having actual archaeologists present scientific evidence that make his claims laughably obvious as sensationalist mumbo jumbo, I’d be inclined to agree. There’s plenty of evidence against Graham, both within academia and readily available on RUclips, but I guess all it takes is a smug, well put together old man with a posh accent to convince anyone of anything lol
@randylahey1822 hancock isa dishonest manipulative hypocritical grifter, not some hero fighting for truth, don't defend him, his Atlantis fantasy is absurd to any person with a basic knowledge and understanding of history
I particularly enjoyed GH praising himself and his wife for "discovering" the Mahalbalipuram sites. I live there. Its a UNESCO site, the Indian Archeology Authorities are based there, have been for decades. The majority of the site is on land (Arjunas Penance, Ratha's etc), with a portion now underwater and clearly visible.. EVERYONE knew it was there and there's no mystery. Its a popular tourist location. GH completely misrepresented the site AND claimed to have discovered it personally, Bravo, seriously, that's next level!
Yes he does this with everything! He talks about Gobekli tepe the same way, as if he alone discovered it to prove archeologists useless and wrong. He keeps saying “we.” “We discovered it. We uncovered the lost city. We revealed it.” Who is he talking about? Him and his wife? lol
Reminds me of the time I discovered a giant yellow ball that keeps appearing in the sky every day. It's clearly always been there. Figures that only I would be brilliant enough to notice it. I call it "the sky bright". I believe it to be the source of our planet's heat and that it was put here by ancient dwarven architects. If only they hadn't vanished mysteriously without leaving any physical trace save for my personal gut feeling. If only we could ask them why they built the sky bright. Alas we haven't the luck. No fear though, for I am here and you are all in luck for I shall be the conduit through which the world's truths shall be revealed. Drink upon the secrets of mother earth, for my cup runeth over.
Discovered by Graham Hancock, and located on the beautiful East Coast Road in the state of Tamil Nadu, Mahabalipuram is one of the most stunning destinations to go to during the winter season from October to March. Summers are extremely harsh, and it becomes extremely difficult to go around as well. - UNESCO 😂
At a conference of the World Archaeology Society in 2008, a scientist from Russia presented evidence of very early copper filament and claimed that early Russians must have had telephony in prehistorisch times. Next there was presentation of an American scientist who had found long bits of glass who claimed the earliest Americans already had developed optical wire technology. Finally, a Belgian archaeologist presented. His team had found no copper or glass at all. Therefore he concluded that prehistoric Belgians skipped telephony and optical cable because they invented wireless technology.
I bought into all the ancient civilization stuff until I found this channel a few years ago. Then realized, I’m too old to believe something is true because I’d like it to be true
You just dont understand how the mind works. We create reality... Eventually, we will create these achient aliens at this point. Just like we believe the twin towers was done by terrorists.
Yh I went down the rabbit hole for a while, I knew very little of archaeology, but then you start to read up on stuff and you soon realise this guy has been pedalling this nonsense for years and become wealthy from it 🤔
More specifically, he is happy to act oppressed by the 'authority' of an 'ideological establishment', and then offers his own narratives and explanations as 'revolutionary' and 'objective' antidotes, when really such a narrative of martyrdom is to promote his own grift, and that the expertise and competence of a field is a threat to his own aim of subordinating and centralizing public influence to himself, at the expense of the populace's understanding of reality and much to the exasperation of genuine experts, for the sole purpose of his ego - this is most often why he conflates authority and expertise, because he cannot for the life of him acknowledge experts are more likely more competent than him, or else that would damage the claim to legitimacy he often asserts on topics of which he himself has little to no credibility to speak to, and therefore MUST dismiss expertise that delegitimizes his grift and powergrab as authoritarian - overall he is a rabble-rouser.
That's the thing that turned me off Hancock. When he was introduced on Joe Rogan I was at first interested because his idea about that lost civilization sounded awesome and I wanted to hear more about it. But instead, Hancock barely talked about it and went on and on instead about how mainstream archaeology was being mean to him. He seemed mostly interested in talking about himself, not his ideas.
All these people who criticize Hancock's ideas like to say things like "I have no problem with him personally, he seems like a nice guy..." I think these folks are being extremely charitable to avoid validating Hancocks martyr syndrome. I strongly suspect they find him at least as insufferable as I do.
Imagine if Graham Hancock just accurately portrayed himself as a fiction author who did a ton of research on ancient sites and civilizations in order to craft realistic FICTIONAL historic narratives. That would be really cool and interesting.
@@hyoomanmaol There is nothing wrong with trying to push new ideas. The problem comes in when you are dismissed because you have no evidence but proclaim that you are a victim of intellectual dishonesty. In the Dibble/Hancock Rogan episode Graham flat out admits there is no evidence whatsoever for his claims. Then he tries to point to another person who was made a villain by the archaeological community but was later proven right. I think the point that he passes over there, which Flint tries to point out, is that he was later accepted by the archaeological community and minds changed because he presented compelling evidence. Graham thinks he is in the same boat as that person, but ignores the end of the story. In the end he was accepted because of his evidence, while Graham will stay rejected because of his lack of evidence. And as Flint points out, Graham's claims not only lack evidence, but the evidence actively points to his claims being wrong. There is tons of evidence AGAINST his claims, making his burden of proof much higher than "Don't these rocks look kinda weird?" But he just doesn't get that
@@fisharepeopletoo9653Graham just did a fact check of Flint Dibble claims related to shipwrecks and deposits of metal in icecores at the time of ice age, in the podcast. Flint was intellectually dishonest.
“We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.” ― Carl Sagan
Exactly. Academic researchers "speculate" all the time. The difference of course is that when they do it is done based upon = known facts....... Conversely proponents of pseudoscience - which coincidentally Sagan spent the last decades of his life combatting - also routinely speculate. In their case however what is posited as supposedly plausible represents assumptions based upon = unknowns. Moral: the former can give you plausible deductions supported by evidence - evidence others can review and agree upon. The latter comes to represent = _"whimsy"._ Pseudoscience at its' core is stereotypical "arguing from ignorance" supported by assumptions/inferences/innuendo and in some cases cherry-picked facts usually taken out of context and thus incorrectly applied. It represents a subjective paradigm of assumptions so as to support more assumptions - at which point Occam's kicks in. LAHT = _"sophistry."_
I think it was either you or Stephen Milo who said "One question I would love someone to ask Graham is, what would it take to falsify your hypothesis?" Graham goes on and on about how the lack of expeditions / coverage gives his claim credence. But I don't think he has ever once stated what it would take for him to admit he was wrong.
Implicitly therefore his answer is, as long as you haven't excavated every square centimetre of the planet, there's still room for his claims. In other words, you can't prove the existence of Narnia wrong as long you haven't checked each and every cupboard in the world.
A piece of evidence that humans didn't build stuff 250kya. A piece of evidence that aliens have never been here inspite of 100's of millions years of potential times.
He indicated that if archaeological stepping stones between the Upper Palaeolithic and Gobleki Tepe could be found, it would make his fantasy of an earlier advanced civilization unnecessary. The Natufians, anyone?
@@gregorynixonAUTHOR there is no reason to believe dozens of advanced civilizations could not have existed, whether aliens or not. aliens have had at least 50 million years to work with, and modern humans as much as 500k years. No one has a clue
First time i saw Hancock on Joe Rogan i was fascinated. I was like "why am i hearing this only now?". I was fascinated by the concept of an ancient civilization that nobody knew it existed and was far more advanced than the ones that came after. But then, at the second podcast, Hancock started to talk about how the pyramids were built with sound tools that levitated the rocks, and i was devastated. Right there i realized that i had been duped by a crackpot and started to recognize all the dubious rethoric and falsehoods. If you want to read an interesting book about this same subject go read Nightfall from Asimov. At least is properly marked as science fiction.
Hancock doesnt state that this is really something that he believed happened. He just raises the possibility. Seems pretty unlikely to me, to say the least though.
I initially thought there may be something to it all when Hancock's books were first published till, I thought to myself "why didn't this advanced, globally reaching civilisation have writing?" There would of been examples of the same writing in different parts of the world but that doesn't exist. By now we would of found at least some graffiti that was the same, also unknown all over the world but it doesn't. Hancock makes for a good history mystery fiction writer though.
So anyone who even suggests the fact that alternate theories are plausible and would explain more than what people are usually inclined to postulate... Or simply expose the systemic biases of mainstream thoughts and stubborn/conflicted interest teachings, should be immediately ignored, ad hominem & randomly labeled, censored ect just because you're resistant to widening your narrow inherently ignorant perspective? Not a psuedosmart, nor intellectually honest line of thinking (more like lack) by any stretch of the imagination. By doing this you lend further evidence to the very points that are made even more so than the criticism against said big archaeology.
@@scipio8866Sure, but lack of knowledge and awareness can make many things seem magical due to the difficulty in imagining possibilities with the inherent biases we start off with.
Something I think people are really underestimating is how hard "do you own research" is. We hear it ALL the time now, but there isn't an appreciation for what that really entails, and for how unreasonable it is for most people to devote the time and effort to actually doing it. I am five years into my Ph.D. and the main skill we learn is literally HOW to be a good and effective researcher. This isn't a simple task, it is a hard learned skill that most people aren't fully prepared to do (and to be clear, this also applies to people who are experts within a given field. Doing research in one field does not mean you can effectively research another field without first putting in significant effort.). I have really turned against this idea of "do you own research" because it is conveying the wrong idea, or at the very least it is being peddled or taken the wrong way. Doing your own research (as a layman) generally should be taken as reading literature (or well produced summaries that provide proper citations, etc) from actual experts within a field. Try to understand what evidence they have and how it supports their conclusions, conclusions that have support from many different people, and evidence from many different sources (note, this will generally excludes proposed paradigm shifts, as you need a very strong knowledge of the history of a field to really understand if they hold up to scrutiny). Really, this is built upon some level of trust in the field. It is generally not about trying to make your own hypotheses or conclusions, or trying to gather your own evidence or interpret data. Those tasks require some level of knowledge which most people don't have the time to attain to understand a singular subject, never mind a wide variety of subjects (which we are constantly being told to do our own research on!). To me, it shouldn't be "do you own research". It should be "learn about this subject" (and that is still a very difficult task, which is why science communication is so incredibly important, as is simply building trust with people!). So much misinformation is being spread by people "doing their own research", as if saying they did "research" puts them on the same level as experts. You don't need a Ph.D. to be a researcher, but you do have to dedicate a huge amount of time to learning about your field (which often have very long histories), understanding existing techniques and research, and building hypotheses and evidence to support a reasonable narrative that holds up to scrutiny. Hancock has not effectively done this, and that is why experts give push back. Misinformation is dangerous on many different levels, the biggest of which is the rising distrust of experts, whether such distrust is warranted or not!
People who have never been exposed to higher education - college level instruction - are the main culprits for pseudo-research and hence Dunning-Kruger. They foolishly assume college is merely sitting in class being told what to think. 🤦Yet as you alluded to college is actually all about = learning how to educate yourself via researching material required for your classes...... Moral: once upon a time when I first started upon my degree the instructors came into the auditorium and told us = _" you are already 20 chapters behind......... = but that's okay because the seniors are 40 chapters behind."_ Thus while we learned things in classes it was mostly reading.........researching.........writing papers etc.......more reading........more researching..... Thus when you graduated you understood as you say = how to properly find information -----> how to organize and present it in an intelligent manner + so that no matter the question going forward you had the tools to find it out and sift through the bullsh*t.
'I have really turned against this idea of "do you own research" because it is conveying the wrong idea, or at the very least it is being peddled or taken the wrong way. Doing your own research (as a layman) generally should be taken as reading literature (or well produced summaries that provide proper citations, etc) from actual experts within a field. Try to understand what evidence they have and how it supports their conclusions, conclusions that have support from many different people, and evidence from many different sources' That is exactly what people do though. The issue, for a lot of cases, is not all experts agree on a conclusion. On many conclusions, on the 'core' of a field, there is consensus a lot of time, but there's a lot of disagreement outside it. To ANY academic this should be obvious, given they see these daily... These disagreements are even more common in topics where there just isn't enough data to draw a definite conclusion, like who moved and placed the Trilithon stones. Any statement lies on a wide spectrum of certainty, math is one extreme (absolute certainty in many ways), and the level of certainty degrades from there. Archeology is waaaay down that spectrum of 'certainty', so an argument from authority, say on what existed 9000 years ago, is not convincing at all.
I love how pseudoarcheologists think we can find tiny flint tools made 20,000 years ago in relatively good condition, but completely hand-wave away the lack of any hypothetical supermaterials and tools that would have supposedly been used to build every single massive monument on Earth.
Are you aware that flint is a type of rock? Lmao. It doesn't rust or decompose. If you leave flint in a cave for 5000 years it's still gonna be relatively the same as when you left it. You really think this is hard to believe compared to "hypothetical supermaterials"? Like what, alien laser-rocks or some other nonsense? If you think supermaterials are real, then show evidence of them. Show me a glowing green rock that's harder than diamond discovered buried under the pyramids. Oh wait, there's no such thing, which is why archaeologists ignore you.
@@Theboxingobserver To my understanding, we have not identified any tools dating back 1.2 million years. It's not out of the realm of possibility that some species were using simple tools, but if they did, we haven't identified anything intentionally made and used for a specific purpose that old.
Theboxingobserver Lol 20kyrs ago sounds far fetched, 1.2mil is just pathetic if we existed as long as we had and technology not to have advanced any or to say homosapiens sapiens [our type] existed that long...the longevity is just sad & disappointing not inspiring or intriguing.
One of the most embarrassing moments of Hancock on Joe Rogan's podcast was an episode where he came on and said I think there is an advanced lost civilization in the Amazon! Cut to a few years later he is back, and Joe and Graham are very smug as they bring up an article about a research group finding a lost civilization in the amazon. He puffs up his chest and acts all proud, says mainstream archeologists didnt listen to me and i was right! Then I go and click on the article and it says a group of researchers who have been Living in the Amazon for the last 5 years have found evidence of a never before discovered civilization. Yes you guessed it, the first time graham was on being a blowhard about how he thinks there is a civilization but nobody believes him the grad students and the archaeologists from that college were being bit by mosquitoes and walking through swamps actually doing the work. Yes graham while you write abojt a tall group of 7 foot tall blondes you call the Nordics teaching the dumb brown people, actual study was being done.
i watched Dr Brian Greene interview Dr Lee Berger about his work at Rising Star cave and it was utterly mind blowing because tangible evidence being analyzed by experts in various disciplines is so much cooler than any unsubstantiated storytelling by a huckster like Hancock.
While it’s an absolutely awe-inspiring find, Berger has been criticised a lot in recent years by the paleontological community for overselling some of his claims. If you have time I’d highly recommend watching any of the following videos on RUclips: - Flint Dibble’s “Homo Naledi Burial? A Public Peer Review of the Evidence” - Flint Dibble’s “The Homo naledi Controversy! With Jamie Hodgkins and George Leader” - Gutsick Gibbon’s “New Update on the Homo naledi Situation” - Gutsick Gibbon’s “A Deep Dive into the Scathing Homo naledi Peer Reviews” (this is my favourite)
I must confess to having followed the same route as Joe Rogan. I read Fingerprints of the Gods in the nineties and became convinced of the "ancient civilisation" thesis, and followed it avidly right up until the TV series. Fortunately the books sparked my interest in archaeology sufficiently that I had opened my mind to other facts and historical analysis, so when I watched the series I could actually see Graham for exactly what he was - a chancer. His opening gambit was to set a tone of distrust in "mainstream archaeology" and to portray himself as some sort of a victim of censorship, even though he was hosting a major global TV series to promote his work. I saw right through his bullshit. It's one thing reading a book, where you can become taken with the narrative - suspension of disbelief is what makes all fiction work on us, so if a book is presented as well researched fact then we can easily be duped as to its authenticity. Its far more difficult to pull that stunt off on a TV series, and in my view that was Hancock's big mistake. I'm now completely free from the spell that he cast over me with his books, and it's thanks to learning from scholars like yourself that I've been educated to follow the real science and research everything far more thoroughly. I really think it would be amazing if you challenged Hancock to a Joe Rogan duel - I don't think Flint Dibble did such a great job of being convincing enough - there was a lot of obfuscation and distraction going on. I've only watched the first few minutes of this latest presentation, but I look forward to absorbing it all later when I have the time. I may add my response after watching. Thanks for taking the time to share it with us.
Good comment. Just adding that you're over-confident in debate as a format. If you google "why you don't debate creationists" you'll get a lot of scientists answering questions about why they don't do debates like this. They have good reasons, & it might change your mind on the value of "show debates", or at least give you some reasons as to why many experts avoid those kinds of public confrontations.
My road to astronomy was much the same. I read that the Andromeda Galaxy was a million light-years away and wondered "how in creation could they say that with such authority and confidence?" So I took a college astronomy course. I learned about Henrietta Leavitt and Edwin Hubble. I saw the photographic plates they took and measured them myself. I used Henrietta Leavitt's period-luminosity relationship for Cepheid variable stars to determine the real luminosity of of Andromeda Galaxy stars on those plates and did the math to yield the distance myself on stars Hubble did not pick. My result? One million light years. But after Leavitt and Hubble in the 1930s and 1940s came the discovery that there are several kinds of Cepheid variable stars and that the brightness of the progenitor star, Polaris, is not the same as the other types. Then I found that Hubble had identified Cepheid variable stars all right, but they were one of the brighter variety. Knowing the real star was brighter than supposed in Leavitt's day meant that the calculations would have to be done over, resulting in the modern consensus that the Andromeda Galaxy is more on the order of 2.3 million light years away. I applied the new period luminosity relationship, changed the math I was using, and with a photographic plate Edwin Hubble himself took 90 years ago, personally verified the distance for myself. I no longer say "How in creation could these eggheads say this preposterous number?" Because now it's my number too. Lesson learned. It changed my life for the better. Evidence is king. It doesn't care what you think about it or whether you believe it. The truth is NOT within. It is without, waiting patiently to be discovered and that's positively thrilling.
Yes! Exactly what happened to me in regards of the Netflix show. The first 15 minutes threw me off so hard that it made me Google this snake oil seller. I never heard about him nor I wasn’t interested in archeology so after that it made me research and now I’m in love with ancient and pre history. I hate how he pretty much sets his conclusion since the beginning of each episode. Instead of building the episode slowly up to the conclusion he just tries to set an idea in your mind so that everything that he explains makes you go like “ ohhh just like what he said in the beginning, it’s so obvious it’s like that”. Of course conspiracy theorist absolutely love this type of approach.
Graham Hancock: "If I only were humble I'd be perfect" Hancock is talking of archaeology and history as these fields were more than 100 years ago, and then only of some scholars who had it in for each other. He is also trying to turn these fields into a soap opera, creating drama where there is no drama. As a former student of both fields I can say without a doubt that there is no conspiracy, no hiding of facts, only a yearning to understand what happened, but with tempering of minds before the evidence.
Dr Miano said he isn't out to attack Hancock, but he should because Hancock is so incredibly vicious and harmful. The harm he and his movement have done is incalculable.
@@cattymajiv As the first section of this video addresses, and as sad as it is, I think that having a good, welcoming attitude while disproving pseudoscience is almost if not more important than actually being right on the fact. It seems to me that most of the anti-academia folks like Hancock are popular precisely because they play to a wide sentiment among laypeople that academia is just a snobby ivory tower that not only looks down on others, but refuses criticism as well.
@@LoudWaffle which is foolish, at best. Archeologists publish their work for everyone to see. Museums are usually a cheap way of learning more about these subjects. I get what you’re trying to say, but that belief is just wrong.
Listening to Graham Hancock on Joe Rogan and listening to his other lectures got me more interested in ancient history. He made me question whether any of his ideas were true. Once I started learning more about actual archaeology, genetics, geology, etc... I began to understand that Hancock's ideas were mere fantasy, but again, I do give him credit for weaving an interesting narrative that got me more interested in ancient history.
Same here and I think that there’s a lot we don’t know about ancient civilisations but do I think that there’s a lost advanced global civilisation, probably not. But there’s definitely more than what archeologists says it’s clear, unchartedx is a very good channel for this
As someone with a passing interest in archaeology and anthropology, I remember watching one of his clips from JRE years ago and agreeing with his messaging. I was so dissappointed when I heard the rest of what he had to say.
Wonderfully assembled. I wish Graham's content could just be recognized as speculation for entertainment. I would happily watch that kind of content as long as it was clear about its intent to be entertaining speculation versus rigorous science and education.
Aka an appeal to ignorance while failing to abide by Hitchen's Razor. Hence it is not for academia to prove Hancock wrong as science does not prove a negative. It is of course for Hancock to demonstrate what he asserts in a manner where others can seek to validate that. His simply making claims of *ASSUMED* validity to decry others must then prove him wrong = is backwards....... - as the onus has always been upon him.
Exactly. It's like he comes up with this wild idea that while having some mushrooms and his girl giving him a jerk, a magical unicorn appeared. So your only evidence is his claims, and the only way to test it is to give the guy jerkoffs until it happens again.
The problem is no one has any evidence for any of thier points on either side. The industry wants someone to bring proof but fails to bring any proof he is wrong. Then when theu do present proof if you pause the videos at the pics and stuff the information they show doesn't even pertain to what the conversation is. Just like if you ask people to take ice cores as a job all say there is evidence of metallurgy in the ice age but any archeologist you ask will swear the opposite. Just like all the proof they show doesn't even date back to the time people think there was a civilization. It goes back like 2-3 thousand years not 10 thousand. We are stuck where either person doesn't wanna be wrong so they both tell tall tales and everyone is confused. In the end all it breeds is distrust for everyone and destroys everyones reputation and the respect anyone gives them.
@@GGA007Gamingso the decades of excavation research and findings of artifacts isn’t evidence? You know that writing has been around for thousands of years and most cultures said what happened.
You know the funny thing is that GH ain’t showing new evidence. His first book came out 30 years ago and it’s mostly stuff that was on Unsolved Mysteries in the 80’s. His stuff is incredibly out of date. And when someone publishes a correction, he says “Well, the original paper was right.”
Yep, three decades. If his ideas were at all correct, there should be museums filled with fossils and artifacts that have been recovered from this lost culture.
@@jaybe2908 I did the same in the late '90s. Having been through an ancient aliens phase with books like The 12th Planet, and Chariots of the Gods, and then having learned some critical thinking skills and scientific method, I viewed his book as fantasy with a side of poisoning the well against the supposed academic establishment. Once I got on line and realized how many are led astray by this old (I'm his age) fellow, I became fascinated at him as a phenomenon. Now I find his misrepresenting of the work that millions of good people (and a few assh+les) are engaged in to be tiresome at best, harmful at worst.
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
Got to laugh at the assertion of archaeologists' "friends in the media" from Hancock, whose own connections in the media definitely didn't help him secure a Netflix series.
Well reasoned and an excellent podcast. I was very surprised to hear that Hancock is neither an archeologist or historian he speaks as if he's an eminant authority,
It strikes me how much of a force for good these people would be if only they would use their outreach to encourage critical thinking... like you are! Thank you.
I spent 25 years as an archaeologist hiking in rugged remote areas finding hundreds of prehistoric sites on survey and excavating many in the dust and heat. Or what Hancock calls engaging in philosophy.
I don't believe what Hanncock says is true, we can't accept something without evidence. On the other hand, I'm aware that there is a lot more to uncover. In light of this, is there a reason to hate people for making a suggestion ? We should just be nice and ask them to prove it. We believed the earth is flat for tousands of years, some people still do and no one has a problem, why is there such a big problem if Hancock suggested a theory of lost civilization, even if it doesn't exist ?? I don't understand why is it so imbeded in human nature to try and be offensive to each other. People are strange, just try to do your job and leave others alone. If you don't like Hancock's theories you don't have to watch him and that's it. If all people on earth believed his false theories that's not the reason to attack him, that's people's fault. He wrote a few books are we supposed to hate anyone who writes something we don't like ?? When discussing these "theories" it's important to remember, what people believe is their business not yours. People believe all kinds of stuff and always will, we can't stop that, but we can leave them alone and we can all live in peace together. Using "non existent Ancient civilization" for his ticket to fame, and using "diminishing someones work", for drawing viewers to your channel. What's worse on moral ground ?? I must say it once more, people are strange.
1:09:30 "The Clovis people, that's what archaeologists call them, we don't know what they called themselves" this is so typical of him, he even repeats it twice. OBVIOUSLY we can't know what they called themselves, we use modern place names for sites all the time. But he doesn't let an opportunity pass to paint them as arrogant in the smallest ways he can find.
Okay but what about the point that the establishment clung onto Clovis First for so long and was wrong? The point is the archeological establishment has been wrong before and will be wrong again, and that this should be built into our reasoning about historical claims.
@@ESS284 History (and science in general) has been wrong countless times, and embraced it. That's the nature of science, it's constantly correcting and updating itself. The Clovis example you cite is a perfect example of the established history needing to be updated, and academia making the necessary updates. When faced with skepticism, a scientific mindset follows the evidence, not the most confident or scathing voice. The supposition "if the establishment" has been wrong before, couldn't they be wrong about this" is a manipulation tactic, and is very one-sided. Correlation does not equal causation, and history could be wrong about literally everything - the statement "your wife has lied before, couldn't she be lying now" is used specifically to plant seeds of doubt into a person's head, to draw a conclusion before evidence is found, therefor evidence is not needed. The reason academia feels confident about the current narrative is corroborating empirical data, it's the best story we have so far. The reason Hancock feels confident is because he and his friends believe strongly that they are correct (i.e. faith). I would ask you, which institution responds more favorably to scrutiny, the scientific community that is built on the principles of extensive peer-review and repeatable results... or the journalists who say "doesn't it look like it could be this, what if it was this" without substantiating evidence, who suddenly become victims when their ideas come under scrutiny? It also stands to say... in 30 years of making "educated hypotheses" about ancient history with little to no physical evidence to back it up, surely Graham Hancock has gotten *something* wrong. I mean, to err is human, right? It's highly improbably that he would have a perfect track record, that's just... extremely statistically unlikely. So... when has Hancock been wrong? When has Hancock revised any of his claims? Before you trust a source, and turn your back on replicable empirical evidence, make sure the source who is telling you to dismiss this data doesn't have a horse in the race... and is practicing what he preaches.
@@ESS284an idea that was considered the most likely for a long time is now no longer the idea that is considered the most likely That's what science does, eternally corrects itself. What Hancock does is never admitting he is wrong, always saying he is a martyr etc
@@ESS284 the point should be that it took evidence. It shows that our understanding does change with the weight of evidence... Something Hancock himself said he can't provide.
Dear Dr. Miano, since the #RealArchaeology Event this last weekend, I have been following a lot of the reactions to the Flint Dibble / Graham Hancock debate on Joe Rogan, and reading lots of the comments. I am getting ever more confused as to what, exactly, Hancock’s defenders are accusing Flint Dibble of lying about? I just can’t find the actual accusations. I hope that you would like to take the time to answer my question, as I think I might not be the only one who would like a real, reliable take on this! Thank you so much.
You can find their arguments here: ruclips.net/video/PEe72Nj-AW0/видео.htmlsi=gQr_grN3tJMMc52G And here is Dibble's response: ruclips.net/video/1e4uk3XlxHU/видео.htmlsi=R3h_rkDW98AunN_o
Fun fact; G.H. used to be a big proponent of the 'face' on Mars being an ancient monolith and that Mars used to harbor ancient civilizations. "The Mars Mystery: A Tale of the End of Two Worlds" (published in 1998). I wonder why he's awful silent on the subject now.
He doesn't want to talk about the mars mystery for the same reason he no longer brings up hapgoods earth crust displacement idea and Antarctica being host to atlanteans- it's so obviously absurd that even he would be embarrassed by it and he'd prefer we forget he ever mentioned it
This is why David and Flint etc are important to be available and public with better evidence and messaging than the graham types for normal people rather than ivory tower looking down on and speaking poorly of people like some here. Doing that doesn't reach people. In fact it is a disservice against the evidence. Ego both ways.
Just want to say that is has been you and mini minuteman that have actually moved me away from the Graham Hancock stories and helped me see the error of it. I own two of his books. He is a good writer that is true. But a good yarn is different from facts and evidence. Thank you for your continuing work in this area.
Damn, it is really refreshing to hear that. It's good to know that the work of people like Milo and Dr. Miano does have some power to change minds. I think it's great to have an open mind, challenge narratives, ask questions, and all that kind of stuff, but at the end of the day, we've got to adhere to the evidence and use that to inform our ideas and confirm (or refute) hypothesis. And of course, when new evidence comes along, we update!
I think it is surprising that Joe Rogan has been so fully taken in by GH approach to the past. I have engaged with Archaeology and Archaelogists for the last 35 years or so - they are like other people, interesting, gossips, egoists, caring, kind etc - they are people. I think that GH has been successful with his very clear narrative for the following reasons: 1. Its fun to think there are secrets and we like to hear and be on the “inside track” especially if simple narratives - to try and understand the actual evidence and actual FACTS which can be supported in complex sites with multiple periods of occupation is hard. 2. His narrative is counter cultural and engaging - its exciting to hear a story about lost ancient civilisations rather than the gradual climb climb slip of humanity 3. He is en engaging speaker, has learnt story tropes and uses them effectively - with a very simple to understand thesis with a few unusual words thrown in 4. He frames himself against the establishment and as we move to positions of distrust with establishment organisations (as we are) this is compelling to people who don’t reflect much 5. The stoner arguments - psychedelics, better people from past, aliens, gateways, consciousness, initiation - all are classic “stoner” fodder and purpose made for internet propagation I thought this was an interesting video and made some very good points. I think there are many many new things to discover and I suspect that we have certainly not found all of the answers to ancient peoples. I have seen the saw marks, cuts in hard stone etc - talked about and this interests me (as its physical evidence) and is hard to easily explain. does it point to aliens or ancient engineers with diamond saws and drills - probably not. It does need to be explained at some point as much does. The fact some,thing needs to be explained does not denote that we should then adopt a large counter factual, evidence lacking thesis from a Journalist.
@@toadyuk8391 people who were in charge of investigating UFOs, which US congress recently had a special investigation about, have said that some of the things the stories they heard were credible, and that what they saw can't be explained by a potential secret jet. essentially, they believe that some of these UFOs were not built by humans. you have to dig deep to hear these people speak out, and most dont because they are sworn to secrecy. we know a lot less than we think we know about reality. i think its time to open our minds to the ideas that not all of these crazy stories are fully fictional.
Every now and again, a writer pens something so interesting, and compelling at first glance, that it becomes a social phenomenon instead of just being taken as fiction, satire, condemnation, or whatever other argument it stands as. Ayn Rand comes to mind. As does L Ron Hubbard. Erich von Danekin got close, but Hancock succeeded. He is a self-labeled journalist (i.e. a writer) who cracked the code and turned what is basically sci-fi into a real world faith system.
Well, Ignatius Donnelly was a best selling author in his day. Von Danniken did fairly well. Simple accounts are much more attractive than messy uncertain reality.
Yes. Yet Donnelly serves as an example of LAHT because he never attended what we today recognize as "higher education". He went to High School as many did not at the time - but he pursued = _"literature."_ Moral: there is nothing wrong with literature of course - this coming from a self-admitted _"bibliophile"_ who has read many-many books in my life. Simply that at that time anyone could write a book and if published it would simply be sold _"prima facie."_ Hence back then publishers did not discern between _"fiction & nonfiction."_ They simply printed books to be sold to the public and = _"Caveat Emptor - or let the buyer beware"_ as far as believing it or not or if what it contained was accurate or not. As such a person with a rudimentary education at a period in history when many-many fantastical claims were being published in news papers and books were printed with no regard as to content accuracy would be "amenable" to claims of Atlantis etc. given the general culture at the time. By the late 19th Century fantastical claims and patent nostrums were all the rage and what we today recognize as _"science fiction"_ was on the rise. Just a bit of historical perspective. Enjoy your day folks.
I love how he claim that his theory need inquiry, as if the many people that went through them and showed how they are wrong don't count as inquiry This alone is a massive red flag
“Every is wrong and I’m right, I don’t have evidence but my gut tells me other wise so until you don’t dig up every single piece of sand, search every single area in the ocean and excavate the whole amazons you can’t prove me otherwise”
I can't deny, I was drawn to Hancock's work in 1994, and followed his work (and then 'real historians') closely until I managed to learn enough to realise I was being misled by him. He deserves my back-handed thanks for starting me on the path of actual history. He puts enough factual information in-between the bullshit to fool the uneducated.
😂 and to which period of time would you for example date the caves or better chambers of barabar in india ??? ,,,, and the making??? ... and you still agree on the building time of the cheops in 25 years???
@@hannesseebacher He puts enough factual information in-between the bullshit to fool the uneducated.. THAT SUMS HIM UP !!! he is a GRIFTER . IThe ONLY thing that i question is , does he believe his own BS or is it a grift . . . .?
Right, I went down a rabbit hole and bought into what he was saying for a time. He throws just enough kernels of truth into what he's saying for it to seem credible if you don't scratch the surface. But the more you listen to him, the more you see the obvious misinformation, until it's impossible to see anything else. I came to realise that I believed what he was selling because I *wanted* it to be true, not because he was producing compelling evidence.
I started reading and watching some Hancock stuff, and he is a good talker. He tells a good story but i kept thinking to myself, he has zero evidence!! Eveytime he says "lost civilisation & technology" Replace that with "time traveling Bob The Builder" its the same evidence. None. Then found your chanel and you speak so elegantly about all this with clear explanations, im now hooked on your vids
Hancock once was a journalist..... - he however departed from that a loooong time ago. Thus to be a good journalist one must also be = a good storyteller as well. Folks must remember that journalists must not simply relate information - they must also try to couch it to be interesting as television networks and print media covet viewers/readers and thus "presentation" is paramount. Moral: as you noted what Hancock claims lacks any credible evidentiary basis to lend proof of concept. It is therefore as alluded to simply = _"interesting storytelling."_ Yet because he and the LAHT industry try to present that as supposedly plausible while attacking the actual subject-matter experts that makes it disingenuous. To further do this while profiting from said disingenuously presented claims makes it = _"grifting."_
One additional thing about Khun's book, a paradigm only changes when a new paradigm does a better job at modeling our understanding of the world is available to replace the old paradigm. For example, string theory represented the possibility of a paradigm shift in physics, but there isn't a good version of string theory that does a better job of modeling how the universe works than what we currently have (it is also not really testable). The idea is that it's not enough for a current theory to have gaps or issues for us to throw it out unless we have an alternative theory/ model that can explain everything the old theory did plus more. Gram's very speculative idea does a worse job at explaining history when compared to available evidence, not better, and so it would be a step backwards to adopt it.
Forgive me this is said in the video, I’m still watching. Karl Popper counters Thomas Kuhn by saying that paradigm shifts are more gradual and societal, vs radical and from a single figure. You and the video (and even Graham) touch on this counter idea. 👍
@@josephpince4716 Khun makes a distinction between "normal scince," the typical activity of testing theories and modifying them without having a full paradigm shift, and the more rare instance of major revolutions in scientific thought. The key part in Khun is the idea that science can get 'stuck' on a certain paradigm for a while due to how science is practiced. But Graham takes this idea further than Khun did. For Khun, there is no conspiracy to hide scientific findings, only social bias that slows progress. I'm not familiar with Popper's critique of Khun. I do know that Khun got so tired of people misusing "paradigm shift" that he eventually stopped using the term.
I’ve never read Kuhn, but we piggybacked the basic ideas as theories for studying history. Similarly, we didn’t read Kuhn’s critique (it doesn’t look like Popper… maybe Polanyi), but the ideas were helpful in studying history. We like the idea of a single figure changing history and how we think (Newton for example). It’s easy, clean, and we can sell books. Graham Hancock fancies himself in this light. The critique is that life, history, and the history of ideas is messy and realistically less likely to be due to one radical person. The counter-theory, like with Newton, is that you have a trail of people running into the failings of Aristotelian physics and looking for a better alternative. Hancock doesn’t strike me as someone looking for a truth, more as someone pitching a radical idea in hopes that it will take shape (we have a lot of this right now… I was just reading about millionaire vampire Bryan Johnson).
Here's a quote from Graham Hancock from back in the 1990th: *"It is possible, we may have lost - from the record - an entire civilisation. And I feel that the evidence of this lost episode in human history is mounting."* -> BBC Horizon - s0000e37 - Atlantis Reborn We didn't see mounting evidence in his debate with Flint Dibble, only blurry pictures which didn't even convince his buddy Joe Rogan. Another quote from the same source: *"I avoid using the word "Atlantis" in books because most most people, when they here "Atlantis" immediately think that they're dealing with a lunatic fringe."* That's quite telling. No further comment to that.
If he calls it Atlantis then the evidence against Atlantis would apply against his hypothesis. Not naming the thing shows manipulation and intent to manipulate. He doesn't want people making an informed decision. He wants to hide the name so everything that debunks him won't be brought up. It's like asking someone to help you move some stuff to your car.... but your really robbing a house. The masking of the truth to manipulate others into believing he's doing the work of the "good guy".
It's actually kind of sad how Hancock has fooled Joe Rogan. Joe's literally talking about all this 'correlating evidence' that Graham has convinced him of yet when Dibble was on with him Joe asks Graham if there is any evidence and Graham had to admit there wasn't. I wonder if Joe even realizes what that exchange meant?
@@taylorroos4414yeah i think rogans catching on. Like a lot of people, myself included, who started buying into hancocks knowledge, the more you look into things the more you realize Hancock is spewing excrement. The more rogan has hancock on the more likely the whole con will fall apart. I hope anyway. Rogan talks to people for a living, he will figure it out if he has more people debating hancock or just people who disagree.
Anyone who listens to joe rogan and takes anything he says is seriously mentally deficient. He is a spineless, worm of a person, who forms his rhetoric to appeal to whomever he is speaking to at the time.
I have been a practicing shaman for 10 years, and when I hear graham talk about shamanism I know he’s speaking about it with no direct experience of knowing what a shaman is and does. And the fact that he says legislators need to take psychedelics is not okay considering these sacred plant medicines are not for everyone especially those who suffer certain medical and psychiatric disorders
Robert bauval does the same thing in his lectures. At least a quarter of his talks are spent carrying on about how the establishment dismiss us boohoo. I find that such a waste of time and such a cop out. So prove them wrong then guys. PROVE IT! They never can or do.
These guys bring a ridiculous amount of evidence to the table are laughed at shoot off dig sites a banned from potential archeological sites and for me that's enough evidence of a cover up right there and if that's not enough for you tell me truthfully that your public education didn't push the clovis first hypothesis about 40 years after it was disproven.
In his Orion book he has a very sound analysis of the Westcar papyrus. Which only shows more clearly the method of those type of people - mixing nonsense with pinches of reason here and there.
Prove who wrong? The Mainstream Academics or the "Alternative Theories and Facts Perspective" Reasonable request either way. The "Mainstream Academics" are actually inaccurate on a number of points. Beth Bartlett Sociologist/Behavioralist and Historian
@@bethbartlett5692 Inaccurate is a purposefully chosen word, right? In as much as it suggests they're wrong to people wanting to believe that, but gives you plausable deniability when confronted because inacurate does not mean wrong. Good to see the sociologist claim has some merit.
I got my first doses of alternative history from von Däniken back in my early teens. When I had read two or three of his books, I noticed this: all of those repeat the same stories, all full of astonishing claims like the Nazca lines, stone spheres in Costa Rica and so on. My opinion grew up to this: People used to have very interesting hobbies and ideas about art back in the old days. Hancock sounds pretty much like von Däniken, so I don't pay much heed to his stories either.
My parents had this older tome from Readers' Digest that was like 800 pages of spooky "true" stories + crime mysteries. I have no idea why I was allowed to read that; but I was a precocious reader so I'd read anything & read everything in the house. It gave me nightmares & was full of BS. Spring-heeled Jack terrorized my dreams for years.
@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 I did read some Reader's Digest stories when I was a kid. My uncle did leave them. Very few of them were interesting and none of them spooky.
"It's my role to ask questions about subjects which are forbidden to talk about...". Except, none of them are forbidden: they are just stupid, old and presented better by others, who weren't good enough to be right either. Hancock is a salesman, with a dash of religious zealot. Great for making money, but useless for learning anything about History or Archeology. Great video. Again.
He does actually talk about one topic that seems very strictly forbidden for academia to speak about. That topic is the criticism of Graham Hancock and his theories. He speaks extensively about this forbidden topic, in fact it's one of his most common talking points. Ironically, it's not academia that's forbidding this topic from discussion, it's Hancock himself.
It’s his job to rely on certain parts of fringe, ethnocentric books that question why scientists don’t accept the innocent possibility that vibrating giants were in control of spacefaring aliens that were obliterated by vindictive comets and vengefuls tsunamis.
More people need to see this video, for years I was being swayed by Hancock without seeking out alternative theories or accepted fact. Now I know that he is more of a salesman that what he claims to be. I choose to believe the huge collective of studied and intelligent minds than that of one person. He definitely has beliefs on psychedelics that I agree with and his idea of the past is an interesting one, but there are no fact or evidence to back all of his claims.
😳Hancock says: "I strongly resist that archeology is a science. [...] "It's an attempt to interpret the past based on rather flimsy and limited evidence." Later on: "Then I start drinking Ayahuasca in 2003, and I encounter SEEMLESSLY CONVINCING parallel realms inhabited by intelligent beings..." So, he doesn't trust archeologists, but when he's high on psychedelics, then he finds something "seamlessly convincing?" 🤷♀️ Really?
@@Thatcryptolore It literally is though. Sure it's not a Hard Science like Physics, but it's still a Science in the same vein as the other Social Sciences like Sociology and Linguistics.
One major problem with Hancock convincing his audience that archaeologists are set in their ways and don't consider new evidence, is that his audience is going to miss all the fascinating discoveries that actually are made every year, because they stopped paying attention to "mainstream archaeology".
That's what he needs. His whole theory is based on holes in the standard historical narrative of the 1980s plus some conspiracy theories, of course he doesn't want to pay attention to what we have discovered in the 3-4 decades following that.
And what's amazing to me is that all of the facts and information he uses to prove his points is from these same mainstream archeologists 😂 Never, *EVER* trust a journalists interpretation of science. Graham is a perfect example of why.
@@LadyLeda2 Journalists *ARE* writers and researchers. At least they're supposed to be in theory. Graham was a newspaper writer and editor for almost 20 years before publishing his first book. That's about as journalistic as you can get
I used to think David was so pretentious….that’s because I was on Graham’s side until I truly listened and realized there’s zero evidence to back Graham. As much as I’d LOVE for Graham to be correct, I mean imagine our history goes back even further. I have to be realistic and understand there’s no physical evidence to support that claim. Just wanted to say thanks for making your RUclips channel and enlightening us on history. It’s my favorite topic and you do an incredible job teaching us. I’d love to be a fly on the wall during one of your lectures.
He is pretentious.....evidence is all nice and well but people like him denied gobekli tepi being possible......till it was found......and that there has to tell you enough
Rogan demonstrated a clear example of literal surface level thinking with the water erosion stuff. Literally, looking at the surface level of the "erosion". If you look into the sand you find salt. Morning dew gets the sand wet, it sucks up the moisture and the salt liquifies. The sun rises and the sand dries. The salt crystalizes and expands, creating cracks and fractures in the material. This is comparible to an avalance where giant chunks of snow and ice are fractured and sheared off. All it would take is some wind or rain to make these chunks fall off eventually. They arent attached to the main structure anymore.
_"Literal surface level thinking"_ is just another way of saying poor assumptions absent any understanding which the individual incorrectly presumes are "logical" because = they thought it up............ Moral: if the Sphinx erosion was due to rain/condensation then conservation studies done - as they have been - might simply suggest it be coated with a sealing compound. That way it will not be subject to atmospheric condensation = yet they do not............ Instead drilling was done under the Sphinx to ascertain the depth of the water table - there is a video of Egyptologists/Hydrologists here on YT performing this study. Upon that data being determined the Egyptian government per a USAID grant contracted a US water systems company to install = underground water pumps around the plateau to lower that water table and divert it away from the necropolis....... Hence JRE's supposed "common sense" conclusions as we see = do not mesh with the science......... Yes "some" atmospheric moisture is involved in the degradation of the Sphinx. The bulk of the erosion however is owing to efflorescence arising from = underground moisture. The Sphinx even today - and Egypt has not seen much rain the past century* by the way - continues to erode away and hence requires continual maintenance to slow the efflorescence which is slowing consuming it. While "freestanding" limestone structures unattached to be bedrock as the Sphinx is can also incur some efflorescence it is less so. * - the wettest year on record in Egypt per meteorological data was 1908 with a mere 4.6 cm of rain for the entire year. The driest year on record was 2017 with a mere 1.3 cm of rainfall for the year. Thus superficially LAHT arguments might make sense to those who do not follow the science and the data = but when considered that evidence their arguments then fall apart as we see......
I must admit I was already dubious of Graham Hancock and his findings when I watched the Netflix show but the Flint Dibble “debate” really opened my eyes. It may sound stupid but I was thinking of my children. My 12 year old son who’s interested in the Bronze Age and my 7 year old daughter who’s obsessed with the solar system at the moment and I started to think of how important it is to appreciate the wealth of knowledge we have gathered over the centuries.
How come those pseudo-archeologists never tell you that they make a lot more money than the average archeologist? And that they are more interested in their "business model" than in the actual truth?
As someone who doesn't really take a side either way on this I will say right now, these comments sound like just straight jealousy. I have no idea how much Hancock makes and I would say his stuff may be a little out there but there's other's in this space that make hardly anything and still just show their research. Randall Carlson gave up a very successful career in construction and engineering just to research his theories. It seems to me the institutional people are the ones who have the most to lose if we find things are different than we once thought. At least they act like they have the most to lose. I get a lot of "Hancock is not in our little club" energy from some of these people. I didn't watch this video and probably won't because like I said I take Hancock's work with a grain of salt but I think we should at least do more research and just say we are not sure yet what if anything happened at the end of the Ice Age. That's the real truth.
This was a beautiful takedown of Graham Hancock. A firm, unrelenting roast of his ideas without making it about character. I can only hope that it changes some people's minds.
Really good video indeed. I love daydreaming about GH ideas. And i know too well we don't have real proof and probably never will. But pointing the fact of not having proof does not validate the official story either. The truth is surely not GH theory, and probably not archeologists stories either
I'd imagine being a legit archeologist painstakingly cataloging clay fragments in some heatscorched desert for weeks on end is a thankless career with mediocre pay and minmal chance for media recognition or mainstream fame. Your fundamental motivation is the pursuit of accurate knowledge. Graham's entire persona is the persecuted "truth-teller" championing forbidden knowledge, and tens of thousands of reasonably intelligent people believe every single word of it.
1 - for supposedly being "suppressed" = LAHT seems to have little difficulty getting their narratives out to monetize upon that...... In that they are no different than say the anti-vaccine industry etc. who play the same "persecution" game. 2 - why do fast-food meals targeted to children have cheap toys in them?? Answer: it is a marketing gimmick to make the product appealing to the target audience - so it is here. Moral: LAHT like most businesses is not engaged in the pursuit of knowledge as academia is. They rather are marketing = _"disbelief."_ Thus their whining about being persecuted and other conspiracy allusions = your happy meal toy........ Part of their customer base is simply uneducated in the subject-matter and are drawn to their hyperbole and fantastical claims. Part however represents people who hate/fear all things "government/mainstream." Accordingly appealing to that paranoiac worldview as Hancock et al routinely do is merely a marketing schtick to make their product line more appealing to a _"niche market."_ Enjoy your day.
What's sucks is that some of what he says could turn out to be true and he'll be there to say "I told you so" and didn't do any of that work and the news will latch on to him and we won't know who did the actual discovery.
Your imagination in that regard is not far off. It can be brutal back-breaking and painstaking work. But is it so satisfying when you make a discovery!
I Grew up in the early 80s and 90s with the idea that there was some secret being kept from us. Graham and others like hims work is what led me to have a passion for history, archeology and geology. If not for them, I honestly would have found no interest in the fields. So there is a plus side to the madness. And like you mentioned, "we" do and did tend to check for smugness, arrogance and elitist attitudes when watching opponents to Graham and others. Which is why people like Gutsick Gibbiean turns most off immediately. I've come around in the last few years after actual studies in the fields and now am on the opposing side, but still hold a fond place for Graham as the person who turned me on to history as a subject itself. But I must say, it was your Channel and videos that ultimately persuaded me to see the errors in the reteric of the opposing side. So kudos to you sir. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about disapproving somebody else's ideas, and you sir have done it right. 👏
As someone who's involved in Archaeology, i was out of the loop for 15 years , Carbon dating and gps etc were relativley new. When i returned to the subject it was amazing how much things had changed. i had to get revising and up to date pretty quick.
Excellent video: analytical, not provocative. Just great reminder how (scientific) theories and evidence/proof is supposed to be handled. What's good practice and healthy science mentality. What are our (as humans) easy biases etc. Thank you for using so much time to this video.
I'm a recovered Hancock fan. My brother is an academic and the lengths he has to go through to publish an academic paper are extraordinary. Eveything he puts forward has to be pier reviewed by experts, leaving no room for speculation without considerable evidence to back it up...
The only "Lost Technology" theories I'm interested in is whether my phone went down the back of the sofa, or if it's in my other jacket pocket, in the car.
@@JROD082384My curiosity will skyrocket as soon as evidence of lost tech is found. Until then, I can't entertain every single possibility of what might've happened. Almost anything could've happened. With no evidence, this is all just intellectual onanism.
What it all comes down to is this. Hancock : 'They shouldn't be listing to thousands of archaeologist allover the world ...They should only listen to me .I'm the real expert ' .
It's this same approach that has made people like Donald Trump so popular amongst his voters. He's thoroughly convinced his people that he and he alone, is the one lone protagonist and everyone is out to get him specifically as he holds all the keys, all the evidence. He's a master of everything and no one else can be right. Other people have used this same grift to moderate success such as Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and a whole host of other similar media personalities. Their main taglines boil down to "don't listen to the eggheads, I'm right, they're all wrong, here's some evidence from those eggheads that I have decided means the exact opposite of what they stated, but my interpretation is actually rational, they just don't understand." When people are trying to sell you on an opinion with no basis, it's always "they don't want you to know..." "they" "THEY" "they'll never tell you the truth, only me."
Just like "trust the science" behind Covid right? You still telling yourself there was science behind masks and lockdowns? The establishment got that way wrong, and you got ancient civilization way wrong as well. You are blind to your own worthless degrees and ignorant how money drives narrative.
I wonder if Hancock's idea about archaeologists and historians thinking that we have history all figured out comes from a brief skimming of your average middle school history textbook. Because those books do tend to be like, "Oh, we know this this and this". But it kinda has to be simplified for the sake of teaching about the topic of history. Those textbooks are meant to be a brief overview of what is generally known with the expectation that, if you're interested, you'll go out there and learn more about whatever niche of history you're into. Even then, those textbooks do not accurately reflect the views of archaeologists and historians necessarily. At least, it's a major simplification of it for the aforementioned reason. Archaeologists and historians are always looking for new ways to interpret the past. Read literally any publication written by archaeologists and/or historians and you will find them constantly talking about what we don't know. The field of history, like all fields of science, is a constantly evolving discipline that is always open to new ideas, as long as you are able to substantiate to a reasonable degree whatever findings you come up with.
Forty odd years ago a friend and I sat drunk in a pub in Hampstead, London making up silly, false aphorisms that kind of had the plonking ring of truth. Along with "No leg is too short to touch the ground" and "Always bowl a straight bat" my favourite, and it seems to be what Hancock is saying, was "The harder you study the map the more you wish you trusted it less." How we laughed. Not guessing that one day our joke would become wisdom...
Claiming that Goebleki Tepe was deliberately buried is more misinformation, or at least outdated information. There have been several papers published that it wasn't deliberately buried but was filled in by ersion from the clearing of the flora from the surrounding area. Not just once, but numerous times. It was occupied even after partial fill and that it may have been the battle with erosion of the hillside into the site that eventually led to its abandonment.
The latest studies now indicate that is false. Gobekli Tepe was buried in a manner that makes it appear as if it were filled by natural erosion, but that is not actually the case. By examining flow channels, deposition rates, spin angles, and conveyance metrics they have been able to establish that it was indeed purposefully buried on at least 4 occasions, each event separated by exactly 800 years. Each time! This indicates a means of knowledge transference was at play over millennia. Many more ground-breaking discoveries were made but I can't talk about them until committee approval.
@@Ohmanwhyyourfeelingshurt Liquifaction has a tendency to destroy buildings and move stuff around considering it requires something strong enough to make the earth below it behave like a liquid, such as an earthquake. It wouldn't just sink down into the ground gently. So far, the only two theories that seem (but could be wrong) plausible are intentional burial, erosion, or a combination of both. As more of the area gets excavated, it'll be interested to see what comes up. Milo over on the Miniminuteman yt channel did a trip there and in the video he's walking around the area surrounding Gobleki Tepe and you can see, poking out of the ground, what appears to be the tops of similar structures found in the excavated parts of the Gobleki Tepe site. If true, it's just a matter of time and funding before we get a more complete picture of what actually happened. My own two cents, according to what has been published, it looks like it has been a combination of both intentional burial at points and natural erosion at others.
I'd be willing to bet Joe Rogan doesn't go to the Graham Hancock of mechanics when his car is having issues. Joe wants that guy to be as by the book and politically correct as possible.
Yeah its a nice blind but they're making sandcastles and are nowhere near digging the truth up. Its a lot deeper . Maybe research a bit like Breashers had time to do to get some gems instead of fools gold.
It's always important to remember some facts about Graham Hancock when discussing him in any intellectual matter. 1. He has a degree in sociology and no background in any form of legitimate historical discussion as he has never been published in academic journals nor has he had writing peer reviewed by scholars. 2. From 1987 - 2011 he himself has personally admitted that he was "permanently stoned" and consumed marijuana for 16 hours a day for 24 years which all occurred when he wrote the vast majority of his work. 3. Graham also received his revelations through ayahuasca, specifically DMT and believes the drug connects people to a civilization or spiritual people that exist in the ether. 4. He also believes that depression and ADD are not legitimate and are mainly propelled forward by "big pharma" for profit.
Yet having a background in Sociology means Hancock understands = what "motivates" populations - and thus how to exploit the same.......... Add to that his background for a time as a journalist - though he departed from that a looong time ago and ceased to abide by journalistic standards for veracity and verification - and you have an added facet of his deception. A good journalist does not simply relate information in a pat manner = they must also be _"a good storyteller."_ News media be it print or televised depends upon viewers/readers and hence journalists must be able to relate information in a manner to make it both readable and = _"entertaining........"_ Moral: the most successful grifters by definition must also be uncommonly good liars. If not no one will listen to them and act upon what they say - their being "unconvincing". So Hancock certainly can sound "convincing" - to those who are not skilled at recognizing rhetorical argumentation and deception. Those able to discern such however = immediately see through him..... Enjoy your day. p.s. - "conspiracy theory" is very much a business model much as LAHT - in fact they are intertwined. Much of the LAHT customer base ascribes to conspiracy theories - their hating/fearing all things "government"/"mainstream". Thus like any businessman Hancock desiring as broad a customer base as possible panders to them the same as he does those with overactive imaginations vis a vis "LAHT".
I'm so glad that a legitimate academic in the field of history takes the time to call out Hancock's bullshit. I'm a self-educated "history buff" so my critique carries no weight, but I have enough common sense to understand that Hancock and Rogan are both in the entertainment business. Hancock is a really a show-biz huckster in the tradition of P.T. Barnum, "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" and Eric Von Daniken. The "lost civilization" shtick is his gig. I give him credit for his sheer panache and for playing it to the hilt. He's made a good living from it. But it is not factual nor is it scientific. I suppose it's harmless, but it's irritating because real history is way more fascinating.
Exactly, the UFO entertainment complex is a multi billion dollar per year market... it existed before Daniken, pyramidiots have been around for a long time, but he gave it a big push... from time to time though they have to invent new products to sell, as they tend to recirculate the same entertainment products for decades... Some of the popular products now are ancient lost ancient high technology and precision... UFO's renamed as UAP's are a national security threat... megalopic ruins actually being tens of thousands of years older... GH's exciting new product that he introduced to the entertainment market is to actually refute the UFO fan bois ancient astronauts schtik, and refer to actual real historical and archaeological research, to make his ancient civilization ideas appear more valid... Clever businessmen, one does have to give them credit for that...
There's a certain likelyhood that von Däniken and Hancock DO beleive the nonsense they write about, at least to a degree. Faking it completely for 30 years of "Career" is pretty hard and exhausting.
Yea it’s not harmless. There are people out there that take graham hancock as being right in ever way. People with cult ties. My family member is obsessed with this guy and Hermes. “Magic” and ancient wisdom etc. these kind of guys like Billy Carlson Terrence Howard Randall Carlson and graham hancock are all feeding into it.
The simplest most basic structure there is to build is a pile of stones receding to the top. Why would an advanced civilization build such a simple structure and not something far more complex like we have today? Give a child a bucket of wooden blocks and ask it to build something, the first recognisable thing it will manage to construct with any height is a pyramid because it is simple and it is built by a child. Ancient civilization is the child that grew up to be today's modern advanced civilization. You could give these buckets of blocks to children all around the world, seperated by oceans with no way of communicating with each other, it will always come to the same conclusion.
You, among the rest of these assumptive people, know nothing about the mathematical complexities and precision of these incredible structures. The pyramids are not in any way comparable to the work of children. I think a lot of the people here were easily convinced by Graham Hancock’s theories by their own superficiality and lust for fun stories. I think the people here believed him without knowing any of the concrete evidence (there is a mountain of concrete evidence, that is undeniable) and therefore believed this opposed view of him just as easily too. You were superficially convinced with ease to believe him, so you are now just as easily pulled away.
I would give more cred to the scientist if they had the same fervor about pseudoscience in the academics (like all the humanities today) as on Joe Rogan. One is far more dangerous.. and no, not Rogan.. noone uses Rogan to back policy decisions.
If you consider alchemy to be the transmutation of base elemental metals into noble elemental metals such as gold than alchemy is actually real as its entirely possible through nuclear fusion of lighter metals or fission of heavy onss.
@lococomrade3488 I give credit rogan had Dibble, but, they teamed him, and didn't let him show all his proof, profit over truth, and gram brings the bucks off the fools
@@lococomrade3488 idiot. How do you expect to change anything? Joe isnt a host, he is a platform. Of course a debate that would educate millions of people would be worth it.
GH spends half his air time beating up "mainstream" archaeologists, but when one of those same archaeologists does work that he likes, its very interesting to observe how he switches into the 1st person plural... its not "they" anymore, but "now WE have..." as if GH had something to do with that person's work... Klaus Schmidt excavated Gobeklii Tepe for some 20 years, GH visited him for 1 day (or maybe it was for an hour, we weren't there), and he proclaims "now WE have"... and of course Schmidt was also "mainstream," he spent a couple decades finding and analyzing real evidence... not a few hours of web browsing after taking peyote... and he was very outspoken about various categories of persons misrepresenting his work... he certainly didn't share any of GH's viewpoints...
Göbekli Tepe is indeed a very clear example of "mainstream" archeology being more than eager to rewrite the books in the face of new evidence. Klaus Schmidt did not lose his job or destroy his career.
💯 agree, Hancock doesn't use logical arguments and gets emotional, no evidence and picks on archeologists whom he assumes is weak. Evidence should be challenged, that's the scientific method. Did you see the most recent episode with an English engineer who talks about all sorts of weird stuff involving the pyramids, it's insane. Anybody with an analytical mind should know better. You have the right to propose a theory, but you need evidence to back it up.
I know right. He has cried for DECADES that academia doesn't listen to him... Yet when asked for evidence Hancock has to admit he has none. So wtf is he complaining about exactly? 🙄
@@drummerdad80 yeap, it's not fair to people out there in the field putting in the work, while I love Joe Rogan for having a open mind, he should give people who have the confidence and integrity a chance to speak. He has a bias towards Hancock because they used to get high together on the show. Just because you perceive someone as "cool" doesn't make them right... That's the problem nowadays... Too many people get caught up on someone being "cool for the gram" and don't take the time to actually be objective about facts.
@@Willsredcar how when flint openly lies seeveal times ,like his ice core charts didn't even have ice age on their graph when that was one of his three big debunks
I will say, about 5 years ago I stumbled across Hancock and was immediately drawn in by his story and the framing of his theories. It felt apart like wet tissue though when I started seeing archaeological evidence and videos rebutting his claims. And now I have a strong interest in the actual history of early humanity, the fascinating and important evidence that people doing the real work share through their work on RUclips. The truth, as ever, is far more powerful than a titillating tale of elites and deception about the history of our species. Thank you for work Doctor
The most depressing thing about Hancock is how his schtick does in fact appeal to the ‘Everyman’. What it comes down to imo is average people like fantastical stuff. Normal academic information is just too ‘boring’ for average people. A secret society of pot smoking pyramid builders just sounds more fun to people.
Lots of "experts" say ancient structures had to have been built with forgotten tech to move so many heavy stones etc....seems those ancient builders forgot how to levitate stones so fast they forgot to build huge bridges...ports ...roads using the same magical techniques....once the pyramids were done they went back to just working hard.
I'd just like to thank you for challenging Rogan and Hankock. I worry we live in a world filled with misinformation. I'm not an archaeologist but I know enough about science to see Hancock's confirmation bias in the face of no actual confirmation
I almost fell in Hancocks rabbit hole a few years ago. Then something really interesting happened. Musk started talking about IT. And it just hit me: archeologists aren’t trying to silence Hancock but are utterly annoyed by his stupid gibberish nonsense. Because I was in their shoes when I’ve heard Musk.
Yet to be honest Musty Trolla happens to be = one of the biggest trolls out there............... Now that he owns a social media platform he has gone off the rails. His "X" = is riddled with trolls/bots - especially Russian ones sowing disinformation. During the last election "X" was noted again and again to be the source of disinformation originating from Russia which was then picked up and spread by rubepublican politicians and their rube base. As far as "AI". While he makes a plausible concern as far as the companies rushing to develop "AI" appearing to be doing so for purely economic reasons with little regard for potential adverse consequences* = he is among them............. He has also been working towards "AI development and hence his arguments then risk being disingenuous. In so much as he as alluded to has a history of online trolling himself then criticizing "AI" development which he happens to be involved in could simply be his = casting aspersions upon potential competitors....... * - man as history shows has a loooong history of developing new technologies faster than he can learn to use them in a socially responsible way. It is simple greed and the nature of our economic system whereby the first in often dominates the marketplace. Consequently new development is often based upon that leading to "downstream" unintended adverse consequences emerging after some new tech is rushed out and monetized upon.
Right!?! Musk is so dumb! I mean Americans didn’t even have a space program and had to ride to space with the Russians. Then it took Musk like five whole years to start the world’s first private rocket enterprise and give NASA astronauts a trip to the ISS. 5 whole years! What a dummy. All while running a solar company, electric car company, and accepting payments to those companies from the literal worldwide payment system called PayPal that he invented. I can see why you’re laughing at him. Your contributions to society have been so much more impactful. Also, 82% of this video is explaining how “we don’t have an ego, we’re just smart”. You need to research the word Ego. Must not have been in your studies.
@@Wade06MV3Wouldn't you be jealous if you're a day to day archeologist doing the actual work, and along comes a conspiracy theorist with published books, a tv series and world's largest podcast to boost the narrative that their field isn't even a science, that their findings and interpretations are wrong, while admitting that he has no material proof of his theories other than 'this looks man made', while millions of people clamoring his brilliance for less than subper work?
I'd say it's not a mystery why Joe listens to Graham as a guru. He tells him what he wants to hear. He plays on his own preconceptions and justifies what he wants to be true. To most people, that's enough.
its funny you mention rogan having hancock on as his go to 'archaelogist', because if some unknown started saying this or that about BJJ or MMA, with no practical experience, he would readily dismiss the opinions as lacking expertise or training. rogan is easily led around by his nose with people he believes are smarter than himself(whether they actually are or not), as can be witnessed on countless hours of video or better yet, save your time, read books written by people in the fields. i'd like to know one thing hancock believes he's proven... because he talks like a man who has reems of proof backing up his fiction.
The biggest problem with folks like Graham Hancock and Erich von Däniken. Is that they know, that they don't have to convince archeologists. Only the largely ignorant general public. Hence their success.
Dr. Miano, I'm re-watching this after Hancock has been put onto Rogan again, and Lex Friedman, and making his own video of how he's a poor victim of Flint Dibble's "lies". I wish I could like your video twice. It's crazy how much Hancock is able to double down on his Atlantis and get new audiences to demonize archeology. Kind of sad. Wish everyone could see your video to understand how fantastically manipulative these alternative theories really are.
11:21 when Hancock says ice age what does he mean? does he mean the last inter glacial period or the one before that, or is he referring to the last glacial period, the problem with Hancock, he doesn't specify anything he just uses generalisation, i don't know what he means by advanced civilization, there have been loads of advanced civilizations depending on ones definition of advanced. As a student of history I learn new things everyday, there is so much to learn and absorb to be definite of anything for certain though i do think archeologists need to be more flexible where ever possible, and unless it's factual dater all we have is speculation.
I'd go so far it's a trademark of GH to avoid specific definitions so he he can lean the one way or the other. Just like YEC's never define what a "kind" is to save their face about evolution of kinds after the flood but still not evolution in the way evolutionary theory describes it.
Really imortant analysis of the way Hancock actually lies. Interesting how he says things about others, that actually describes what he is doing in that very moment. W video
I always hear the "legitimate" archeologist criticism of Graham and others but never an explanation on how bronze aged people moved 900 ton stones 100s of miles crossing mountains in the process. Then they snub their nose at anyone suggesting they had know how and technology that we are ignorant of.
@@WorldofAntiquity Colossi of Memnon is a good start. Temple of the Sun Ollantaytambo is another. I get that the "legitimate" archeologist are super duper smart and the only people allowed to speak so speak. How? How did they do it?
@@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745 Exactly. 800 plus ton stones lifted out of the quarry and placed on top of one another. Why do we never hear the "legitimate" archeologist explain how that was accomplished?
I feel like through all criticism videos i have watched on Graham Hancock I have gotten a very mild and lenient picture of the man. When he started rambling about hallucinogenics and religion and patriotism and stuff I was really caught off guard. Not to mention his idea about “mind control” which is the most paranoid, out of touch conspiracy theorist thing. I felt like I knew the full extent of this man’s insanity and I simply did not. I have to give huge credit to you for being so focused on his historical claims and not whatever insane ideas he has . It showcases so much professionalism on your part. Just another great thing about Dr Miano
Mind control is a conspiracy? You might spend some time with the Church hearings or the countless FOIA releases since. I don’t know Graham’s statements on it, but it’s been a vastly funded pillar of the most powerful intelligence agencies on earth for 80 years.
I will forever be grateful to my high school history teacher for (what then seemed to us) bickering on and on about proper source criticism. Over the years I've come to understand how valuable this teaching was, not just regarding history. People are rarely without motives. Mr. Hancock has built a career and a persona around his theories, he is financially and emotionally motivated to keep up the charade whether he believes in it or not.
There was a time when I devoted far too much bandwidth to this bs spewed by people like Hancock and Carlson. Then, one day, the light bulb turned on. Thanks, David, for another illuminating video.
Been there.. used to be fascinated by Hancock and Carlson, but people like Miano and Stefan Milo made me snap out of it. Those stories sound pretty cool, but prefer reality.
Personally I never believed a second of Hancocks rubbish. I think maturity and life experience has something to do with that. Stefan Milo is a fantastic resource as is David
@@octavius428ball Used to do way too much speed and also believed in crazy conspiracy theories for some years. Don't think I would have fallen for it without the drug abuse. After sobering up I quickly stopped believing insane conspiracy theories but still took Hancock and Carlson seriously for a while. Watching Milo's video about the Younger Dryas was a turning point.
I like to tell the story of how an old girlfriend of mine took one of Hancock's Egyptian tours in 1990 or 1991, and the stuff he was touting then is basically identical to what he is touting now - lost highly advanced civilizations helping ancient civilizations like Egypt. Yet the field of archaeology has moved massively beyond what we knew 30 years ago, for example how sites like Gobekli Tepe changed our view on hunter-gatherers and permanent settlements. Yet, in an obvious sign of projection, Hancock is the one claiming archaeologists are the hide-bound ones, sticking to their cherished beliefs, evidence only looked at if it supports their established views.
Im sorry she paid for his “rock pointing” tour! Did he point to the helicopter and lightbulb glyphs? That’s seems to be their go-to. No history or education involved in those tours. (I used to be a big fan of the alternate guys, and watched a livestream of Brien Foerster leading an Egypt tour to their Dendera lightbulb grand finale. Someone on the tour asks: “What do the hieroglyphs say?” To which Brien replies: “Now that I’m not sure, but you can see here this clearly looks like a lightbulb.” What a tour guide, packed full of such wonderful knowledge! But I think they have updated the alternative tours, they’ve added a new rock to point at, some jaggedy saw cut lines that look “suspicious.”
@@koko4kosh960 There were many ways the ancients moved 100 ton stones. Ever been to Rome? Seen those Egyptian obelisks? Some weigh more than 400 tons and were shipped as a single piece. And archaeologists have demonstrated how the Egyptians likely moved and placed large stones. The only mystery is why people listen to people like Hancock who say "impossible" and ignore the actual people who work in the field (unlike Hancock) who explain how they likely did it.
@@jeremygilbert7190 Yes, the Roman's moved obelisks. How did the Egyptians move the stone blocks, some weighing as much as 80 tons into place on the Great Pyramid? We aren't able to do it today with all of our technology. The only way that we could come close is by using concrete. Also, if the Great Pyramid is a burial chamber for a Pharoah, how many years did it take to shape and place the 2.3 million stones? Did it happen in one lifetime, two lifetimes, or many lifetimes?
I’m only 20 minutes in and this is very interesting and neatly laid out. It’s nice to see a respectful and well thought out discussion. This is who Joe needs to have on with Graham. Flint seems very knowledgeable, but in a way he was the perfect person to have on to help gain Graham sympathy. This is the type of push back I can really appreciate. Good job 👏🏻
Im so glad people like YOU and Miniminuteman cover these fringe topics for what they are. Its annoying how much Graham is recommended and given credibility. Thank you for your amazing work!! This video is very well done.
If you liked this video, you might also like:
When Fake Archaeology Uses Fake Science
ruclips.net/video/j0OMxE_D1pE/видео.html
The Age of the Sphinx
ruclips.net/video/DaJWEjimeDM/видео.html
Who Made the Pyramids? Giza Uncovered
ruclips.net/video/PHQkREcbcOE/видео.html
I fell down the Hancock rabbit hole a long time ago. After many interviews I found that all he does is ask open ended questions followed by accusations that are unfounded. He always plays the victim that is being targeted by a group of rogue archaeologists. I like facts and that's not what you're gonna hear if you listen to him or read his books. My opinion.
So all the damage found on these ancient sites are faked, younger dryas also? Either you people are actively trying to hide the truth or just refuse to accept the real fact and evidence left behind. Crazy that people like you actually exists even tho there's tons of available data. You study people and cultures not rocks or physics, stay in your lane you old quackademic.
Love your work, don't stop please, we need you so bad right now! Save the truth!
Yooo thanks for the links. Ive been dying to hear the argument for the water erosion on the sphinx hypothesis.
already watched and shared your "When Fake Archeology Uses Fake Science"
Today video is another amazing tool for enhancing the critical thinking skills across the fellow humans.
THANK you!
To be fair, Joe Rogan would be fooled by Wile E. Coyote painting a tunnel on the side of a mountain.
Yep, hes had evolution-deniers and flat-earthers on and didn't seem to push back at the lies a single bit, so it kinda seems like he believed them. 😬😵💫
Forgot to mention: the evolution denier was ... hope you're ready for this, lol ... Tucker Carlson!
@@MaryAnnNytowlyou do know that evolution is still a theory? Neither evolution or creation have been proven to be true, they are both theories. So you can’t say that a person that doesn’t agree with either is lying.
Theory doesnt mean its not proven its just a name to not take it as ultimate thruth. In order to be flexible. Dont be ignorant please
Ha, ha, ha: good one.
Graham Hancock points out how arrogant archaeologists are while sounding unbelievably arrogant.
He’s the opposite of humble.
Yes he came off a bit arrogant because of years of shit from Flints peers, but none of this matter or debunks nothing lmfao.
He cries about how people misrepresented him, well he misrepresented archeologist, he's a scumbag
@@randylahey1822if by “years of shit from Flint’s peers” you mean years of having actual archaeologists present scientific evidence that make his claims laughably obvious as sensationalist mumbo jumbo, I’d be inclined to agree.
There’s plenty of evidence against Graham, both within academia and readily available on RUclips, but I guess all it takes is a smug, well put together old man with a posh accent to convince anyone of anything lol
@randylahey1822 hancock isa dishonest manipulative hypocritical grifter, not some hero fighting for truth, don't defend him, his Atlantis fantasy is absurd to any person with a basic knowledge and understanding of history
I particularly enjoyed GH praising himself and his wife for "discovering" the Mahalbalipuram sites. I live there. Its a UNESCO site, the Indian Archeology Authorities are based there, have been for decades. The majority of the site is on land (Arjunas Penance, Ratha's etc), with a portion now underwater and clearly visible.. EVERYONE knew it was there and there's no mystery. Its a popular tourist location. GH completely misrepresented the site AND claimed to have discovered it personally, Bravo, seriously, that's next level!
Yes he does this with everything! He talks about Gobekli tepe the same way, as if he alone discovered it to prove archeologists useless and wrong. He keeps saying “we.” “We discovered it. We uncovered the lost city. We revealed it.” Who is he talking about? Him and his wife? lol
Clowns
Reminds me of the time I discovered a giant yellow ball that keeps appearing in the sky every day. It's clearly always been there. Figures that only I would be brilliant enough to notice it. I call it "the sky bright". I believe it to be the source of our planet's heat and that it was put here by ancient dwarven architects. If only they hadn't vanished mysteriously without leaving any physical trace save for my personal gut feeling. If only we could ask them why they built the sky bright.
Alas we haven't the luck. No fear though, for I am here and you are all in luck for I shall be the conduit through which the world's truths shall be revealed. Drink upon the secrets of mother earth, for my cup runeth over.
@@CoperliteConsumer You're a genius!
Discovered by Graham Hancock, and located on the beautiful East Coast Road in the state of Tamil Nadu, Mahabalipuram is one of the most stunning destinations to go to during the winter season from October to March. Summers are extremely harsh, and it becomes extremely difficult to go around as well. - UNESCO
😂
At a conference of the World Archaeology Society in 2008, a scientist from Russia presented evidence of very early copper filament and claimed that early Russians must have had telephony in prehistorisch times. Next there was presentation of an American scientist who had found long bits of glass who claimed the earliest Americans already had developed optical wire technology.
Finally, a Belgian archaeologist presented. His team had found no copper or glass at all. Therefore he concluded that prehistoric Belgians skipped telephony and optical cable because they invented wireless technology.
😂
😂
I bought into all the ancient civilization stuff until I found this channel a few years ago. Then realized, I’m too old to believe something is true because I’d like it to be true
You just dont understand how the mind works. We create reality... Eventually, we will create these achient aliens at this point. Just like we believe the twin towers was done by terrorists.
You can always just become Santa clause and give selflessly and anonymously whenever you can
But it is obviously true. You got punked by this channel. Time to reevaluate.
Yh I went down the rabbit hole for a while, I knew very little of archaeology, but then you start to read up on stuff and you soon realise this guy has been pedalling this nonsense for years and become wealthy from it 🤔
Aww look... it's babies first RUclips comment @Dziaji
Hancock's primary thesis is that he's a martyr. The lost civilization stuff is secondary.
More specifically, he is happy to act oppressed by the 'authority' of an 'ideological establishment', and then offers his own narratives and explanations as 'revolutionary' and 'objective' antidotes, when really such a narrative of martyrdom is to promote his own grift, and that the expertise and competence of a field is a threat to his own aim of subordinating and centralizing public influence to himself, at the expense of the populace's understanding of reality and much to the exasperation of genuine experts, for the sole purpose of his ego - this is most often why he conflates authority and expertise, because he cannot for the life of him acknowledge experts are more likely more competent than him, or else that would damage the claim to legitimacy he often asserts on topics of which he himself has little to no credibility to speak to, and therefore MUST dismiss expertise that delegitimizes his grift and powergrab as authoritarian - overall he is a rabble-rouser.
That's the thing that turned me off Hancock. When he was introduced on Joe Rogan I was at first interested because his idea about that lost civilization sounded awesome and I wanted to hear more about it.
But instead, Hancock barely talked about it and went on and on instead about how mainstream archaeology was being mean to him. He seemed mostly interested in talking about himself, not his ideas.
Good point, well observed.
Read to filth
Good point.
All these people who criticize Hancock's ideas like to say things like "I have no problem with him personally, he seems like a nice guy..." I think these folks are being extremely charitable to avoid validating Hancocks martyr syndrome. I strongly suspect they find him at least as insufferable as I do.
Agreed
exactly, and I'm sure he is fuming XD
Totally agree. We call that slimeball behavior 👉👌
Imagine if Graham Hancock just accurately portrayed himself as a fiction author who did a ton of research on ancient sites and civilizations in order to craft realistic FICTIONAL historic narratives. That would be really cool and interesting.
Its easier to be the martyr of “big bad archy boyz” and sell your vomit as clam chowder than to become a successful fantasy author.
@@hyoomanmaol There is nothing wrong with trying to push new ideas. The problem comes in when you are dismissed because you have no evidence but proclaim that you are a victim of intellectual dishonesty. In the Dibble/Hancock Rogan episode Graham flat out admits there is no evidence whatsoever for his claims. Then he tries to point to another person who was made a villain by the archaeological community but was later proven right. I think the point that he passes over there, which Flint tries to point out, is that he was later accepted by the archaeological community and minds changed because he presented compelling evidence. Graham thinks he is in the same boat as that person, but ignores the end of the story. In the end he was accepted because of his evidence, while Graham will stay rejected because of his lack of evidence. And as Flint points out, Graham's claims not only lack evidence, but the evidence actively points to his claims being wrong. There is tons of evidence AGAINST his claims, making his burden of proof much higher than "Don't these rocks look kinda weird?" But he just doesn't get that
But that won’t make Joe Rogan and his fans go “Woaaahhhh dude, mainstream archeology is really trying to hide something bro.”
@@fisharepeopletoo9653Graham just did a fact check of Flint Dibble claims related to shipwrecks and deposits of metal in icecores at the time of ice age, in the podcast.
Flint was intellectually dishonest.
this comment literally is a contradiction in itself
“We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.”
― Carl Sagan
Exactly. Academic researchers "speculate" all the time. The difference of course is that when they do it is done based upon = known facts....... Conversely proponents of pseudoscience - which coincidentally Sagan spent the last decades of his life combatting - also routinely speculate. In their case however what is posited as supposedly plausible represents assumptions based upon = unknowns.
Moral: the former can give you plausible deductions supported by evidence - evidence others can review and agree upon.
The latter comes to represent = _"whimsy"._ Pseudoscience at its' core is stereotypical "arguing from ignorance" supported by assumptions/inferences/innuendo and in some cases cherry-picked facts usually taken out of context and thus incorrectly applied. It represents a subjective paradigm of assumptions so as to support more assumptions - at which point Occam's kicks in. LAHT = _"sophistry."_
Even a genius aks questions 🧠
say 'gain?
You people are beyond insufferable.
To find the truth all you need is facts, like they say there 3 side to every story your, mine and the facts.
I think it was either you or Stephen Milo who said "One question I would love someone to ask Graham is, what would it take to falsify your hypothesis?" Graham goes on and on about how the lack of expeditions / coverage gives his claim credence. But I don't think he has ever once stated what it would take for him to admit he was wrong.
Implicitly therefore his answer is, as long as you haven't excavated every square centimetre of the planet, there's still room for his claims. In other words, you can't prove the existence of Narnia wrong as long you haven't checked each and every cupboard in the world.
A piece of evidence that humans didn't build stuff 250kya. A piece of evidence that aliens have never been here inspite of 100's of millions years of potential times.
He indicated that if archaeological stepping stones between the Upper Palaeolithic and Gobleki Tepe could be found, it would make his fantasy of an earlier advanced civilization unnecessary. The Natufians, anyone?
@@gregorynixonAUTHOR there is no reason to believe dozens of advanced civilizations could not have existed, whether aliens or not. aliens have had at least 50 million years to work with, and modern humans as much as 500k years. No one has a clue
@@gregorynixonAUTHORI think a lot of Graham’s point and stance is the very real discount of American history and civilization.
First time i saw Hancock on Joe Rogan i was fascinated. I was like "why am i hearing this only now?". I was fascinated by the concept of an ancient civilization that nobody knew it existed and was far more advanced than the ones that came after. But then, at the second podcast, Hancock started to talk about how the pyramids were built with sound tools that levitated the rocks, and i was devastated. Right there i realized that i had been duped by a crackpot and started to recognize all the dubious rethoric and falsehoods.
If you want to read an interesting book about this same subject go read Nightfall from Asimov. At least is properly marked as science fiction.
I don't think he was saying the believed that happened , I think he was just refering to myths of how it has been explained in the past.
Hancock doesnt state that this is really something that he believed happened. He just raises the possibility. Seems pretty unlikely to me, to say the least though.
I initially thought there may be something to it all when Hancock's books were first published till, I thought to myself "why didn't this advanced, globally reaching civilisation have writing?" There would of been examples of the same writing in different parts of the world but that doesn't exist. By now we would of found at least some graffiti that was the same, also unknown all over the world but it doesn't.
Hancock makes for a good history mystery fiction writer though.
So anyone who even suggests the fact that alternate theories are plausible and would explain more than what people are usually inclined to postulate... Or simply expose the systemic biases of mainstream thoughts and stubborn/conflicted interest teachings, should be immediately ignored, ad hominem & randomly labeled, censored ect just because you're resistant to widening your narrow inherently ignorant perspective? Not a psuedosmart, nor intellectually honest line of thinking (more like lack) by any stretch of the imagination. By doing this you lend further evidence to the very points that are made even more so than the criticism against said big archaeology.
@@scipio8866Sure, but lack of knowledge and awareness can make many things seem magical due to the difficulty in imagining possibilities with the inherent biases we start off with.
Something I think people are really underestimating is how hard "do you own research" is. We hear it ALL the time now, but there isn't an appreciation for what that really entails, and for how unreasonable it is for most people to devote the time and effort to actually doing it. I am five years into my Ph.D. and the main skill we learn is literally HOW to be a good and effective researcher. This isn't a simple task, it is a hard learned skill that most people aren't fully prepared to do (and to be clear, this also applies to people who are experts within a given field. Doing research in one field does not mean you can effectively research another field without first putting in significant effort.).
I have really turned against this idea of "do you own research" because it is conveying the wrong idea, or at the very least it is being peddled or taken the wrong way. Doing your own research (as a layman) generally should be taken as reading literature (or well produced summaries that provide proper citations, etc) from actual experts within a field. Try to understand what evidence they have and how it supports their conclusions, conclusions that have support from many different people, and evidence from many different sources (note, this will generally excludes proposed paradigm shifts, as you need a very strong knowledge of the history of a field to really understand if they hold up to scrutiny). Really, this is built upon some level of trust in the field. It is generally not about trying to make your own hypotheses or conclusions, or trying to gather your own evidence or interpret data. Those tasks require some level of knowledge which most people don't have the time to attain to understand a singular subject, never mind a wide variety of subjects (which we are constantly being told to do our own research on!). To me, it shouldn't be "do you own research". It should be "learn about this subject" (and that is still a very difficult task, which is why science communication is so incredibly important, as is simply building trust with people!). So much misinformation is being spread by people "doing their own research", as if saying they did "research" puts them on the same level as experts. You don't need a Ph.D. to be a researcher, but you do have to dedicate a huge amount of time to learning about your field (which often have very long histories), understanding existing techniques and research, and building hypotheses and evidence to support a reasonable narrative that holds up to scrutiny. Hancock has not effectively done this, and that is why experts give push back. Misinformation is dangerous on many different levels, the biggest of which is the rising distrust of experts, whether such distrust is warranted or not!
People who have never been exposed to higher education - college level instruction - are the main culprits for pseudo-research and hence Dunning-Kruger. They foolishly assume college is merely sitting in class being told what to think. 🤦Yet as you alluded to college is actually all about = learning how to educate yourself via researching material required for your classes......
Moral: once upon a time when I first started upon my degree the instructors came into the auditorium and told us = _" you are already 20 chapters behind......... = but that's okay because the seniors are 40 chapters behind."_
Thus while we learned things in classes it was mostly reading.........researching.........writing papers etc.......more reading........more researching..... Thus when you graduated you understood as you say = how to properly find information -----> how to organize and present it in an intelligent manner + so that no matter the question going forward you had the tools to find it out and sift through the bullsh*t.
'I have really turned against this idea of "do you own research" because it is conveying the wrong idea, or at the very least it is being peddled or taken the wrong way. Doing your own research (as a layman) generally should be taken as reading literature (or well produced summaries that provide proper citations, etc) from actual experts within a field. Try to understand what evidence they have and how it supports their conclusions, conclusions that have support from many different people, and evidence from many different sources'
That is exactly what people do though. The issue, for a lot of cases, is not all experts agree on a conclusion. On many conclusions, on the 'core' of a field, there is consensus a lot of time, but there's a lot of disagreement outside it. To ANY academic this should be obvious, given they see these daily... These disagreements are even more common in topics where there just isn't enough data to draw a definite conclusion, like who moved and placed the Trilithon stones.
Any statement lies on a wide spectrum of certainty, math is one extreme (absolute certainty in many ways), and the level of certainty degrades from there. Archeology is waaaay down that spectrum of 'certainty', so an argument from authority, say on what existed 9000 years ago, is not convincing at all.
I love how pseudoarcheologists think we can find tiny flint tools made 20,000 years ago in relatively good condition, but completely hand-wave away the lack of any hypothetical supermaterials and tools that would have supposedly been used to build every single massive monument on Earth.
Are you aware that flint is a type of rock? Lmao. It doesn't rust or decompose. If you leave flint in a cave for 5000 years it's still gonna be relatively the same as when you left it. You really think this is hard to believe compared to "hypothetical supermaterials"? Like what, alien laser-rocks or some other nonsense? If you think supermaterials are real, then show evidence of them. Show me a glowing green rock that's harder than diamond discovered buried under the pyramids. Oh wait, there's no such thing, which is why archaeologists ignore you.
@@RabidCupcake2010 Unless there was another comment that got deleted, I'm pretty sure y'all are on the same side.
@@xXMACEMANXx try 1.2 million years old
@@Theboxingobserver To my understanding, we have not identified any tools dating back 1.2 million years. It's not out of the realm of possibility that some species were using simple tools, but if they did, we haven't identified anything intentionally made and used for a specific purpose that old.
Theboxingobserver
Lol 20kyrs ago sounds far fetched, 1.2mil is just pathetic if we existed as long as we had and technology not to have advanced any or to say homosapiens sapiens [our type] existed that long...the longevity is just sad & disappointing not inspiring or intriguing.
50:55 "archeology has been proven wrong, time and time again..."
Yes...by other archeologists
it was pretty funny when he was kicked out of Egypt and banned.
One of the most embarrassing moments of Hancock on Joe Rogan's podcast was an episode where he came on and said I think there is an advanced lost civilization in the Amazon!
Cut to a few years later he is back, and Joe and Graham are very smug as they bring up an article about a research group finding a lost civilization in the amazon.
He puffs up his chest and acts all proud, says mainstream archeologists didnt listen to me and i was right!
Then I go and click on the article and it says a group of researchers who have been Living in the Amazon for the last 5 years have found evidence of a never before discovered civilization.
Yes you guessed it, the first time graham was on being a blowhard about how he thinks there is a civilization but nobody believes him the grad students and the archaeologists from that college were being bit by mosquitoes and walking through swamps actually doing the work.
Yes graham while you write abojt a tall group of 7 foot tall blondes you call the Nordics teaching the dumb brown people, actual study was being done.
@@margaretwebster2516
Egypt has more closed minded old thinking losers that you might recognize if you looked into them
You missed his point
@@BobbyBigalloyou missed the point of this comment.
i watched Dr Brian Greene interview Dr Lee Berger about his work at Rising Star cave and it was utterly mind blowing because tangible evidence being analyzed by experts in various disciplines is so much cooler than any unsubstantiated storytelling by a huckster like Hancock.
I’m not sure if that’s the best example to make that point.
@@michael_rthat’s the controversial claim about naledi burying their dead?
@@maau5trap273 yes
And then after the interview Dr Berger blasted Dr Greene into space.
While it’s an absolutely awe-inspiring find, Berger has been criticised a lot in recent years by the paleontological community for overselling some of his claims. If you have time I’d highly recommend watching any of the following videos on RUclips:
- Flint Dibble’s “Homo Naledi Burial? A Public Peer Review of the Evidence”
- Flint Dibble’s “The Homo naledi Controversy! With Jamie Hodgkins and George Leader”
- Gutsick Gibbon’s “New Update on the Homo naledi Situation”
- Gutsick Gibbon’s “A Deep Dive into the Scathing Homo naledi Peer Reviews” (this is my favourite)
I must confess to having followed the same route as Joe Rogan. I read Fingerprints of the Gods in the nineties and became convinced of the "ancient civilisation" thesis, and followed it avidly right up until the TV series. Fortunately the books sparked my interest in archaeology sufficiently that I had opened my mind to other facts and historical analysis, so when I watched the series I could actually see Graham for exactly what he was - a chancer.
His opening gambit was to set a tone of distrust in "mainstream archaeology" and to portray himself as some sort of a victim of censorship, even though he was hosting a major global TV series to promote his work. I saw right through his bullshit.
It's one thing reading a book, where you can become taken with the narrative - suspension of disbelief is what makes all fiction work on us, so if a book is presented as well researched fact then we can easily be duped as to its authenticity. Its far more difficult to pull that stunt off on a TV series, and in my view that was Hancock's big mistake.
I'm now completely free from the spell that he cast over me with his books, and it's thanks to learning from scholars like yourself that I've been educated to follow the real science and research everything far more thoroughly.
I really think it would be amazing if you challenged Hancock to a Joe Rogan duel - I don't think Flint Dibble did such a great job of being convincing enough - there was a lot of obfuscation and distraction going on.
I've only watched the first few minutes of this latest presentation, but I look forward to absorbing it all later when I have the time. I may add my response after watching.
Thanks for taking the time to share it with us.
Good comment. Just adding that you're over-confident in debate as a format. If you google "why you don't debate creationists" you'll get a lot of scientists answering questions about why they don't do debates like this. They have good reasons, & it might change your mind on the value of "show debates", or at least give you some reasons as to why many experts avoid those kinds of public confrontations.
Does archaology bend over backwards?
My road to astronomy was much the same. I read that the Andromeda Galaxy was a million light-years away and wondered "how in creation could they say that with such authority and confidence?" So I took a college astronomy course. I learned about Henrietta Leavitt and Edwin Hubble. I saw the photographic plates they took and measured them myself. I used Henrietta Leavitt's period-luminosity relationship for Cepheid variable stars to determine the real luminosity of of Andromeda Galaxy stars on those plates and did the math to yield the distance myself on stars Hubble did not pick. My result? One million light years.
But after Leavitt and Hubble in the 1930s and 1940s came the discovery that there are several kinds of Cepheid variable stars and that the brightness of the progenitor star, Polaris, is not the same as the other types. Then I found that Hubble had identified Cepheid variable stars all right, but they were one of the brighter variety. Knowing the real star was brighter than supposed in Leavitt's day meant that the calculations would have to be done over, resulting in the modern consensus that the Andromeda Galaxy is more on the order of 2.3 million light years away. I applied the new period luminosity relationship, changed the math I was using, and with a photographic plate Edwin Hubble himself took 90 years ago, personally verified the distance for myself.
I no longer say "How in creation could these eggheads say this preposterous number?" Because now it's my number too. Lesson learned. It changed my life for the better. Evidence is king. It doesn't care what you think about it or whether you believe it. The truth is NOT within. It is without, waiting patiently to be discovered and that's positively thrilling.
Yes! Exactly what happened to me in regards of the Netflix show. The first 15 minutes threw me off so hard that it made me Google this snake oil seller. I never heard about him nor I wasn’t interested in archeology so after that it made me research and now I’m in love with ancient and pre history. I hate how he pretty much sets his conclusion since the beginning of each episode. Instead of building the episode slowly up to the conclusion he just tries to set an idea in your mind so that everything that he explains makes you go like “ ohhh just like what he said in the beginning, it’s so obvious it’s like that”. Of course conspiracy theorist absolutely love this type of approach.
Two generations of academia were bozo dunce cap WRONG about Clovis first and gobekli. Hancock is of your own stupid making
Graham Hancock: "If I only were humble I'd be perfect"
Hancock is talking of archaeology and history as these fields were more than 100 years ago, and then only of some scholars who had it in for each other. He is also trying to turn these fields into a soap opera, creating drama where there is no drama.
As a former student of both fields I can say without a doubt that there is no conspiracy, no hiding of facts, only a yearning to understand what happened, but with tempering of minds before the evidence.
Dr Miano said he isn't out to attack Hancock, but he should because Hancock is so incredibly vicious and harmful. The harm he and his movement have done is incalculable.
@@cattymajiv As the first section of this video addresses, and as sad as it is, I think that having a good, welcoming attitude while disproving pseudoscience is almost if not more important than actually being right on the fact. It seems to me that most of the anti-academia folks like Hancock are popular precisely because they play to a wide sentiment among laypeople that academia is just a snobby ivory tower that not only looks down on others, but refuses criticism as well.
Hancock says THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY
@@LoudWaffle which is foolish, at best. Archeologists publish their work for everyone to see. Museums are usually a cheap way of learning more about these subjects. I get what you’re trying to say, but that belief is just wrong.
@@RegularFlyGuy I agree. It’s a perception problem, not a factual one.
Listening to Graham Hancock on Joe Rogan and listening to his other lectures got me more interested in ancient history. He made me question whether any of his ideas were true. Once I started learning more about actual archaeology, genetics, geology, etc... I began to understand that Hancock's ideas were mere fantasy, but again, I do give him credit for weaving an interesting narrative that got me more interested in ancient history.
Next, check out simulation theory
@@mustardgenesmost sane Rogan viewer
Same here and I think that there’s a lot we don’t know about ancient civilisations but do I think that there’s a lost advanced global civilisation, probably not. But there’s definitely more than what archeologists says it’s clear, unchartedx is a very good channel for this
@@j.nilsson5362 lmao you've been fooled by grifters into thinking "mainstream archaeology" is performing a big coverup. That's embarrassing.
As someone with a passing interest in archaeology and anthropology, I remember watching one of his clips from JRE years ago and agreeing with his messaging. I was so dissappointed when I heard the rest of what he had to say.
Wonderfully assembled. I wish Graham's content could just be recognized as speculation for entertainment. I would happily watch that kind of content as long as it was clear about its intent to be entertaining speculation versus rigorous science and education.
Hancock is a novelist. He proposes a theory and then challenges science to prove him wrong while having no evidence.
Aka an appeal to ignorance while failing to abide by Hitchen's Razor. Hence it is not for academia to prove Hancock wrong as science does not prove a negative. It is of course for Hancock to demonstrate what he asserts in a manner where others can seek to validate that. His simply making claims of *ASSUMED* validity to decry others must then prove him wrong = is backwards....... - as the onus has always been upon him.
Exactly. It's like he comes up with this wild idea that while having some mushrooms and his girl giving him a jerk, a magical unicorn appeared. So your only evidence is his claims, and the only way to test it is to give the guy jerkoffs until it happens again.
The problem is no one has any evidence for any of thier points on either side. The industry wants someone to bring proof but fails to bring any proof he is wrong. Then when theu do present proof if you pause the videos at the pics and stuff the information they show doesn't even pertain to what the conversation is. Just like if you ask people to take ice cores as a job all say there is evidence of metallurgy in the ice age but any archeologist you ask will swear the opposite. Just like all the proof they show doesn't even date back to the time people think there was a civilization. It goes back like 2-3 thousand years not 10 thousand.
We are stuck where either person doesn't wanna be wrong so they both tell tall tales and everyone is confused. In the end all it breeds is distrust for everyone and destroys everyones reputation and the respect anyone gives them.
No Evidence? this is not an opinion and you can have if you only have a surface level understanding in what he proposes.
@@GGA007Gamingso the decades of excavation research and findings of artifacts isn’t evidence? You know that writing has been around for thousands of years and most cultures said what happened.
You know the funny thing is that GH ain’t showing new evidence.
His first book came out 30 years ago and it’s mostly stuff that was on Unsolved Mysteries in the 80’s.
His stuff is incredibly out of date. And when someone publishes a correction, he says “Well, the original paper was right.”
Yep, three decades. If his ideas were at all correct, there should be museums filled with fossils and artifacts that have been recovered from this lost culture.
I bought and read the book 30 years ago, that was enough for me to realise that he was full of crap
@@jaybe2908 HAHAHA
@@jaybe2908 I did the same in the late '90s. Having been through an ancient aliens phase with books like The 12th Planet, and Chariots of the Gods, and then having learned some critical thinking skills and scientific method, I viewed his book as fantasy with a side of poisoning the well against the supposed academic establishment. Once I got on line and realized how many are led astray by this old (I'm his age) fellow, I became fascinated at him as a phenomenon. Now I find his misrepresenting of the work that millions of good people (and a few assh+les) are engaged in to be tiresome at best, harmful at worst.
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
Got to laugh at the assertion of archaeologists' "friends in the media" from Hancock, whose own connections in the media definitely didn't help him secure a Netflix series.
Enough with this slander! His *son* is a netflix executive, not his *friend*!!!
Clown
@@waltherstolzing9719 Soooo... nepotism?🤔
@@myhnea15 No! It's his *son*, not his *nephew*. 'Nepos' is a *nephew* in Latin. When will this wild persecution end!
@@waltherstolzing9719 rofl🤣🤣
Well reasoned and an excellent podcast. I was very surprised to hear that Hancock is neither an archeologist or historian he speaks as if he's an eminant authority,
It strikes me how much of a force for good these people would be if only they would use their outreach to encourage critical thinking... like you are! Thank you.
Much appreciated!
I spent 25 years as an archaeologist hiking in rugged remote areas finding hundreds of prehistoric sites on survey and excavating many in the dust and heat. Or what Hancock calls engaging in philosophy.
Slow clap.
Thank you for your service!
@@KevinJHutchison - But an enthusiastic clap!
and...?
I don't believe what Hanncock says is true, we can't accept something without evidence. On the other hand, I'm aware that there is a lot more to uncover. In light of this, is there a reason to hate people for making a suggestion ? We should just be nice and ask them to prove it. We believed the earth is flat for tousands of years, some people still do and no one has a problem, why is there such a big problem if Hancock suggested a theory of lost civilization, even if it doesn't exist ?? I don't understand why is it so imbeded in human nature to try and be offensive to each other. People are strange, just try to do your job and leave others alone. If you don't like Hancock's theories you don't have to watch him and that's it. If all people on earth believed his false theories that's not the reason to attack him, that's people's fault. He wrote a few books are we supposed to hate anyone who writes something we don't like ?? When discussing these "theories" it's important to remember, what people believe is their business not yours. People believe all kinds of stuff and always will, we can't stop that, but we can leave them alone and we can all live in peace together. Using "non existent Ancient civilization" for his ticket to fame, and using "diminishing someones work", for drawing viewers to your channel. What's worse on moral ground ?? I must say it once more, people are strange.
1:09:30 "The Clovis people, that's what archaeologists call them, we don't know what they called themselves" this is so typical of him, he even repeats it twice. OBVIOUSLY we can't know what they called themselves, we use modern place names for sites all the time. But he doesn't let an opportunity pass to paint them as arrogant in the smallest ways he can find.
Okay but what about the point that the establishment clung onto Clovis First for so long and was wrong? The point is the archeological establishment has been wrong before and will be wrong again, and that this should be built into our reasoning about historical claims.
This. Next Hancock will say, "We don't know what Dinosaurs called themselves"!!
@@ESS284 History (and science in general) has been wrong countless times, and embraced it. That's the nature of science, it's constantly correcting and updating itself. The Clovis example you cite is a perfect example of the established history needing to be updated, and academia making the necessary updates. When faced with skepticism, a scientific mindset follows the evidence, not the most confident or scathing voice.
The supposition "if the establishment" has been wrong before, couldn't they be wrong about this" is a manipulation tactic, and is very one-sided. Correlation does not equal causation, and history could be wrong about literally everything - the statement "your wife has lied before, couldn't she be lying now" is used specifically to plant seeds of doubt into a person's head, to draw a conclusion before evidence is found, therefor evidence is not needed. The reason academia feels confident about the current narrative is corroborating empirical data, it's the best story we have so far. The reason Hancock feels confident is because he and his friends believe strongly that they are correct (i.e. faith).
I would ask you, which institution responds more favorably to scrutiny, the scientific community that is built on the principles of extensive peer-review and repeatable results... or the journalists who say "doesn't it look like it could be this, what if it was this" without substantiating evidence, who suddenly become victims when their ideas come under scrutiny?
It also stands to say... in 30 years of making "educated hypotheses" about ancient history with little to no physical evidence to back it up, surely Graham Hancock has gotten *something* wrong. I mean, to err is human, right? It's highly improbably that he would have a perfect track record, that's just... extremely statistically unlikely. So... when has Hancock been wrong? When has Hancock revised any of his claims?
Before you trust a source, and turn your back on replicable empirical evidence, make sure the source who is telling you to dismiss this data doesn't have a horse in the race... and is practicing what he preaches.
@@ESS284an idea that was considered the most likely for a long time is now no longer the idea that is considered the most likely
That's what science does, eternally corrects itself. What Hancock does is never admitting he is wrong, always saying he is a martyr etc
@@ESS284 the point should be that it took evidence. It shows that our understanding does change with the weight of evidence... Something Hancock himself said he can't provide.
Dear Dr. Miano, since the #RealArchaeology Event this last weekend, I have been following a lot of the reactions to the Flint Dibble / Graham Hancock debate on Joe Rogan, and reading lots of the comments.
I am getting ever more confused as to what, exactly, Hancock’s defenders are accusing Flint Dibble of lying about? I just can’t find the actual accusations. I hope that you would like to take the time to answer my question, as I think I might not be the only one who would like a real, reliable take on this! Thank you so much.
You can find their arguments here: ruclips.net/video/PEe72Nj-AW0/видео.htmlsi=gQr_grN3tJMMc52G
And here is Dibble's response: ruclips.net/video/1e4uk3XlxHU/видео.htmlsi=R3h_rkDW98AunN_o
@@WorldofAntiquity ah, so it's Hancock himself… thank you
Fun fact; G.H. used to be a big proponent of the 'face' on Mars being an ancient monolith and that Mars used to harbor ancient civilizations.
"The Mars Mystery: A Tale of the End of Two Worlds" (published in 1998).
I wonder why he's awful silent on the subject now.
Yeah... Alex Jones has said some wild $h!t too!
paulis--Maybe he's silent on the monolith because he charged his mind the same way David keeps saying people should?
He also believed that the earth's moon is an artificial construct
@@chiznowtch The moon is artificial is a David Icke thing, isn't it?
He doesn't want to talk about the mars mystery for the same reason he no longer brings up hapgoods earth crust displacement idea and Antarctica being host to atlanteans- it's so obviously absurd that even he would be embarrassed by it and he'd prefer we forget he ever mentioned it
Do you really mean to say a man who was convinced the moon landings were faked also believes other silly theories??? I’m shook
I remember his 2012 End of the World Mayan Calendar stuff as well.... 😂
Right 😂
Exactly...
This is why David and Flint etc are important to be available and public with better evidence and messaging than the graham types for normal people rather than ivory tower looking down on and speaking poorly of people like some here. Doing that doesn't reach people. In fact it is a disservice against the evidence. Ego both ways.
also important to point out that when shown indisputable evidence, joe did change his view. he needs to have flint on by himself
Just want to say that is has been you and mini minuteman that have actually moved me away from the Graham Hancock stories and helped me see the error of it. I own two of his books. He is a good writer that is true. But a good yarn is different from facts and evidence. Thank you for your continuing work in this area.
Exactly he's a writer that's why he makes fiction stories and he's a narcissist too
@@hi-et1oqbasically gen z's L ron Hubbard lol. Let's hope he doesn't start a cult
Damn, it is really refreshing to hear that. It's good to know that the work of people like Milo and Dr. Miano does have some power to change minds. I think it's great to have an open mind, challenge narratives, ask questions, and all that kind of stuff, but at the end of the day, we've got to adhere to the evidence and use that to inform our ideas and confirm (or refute) hypothesis. And of course, when new evidence comes along, we update!
I think it is surprising that Joe Rogan has been so fully taken in by GH approach to the past.
I have engaged with Archaeology and Archaelogists for the last 35 years or so - they are like other people, interesting, gossips, egoists, caring, kind etc - they are people.
I think that GH has been successful with his very clear narrative for the following reasons:
1. Its fun to think there are secrets and we like to hear and be on the “inside track” especially if simple narratives - to try and understand the actual evidence and actual FACTS which can be supported in complex sites with multiple periods of occupation is hard.
2. His narrative is counter cultural and engaging - its exciting to hear a story about lost ancient civilisations rather than the gradual climb climb slip of humanity
3. He is en engaging speaker, has learnt story tropes and uses them effectively - with a very simple to understand thesis with a few unusual words thrown in
4. He frames himself against the establishment and as we move to positions of distrust with establishment organisations (as we are) this is compelling to people who don’t reflect much
5. The stoner arguments - psychedelics, better people from past, aliens, gateways, consciousness, initiation - all are classic “stoner” fodder and purpose made for internet propagation
I thought this was an interesting video and made some very good points. I think there are many many new things to discover and I suspect that we have certainly not found all of the answers to ancient peoples. I have seen the saw marks, cuts in hard stone etc - talked about and this interests me (as its physical evidence) and is hard to easily explain.
does it point to aliens or ancient engineers with diamond saws and drills - probably not. It does need to be explained at some point as much does.
The fact some,thing needs to be explained does not denote that we should then adopt a large counter factual, evidence lacking thesis from a Journalist.
@@toadyuk8391 people who were in charge of investigating UFOs, which US congress recently had a special investigation about, have said that some of the things the stories they heard were credible, and that what they saw can't be explained by a potential secret jet. essentially, they believe that some of these UFOs were not built by humans. you have to dig deep to hear these people speak out, and most dont because they are sworn to secrecy.
we know a lot less than we think we know about reality. i think its time to open our minds to the ideas that not all of these crazy stories are fully fictional.
Every now and again, a writer pens something so interesting, and compelling at first glance, that it becomes a social phenomenon instead of just being taken as fiction, satire, condemnation, or whatever other argument it stands as. Ayn Rand comes to mind. As does L Ron Hubbard. Erich von Danekin got close, but Hancock succeeded. He is a self-labeled journalist (i.e. a writer) who cracked the code and turned what is basically sci-fi into a real world faith system.
Well, Ignatius Donnelly was a best selling author in his day. Von Danniken did fairly well. Simple accounts are much more attractive than messy uncertain reality.
Harold T Wilkins was the Graham Hancock of his day, as well.
I read Ignatius Donnely and found him very convincing.... I was in elementary school at the time
@@BSIIIthey follow the footsteps of profit, it's sickening
Yes. Yet Donnelly serves as an example of LAHT because he never attended what we today recognize as "higher education". He went to High School as many did not at the time - but he pursued = _"literature."_
Moral: there is nothing wrong with literature of course - this coming from a self-admitted _"bibliophile"_ who has read many-many books in my life. Simply that at that time anyone could write a book and if published it would simply be sold _"prima facie."_
Hence back then publishers did not discern between _"fiction & nonfiction."_ They simply printed books to be sold to the public and = _"Caveat Emptor - or let the buyer beware"_ as far as believing it or not or if what it contained was accurate or not.
As such a person with a rudimentary education at a period in history when many-many fantastical claims were being published in news papers and books were printed with no regard as to content accuracy would be "amenable" to claims of Atlantis etc. given the general culture at the time. By the late 19th Century fantastical claims and patent nostrums were all the rage and what we today recognize as _"science fiction"_ was on the rise. Just a bit of historical perspective. Enjoy your day folks.
Yup, a century ago one of the first big archeologists in my country was literally a superstar, the press was coming to his university classes...
I love how he claim that his theory need inquiry, as if the many people that went through them and showed how they are wrong don't count as inquiry
This alone is a massive red flag
“Every is wrong and I’m right, I don’t have evidence but my gut tells me other wise so until you don’t dig up every single piece of sand, search every single area in the ocean and excavate the whole amazons you can’t prove me otherwise”
Oh dude, no one went there and dug into it... so there is still proof of both sides to be shown... but of course, stone tools made the pyramids! 🤣😂🤣
@@futureme8719 Aren't you embarrassed for showing your complete ignorance in public? Get an education!
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 😂🤣😂
@@futureme8719 With this reaction, you only make a greater public fool of yourself, congratulations.
I can't deny, I was drawn to Hancock's work in 1994, and followed his work (and then 'real historians') closely until I managed to learn enough to realise I was being misled by him.
He deserves my back-handed thanks for starting me on the path of actual history.
He puts enough factual information in-between the bullshit to fool the uneducated.
😂 and to which period of time would you for example date the caves or better chambers of barabar in india ??? ,,,, and the making??? ... and you still agree on the building time of the cheops in 25 years???
@@hannesseebacher He puts enough factual information in-between the bullshit to fool the uneducated.. THAT SUMS HIM UP !!! he is a GRIFTER . IThe ONLY thing that i question is , does he believe his own BS or is it a grift . . . .?
yes , the last line you wrote sums him up !
Right, I went down a rabbit hole and bought into what he was saying for a time. He throws just enough kernels of truth into what he's saying for it to seem credible if you don't scratch the surface. But the more you listen to him, the more you see the obvious misinformation, until it's impossible to see anything else. I came to realise that I believed what he was selling because I *wanted* it to be true, not because he was producing compelling evidence.
It's about the money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money let's make a fiction story😂😂😂😂😂
I started reading and watching some Hancock stuff, and he is a good talker. He tells a good story but i kept thinking to myself, he has zero evidence!! Eveytime he says "lost civilisation & technology" Replace that with "time traveling Bob The Builder" its the same evidence. None. Then found your chanel and you speak so elegantly about all this with clear explanations, im now hooked on your vids
Hancock once was a journalist..... - he however departed from that a loooong time ago. Thus to be a good journalist one must also be = a good storyteller as well. Folks must remember that journalists must not simply relate information - they must also try to couch it to be interesting as television networks and print media covet viewers/readers and thus "presentation" is paramount.
Moral: as you noted what Hancock claims lacks any credible evidentiary basis to lend proof of concept. It is therefore as alluded to simply = _"interesting storytelling."_
Yet because he and the LAHT industry try to present that as supposedly plausible while attacking the actual subject-matter experts that makes it disingenuous. To further do this while profiting from said disingenuously presented claims makes it = _"grifting."_
One additional thing about Khun's book, a paradigm only changes when a new paradigm does a better job at modeling our understanding of the world is available to replace the old paradigm. For example, string theory represented the possibility of a paradigm shift in physics, but there isn't a good version of string theory that does a better job of modeling how the universe works than what we currently have (it is also not really testable). The idea is that it's not enough for a current theory to have gaps or issues for us to throw it out unless we have an alternative theory/ model that can explain everything the old theory did plus more. Gram's very speculative idea does a worse job at explaining history when compared to available evidence, not better, and so it would be a step backwards to adopt it.
Forgive me this is said in the video, I’m still watching. Karl Popper counters Thomas Kuhn by saying that paradigm shifts are more gradual and societal, vs radical and from a single figure. You and the video (and even Graham) touch on this counter idea. 👍
@@josephpince4716 Khun makes a distinction between "normal scince," the typical activity of testing theories and modifying them without having a full paradigm shift, and the more rare instance of major revolutions in scientific thought. The key part in Khun is the idea that science can get 'stuck' on a certain paradigm for a while due to how science is practiced. But Graham takes this idea further than Khun did. For Khun, there is no conspiracy to hide scientific findings, only social bias that slows progress. I'm not familiar with Popper's critique of Khun. I do know that Khun got so tired of people misusing "paradigm shift" that he eventually stopped using the term.
I’ve never read Kuhn, but we piggybacked the basic ideas as theories for studying history. Similarly, we didn’t read Kuhn’s critique (it doesn’t look like Popper… maybe Polanyi), but the ideas were helpful in studying history. We like the idea of a single figure changing history and how we think (Newton for example). It’s easy, clean, and we can sell books. Graham Hancock fancies himself in this light. The critique is that life, history, and the history of ideas is messy and realistically less likely to be due to one radical person. The counter-theory, like with Newton, is that you have a trail of people running into the failings of Aristotelian physics and looking for a better alternative. Hancock doesn’t strike me as someone looking for a truth, more as someone pitching a radical idea in hopes that it will take shape (we have a lot of this right now… I was just reading about millionaire vampire Bryan Johnson).
Here's a quote from Graham Hancock from back in the 1990th:
*"It is possible, we may have lost - from the record - an entire civilisation. And I feel that the evidence of this lost episode in human history is mounting."*
-> BBC Horizon - s0000e37 - Atlantis Reborn
We didn't see mounting evidence in his debate with Flint Dibble, only blurry pictures which didn't even convince his buddy Joe Rogan.
Another quote from the same source:
*"I avoid using the word "Atlantis" in books because most most people, when they here "Atlantis" immediately think that they're dealing with a lunatic fringe."*
That's quite telling. No further comment to that.
If he calls it Atlantis then the evidence against Atlantis would apply against his hypothesis.
Not naming the thing shows manipulation and intent to manipulate. He doesn't want people making an informed decision. He wants to hide the name so everything that debunks him won't be brought up.
It's like asking someone to help you move some stuff to your car.... but your really robbing a house. The masking of the truth to manipulate others into believing he's doing the work of the "good guy".
It's actually kind of sad how Hancock has fooled Joe Rogan. Joe's literally talking about all this 'correlating evidence' that Graham has convinced him of yet when Dibble was on with him Joe asks Graham if there is any evidence and Graham had to admit there wasn't. I wonder if Joe even realizes what that exchange meant?
Nah, He side-eyed Graham hard a couple times like 'wtf bro? you said there was evidence before'
@@taylorroos4414yeah i think rogans catching on. Like a lot of people, myself included, who started buying into hancocks knowledge, the more you look into things the more you realize Hancock is spewing excrement. The more rogan has hancock on the more likely the whole con will fall apart. I hope anyway. Rogan talks to people for a living, he will figure it out if he has more people debating hancock or just people who disagree.
Joe Rogan doesn't strike me as the kind of person who reflects much on what his guests say.
Anyone who listens to joe rogan and takes anything he says is seriously mentally deficient. He is a spineless, worm of a person, who forms his rhetoric to appeal to whomever he is speaking to at the time.
I don't think Hancock will appear again on Rogan's show.
I have been a practicing shaman for 10 years, and when I hear graham talk about shamanism I know he’s speaking about it with no direct experience of knowing what a shaman is and does. And the fact that he says legislators need to take psychedelics is not okay considering these sacred plant medicines are not for everyone especially those who suffer certain medical and psychiatric disorders
Robert bauval does the same thing in his lectures. At least a quarter of his talks are spent carrying on about how the establishment dismiss us boohoo. I find that such a waste of time and such a cop out. So prove them wrong then guys. PROVE IT! They never can or do.
These guys bring a ridiculous amount of evidence to the table are laughed at shoot off dig sites a banned from potential archeological sites and for me that's enough evidence of a cover up right there and if that's not enough for you tell me truthfully that your public education didn't push the clovis first hypothesis about 40 years after it was disproven.
In his Orion book he has a very sound analysis of the Westcar papyrus. Which only shows more clearly the method of those type of people - mixing nonsense with pinches of reason here and there.
A fun drinking game would be to take a drink every time they use the word "mainstream." You would be falling down drunk in 15-30 minutes...
Prove who wrong? The Mainstream Academics or the "Alternative Theories and Facts Perspective"
Reasonable request either way.
The "Mainstream Academics" are actually inaccurate on a number of points.
Beth Bartlett
Sociologist/Behavioralist
and Historian
@@bethbartlett5692 Inaccurate is a purposefully chosen word, right? In as much as it suggests they're wrong to people wanting to believe that, but gives you plausable deniability when confronted because inacurate does not mean wrong.
Good to see the sociologist claim has some merit.
I got my first doses of alternative history from von Däniken back in my early teens. When I had read two or three of his books, I noticed this: all of those repeat the same stories, all full of astonishing claims like the Nazca lines, stone spheres in Costa Rica and so on. My opinion grew up to this: People used to have very interesting hobbies and ideas about art back in the old days. Hancock sounds pretty much like von Däniken, so I don't pay much heed to his stories either.
Hancock certainly is directly inspired by Von Daniken.
@@Evan102030 Quite possible.
Charles Berlitz and the Bermuda Triangle was my entry drug hehehe.
My parents had this older tome from Readers' Digest that was like 800 pages of spooky "true" stories + crime mysteries. I have no idea why I was allowed to read that; but I was a precocious reader so I'd read anything & read everything in the house. It gave me nightmares & was full of BS. Spring-heeled Jack terrorized my dreams for years.
@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 I did read some Reader's Digest stories when I was a kid. My uncle did leave them. Very few of them were interesting and none of them spooky.
"It's my role to ask questions about subjects which are forbidden to talk about...". Except, none of them are forbidden: they are just stupid, old and presented better by others, who weren't good enough to be right either. Hancock is a salesman, with a dash of religious zealot. Great for making money, but useless for learning anything about History or Archeology. Great video. Again.
He does actually talk about one topic that seems very strictly forbidden for academia to speak about. That topic is the criticism of Graham Hancock and his theories. He speaks extensively about this forbidden topic, in fact it's one of his most common talking points. Ironically, it's not academia that's forbidding this topic from discussion, it's Hancock himself.
It’s his job to rely on certain parts of fringe, ethnocentric books that question why scientists don’t accept the innocent possibility that vibrating giants were in control of spacefaring aliens that were obliterated by vindictive comets and vengefuls tsunamis.
"The most *dangerous* show on Netflix"
You cant say that you cant learn anything
How else he is going to explain how only is dumbass noticed all this 😂
More people need to see this video, for years I was being swayed by Hancock without seeking out alternative theories or accepted fact. Now I know that he is more of a salesman that what he claims to be. I choose to believe the huge collective of studied and intelligent minds than that of one person. He definitely has beliefs on psychedelics that I agree with and his idea of the past is an interesting one, but there are no fact or evidence to back all of his claims.
😳Hancock says: "I strongly resist that archeology is a science. [...]
"It's an attempt to interpret the past based on rather flimsy and limited evidence."
Later on:
"Then I start drinking Ayahuasca in 2003, and I encounter SEEMLESSLY CONVINCING parallel realms inhabited by intelligent beings..."
So, he doesn't trust archeologists, but when he's high on psychedelics, then he finds something "seamlessly convincing?"
🤷♀️ Really?
if nothing else, speaking joe's language
@@Star-pl1xs
Great point!
Archeology is not a science… you can arrive to conclusions by utilizing science tho
@@Thatcryptolore Read some ɡlifs, sumerian, etc, so...
@@Thatcryptolore It literally is though. Sure it's not a Hard Science like Physics, but it's still a Science in the same vein as the other Social Sciences like Sociology and Linguistics.
One major problem with Hancock convincing his audience that archaeologists are set in their ways and don't consider new evidence, is that his audience is going to miss all the fascinating discoveries that actually are made every year, because they stopped paying attention to "mainstream archaeology".
That's what he needs. His whole theory is based on holes in the standard historical narrative of the 1980s plus some conspiracy theories, of course he doesn't want to pay attention to what we have discovered in the 3-4 decades following that.
And what's amazing to me is that all of the facts and information he uses to prove his points is from these same mainstream archeologists 😂
Never, *EVER* trust a journalists interpretation of science. Graham is a perfect example of why.
@@cajunguy6502 Graham is a researcher and a writer, not a Journalists.
@@LadyLeda2 Journalists *ARE* writers and researchers. At least they're supposed to be in theory. Graham was a newspaper writer and editor for almost 20 years before publishing his first book. That's about as journalistic as you can get
Clown
I used to think David was so pretentious….that’s because I was on Graham’s side until I truly listened and realized there’s zero evidence to back Graham. As much as I’d LOVE for Graham to be correct, I mean imagine our history goes back even further. I have to be realistic and understand there’s no physical evidence to support that claim. Just wanted to say thanks for making your RUclips channel and enlightening us on history. It’s my favorite topic and you do an incredible job teaching us. I’d love to be a fly on the wall during one of your lectures.
I appreciate hearing that!
He is pretentious.....evidence is all nice and well but people like him denied gobekli tepi being possible......till it was found......and that there has to tell you enough
@@SWOTHDRA evidence of David specifically denying Gobekli Tepi? “People like him” means nothing.
Rogan demonstrated a clear example of literal surface level thinking with the water erosion stuff.
Literally, looking at the surface level of the "erosion". If you look into the sand you find salt. Morning dew gets the sand wet, it sucks up the moisture and the salt liquifies.
The sun rises and the sand dries. The salt crystalizes and expands, creating cracks and fractures in the material. This is comparible to an avalance where giant chunks of snow and ice are fractured and sheared off.
All it would take is some wind or rain to make these chunks fall off eventually. They arent attached to the main structure anymore.
_"Literal surface level thinking"_ is just another way of saying poor assumptions absent any understanding which the individual incorrectly presumes are "logical" because = they thought it up............
Moral: if the Sphinx erosion was due to rain/condensation then conservation studies done - as they have been - might simply suggest it be coated with a sealing compound. That way it will not be subject to atmospheric condensation = yet they do not............
Instead drilling was done under the Sphinx to ascertain the depth of the water table - there is a video of Egyptologists/Hydrologists here on YT performing this study. Upon that data being determined the Egyptian government per a USAID grant contracted a US water systems company to install = underground water pumps around the plateau to lower that water table and divert it away from the necropolis.......
Hence JRE's supposed "common sense" conclusions as we see = do not mesh with the science......... Yes "some" atmospheric moisture is involved in the degradation of the Sphinx. The bulk of the erosion however is owing to efflorescence arising from = underground moisture.
The Sphinx even today - and Egypt has not seen much rain the past century* by the way - continues to erode away and hence requires continual maintenance to slow the efflorescence which is slowing consuming it. While "freestanding" limestone structures unattached to be bedrock as the Sphinx is can also incur some efflorescence it is less so.
* - the wettest year on record in Egypt per meteorological data was 1908 with a mere 4.6 cm of rain for the entire year. The driest year on record was 2017 with a mere 1.3 cm of rainfall for the year. Thus superficially LAHT arguments might make sense to those who do not follow the science and the data = but when considered that evidence their arguments then fall apart as we see......
I must admit I was already dubious of Graham Hancock and his findings when I watched the Netflix show but the Flint Dibble “debate” really opened my eyes. It may sound stupid but I was thinking of my children. My 12 year old son who’s interested in the Bronze Age and my 7 year old daughter who’s obsessed with the solar system at the moment and I started to think of how important it is to appreciate the wealth of knowledge we have gathered over the centuries.
Flint dibble is a liberal charlatan.
Your daughter probably doesn’t know that the sun poops our planets 🪐 unless she’s Joe fan.
How come those pseudo-archeologists never tell you that they make a lot more money than the average archeologist? And that they are more interested in their "business model" than in the actual truth?
very sad isn't it that absolute buIIshi is so damn lucrative
Hancock even says they have more influence over popular culture, while he has his own fucking Netflix series
@@erikhendrickson59 "friends in the media"? Like Joe Rogan?
As someone who doesn't really take a side either way on this I will say right now, these comments sound like just straight jealousy. I have no idea how much Hancock makes and I would say his stuff may be a little out there but there's other's in this space that make hardly anything and still just show their research. Randall Carlson gave up a very successful career in construction and engineering just to research his theories. It seems to me the institutional people are the ones who have the most to lose if we find things are different than we once thought. At least they act like they have the most to lose. I get a lot of "Hancock is not in our little club" energy from some of these people. I didn't watch this video and probably won't because like I said I take Hancock's work with a grain of salt but I think we should at least do more research and just say we are not sure yet what if anything happened at the end of the Ice Age. That's the real truth.
@@a1b1c184 yah you got me. im super jealous of that old kook
This was a beautiful takedown of Graham Hancock. A firm, unrelenting roast of his ideas without making it about character. I can only hope that it changes some people's minds.
I agree. This was so well done.
Unfortunately the people that still believe him even after his complete destruction at the hands of Flint will likely never change their minds
Really good video indeed. I love daydreaming about GH ideas. And i know too well we don't have real proof and probably never will. But pointing the fact of not having proof does not validate the official story either. The truth is surely not GH theory, and probably not archeologists stories either
Love your calm and rational analysis! New subscriber here.
Welcome!
I'd imagine being a legit archeologist painstakingly cataloging clay fragments in some heatscorched desert for weeks on end is a thankless career with mediocre pay and minmal chance for media recognition or mainstream fame. Your fundamental motivation is the pursuit of accurate knowledge. Graham's entire persona is the persecuted "truth-teller" championing forbidden knowledge, and tens of thousands of reasonably intelligent people believe every single word of it.
1 - for supposedly being "suppressed" = LAHT seems to have little difficulty getting their narratives out to monetize upon that...... In that they are no different than say the anti-vaccine industry etc. who play the same "persecution" game.
2 - why do fast-food meals targeted to children have cheap toys in them?? Answer: it is a marketing gimmick to make the product appealing to the target audience - so it is here.
Moral: LAHT like most businesses is not engaged in the pursuit of knowledge as academia is. They rather are marketing = _"disbelief."_ Thus their whining about being persecuted and other conspiracy allusions = your happy meal toy........
Part of their customer base is simply uneducated in the subject-matter and are drawn to their hyperbole and fantastical claims. Part however represents people who hate/fear all things "government/mainstream." Accordingly appealing to that paranoiac worldview as Hancock et al routinely do is merely a marketing schtick to make their product line more appealing to a _"niche market."_ Enjoy your day.
What's sucks is that some of what he says could turn out to be true and he'll be there to say "I told you so" and didn't do any of that work and the news will latch on to him and we won't know who did the actual discovery.
Your imagination in that regard is not far off. It can be brutal back-breaking and painstaking work. But is it so satisfying when you make a discovery!
Would be neat if an archeologist showed Hancock as an attention grabbing goof.
I Grew up in the early 80s and 90s with the idea that there was some secret being kept from us. Graham and others like hims work is what led me to have a passion for history, archeology and geology.
If not for them, I honestly would have found no interest in the fields. So there is a plus side to the madness.
And like you mentioned, "we" do and did tend to check for smugness, arrogance and elitist attitudes when watching opponents to Graham and others. Which is why people like Gutsick Gibbiean turns most off immediately.
I've come around in the last few years after actual studies in the fields and now am on the opposing side, but still hold a fond place for Graham as the person who turned me on to history as a subject itself.
But I must say, it was your Channel and videos that ultimately persuaded me to see the errors in the reteric of the opposing side. So kudos to you sir. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about disapproving somebody else's ideas, and you sir have done it right. 👏
As someone who's involved in Archaeology, i was out of the loop for 15 years , Carbon dating and gps etc were relativley new. When i returned to the subject it was amazing how much things had changed. i had to get revising and up to date pretty quick.
Excellent video: analytical, not provocative.
Just great reminder how (scientific) theories and evidence/proof is supposed to be handled. What's good practice and healthy science mentality.
What are our (as humans) easy biases etc. Thank you for using so much time to this video.
I'm a recovered Hancock fan. My brother is an academic and the lengths he has to go through to publish an academic paper are extraordinary. Eveything he puts forward has to be pier reviewed by experts, leaving no room for speculation without considerable evidence to back it up...
The only "Lost Technology" theories I'm interested in is whether my phone went down the back of the sofa, or if it's in my other jacket pocket, in the car.
The mainstream don't want you to know where your phone is, you see...
Aliens took it! (obviously)
It’s up your bum
That's because you've been trained to not think with actual scientific curiosity.
Just the curiosity others told you you should have.
@@JROD082384My curiosity will skyrocket as soon as evidence of lost tech is found. Until then, I can't entertain every single possibility of what might've happened. Almost anything could've happened. With no evidence, this is all just intellectual onanism.
What it all comes down to is this. Hancock : 'They shouldn't be listing to thousands of archaeologist allover the world ...They should only listen to me .I'm the real expert ' .
Because all the others are arrogant.
Unlike me, the only one with an open mind and psychedelic visions from a parallel universe.
It's this same approach that has made people like Donald Trump so popular amongst his voters. He's thoroughly convinced his people that he and he alone, is the one lone protagonist and everyone is out to get him specifically as he holds all the keys, all the evidence. He's a master of everything and no one else can be right.
Other people have used this same grift to moderate success such as Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and a whole host of other similar media personalities.
Their main taglines boil down to "don't listen to the eggheads, I'm right, they're all wrong, here's some evidence from those eggheads that I have decided means the exact opposite of what they stated, but my interpretation is actually rational, they just don't understand."
When people are trying to sell you on an opinion with no basis, it's always "they don't want you to know..." "they" "THEY" "they'll never tell you the truth, only me."
Just like "trust the science" behind Covid right? You still telling yourself there was science behind masks and lockdowns? The establishment got that way wrong, and you got ancient civilization way wrong as well. You are blind to your own worthless degrees and ignorant how money drives narrative.
@@caodesignworks2407 I love asking conspiracy theorists & my Mom who they think "THEY" are. So awkward lol.
You mean like the covid experts?
I wonder if Hancock's idea about archaeologists and historians thinking that we have history all figured out comes from a brief skimming of your average middle school history textbook. Because those books do tend to be like, "Oh, we know this this and this". But it kinda has to be simplified for the sake of teaching about the topic of history. Those textbooks are meant to be a brief overview of what is generally known with the expectation that, if you're interested, you'll go out there and learn more about whatever niche of history you're into. Even then, those textbooks do not accurately reflect the views of archaeologists and historians necessarily. At least, it's a major simplification of it for the aforementioned reason. Archaeologists and historians are always looking for new ways to interpret the past. Read literally any publication written by archaeologists and/or historians and you will find them constantly talking about what we don't know. The field of history, like all fields of science, is a constantly evolving discipline that is always open to new ideas, as long as you are able to substantiate to a reasonable degree whatever findings you come up with.
Forty odd years ago a friend and I sat drunk in a pub in Hampstead, London making up silly, false aphorisms that kind of had the plonking ring of truth. Along with "No leg is too short to touch the ground" and "Always bowl a straight bat" my favourite, and it seems to be what Hancock is saying, was "The harder you study the map the more you wish you trusted it less." How we laughed. Not guessing that one day our joke would become wisdom...
Claiming that Goebleki Tepe was deliberately buried is more misinformation, or at least outdated information. There have been several papers published that it wasn't deliberately buried but was filled in by ersion from the clearing of the flora from the surrounding area. Not just once, but numerous times. It was occupied even after partial fill and that it may have been the battle with erosion of the hillside into the site that eventually led to its abandonment.
That's news to me. Very interesting. Thank you.
Or it was liquifaction and it just sunk
The latest studies now indicate that is false. Gobekli Tepe was buried in a manner that makes it appear as if it were filled by natural erosion, but that is not actually the case. By examining flow channels, deposition rates, spin angles, and conveyance metrics they have been able to establish that it was indeed purposefully buried on at least 4 occasions, each event separated by exactly 800 years. Each time! This indicates a means of knowledge transference was at play over millennia. Many more ground-breaking discoveries were made but I can't talk about them until committee approval.
@@chilledwalrus lol gtfoh with that I can't talk about it til approved, corny ass
@@Ohmanwhyyourfeelingshurt Liquifaction has a tendency to destroy buildings and move stuff around considering it requires something strong enough to make the earth below it behave like a liquid, such as an earthquake. It wouldn't just sink down into the ground gently.
So far, the only two theories that seem (but could be wrong) plausible are intentional burial, erosion, or a combination of both.
As more of the area gets excavated, it'll be interested to see what comes up. Milo over on the Miniminuteman yt channel did a trip there and in the video he's walking around the area surrounding Gobleki Tepe and you can see, poking out of the ground, what appears to be the tops of similar structures found in the excavated parts of the Gobleki Tepe site.
If true, it's just a matter of time and funding before we get a more complete picture of what actually happened.
My own two cents, according to what has been published, it looks like it has been a combination of both intentional burial at points and natural erosion at others.
I'd be willing to bet Joe Rogan doesn't go to the Graham Hancock of mechanics when his car is having issues. Joe wants that guy to be as by the book and politically correct as possible.
Someone really ought to tell graham that archaeology isnt mainstream, its mostly underground actually
aahh that's funny.
Yeaaaaa ok
Yeah its a nice blind but they're making sandcastles and are nowhere near digging the truth up. Its a lot deeper . Maybe research a bit like Breashers had time to do to get some gems instead of fools gold.
It's always important to remember some facts about Graham Hancock when discussing him in any intellectual matter.
1. He has a degree in sociology and no background in any form of legitimate historical discussion as he has never been published in academic journals nor has he had writing peer reviewed by scholars.
2. From 1987 - 2011 he himself has personally admitted that he was "permanently stoned" and consumed marijuana for 16 hours a day for 24 years which all occurred when he wrote the vast majority of his work.
3. Graham also received his revelations through ayahuasca, specifically DMT and believes the drug connects people to a civilization or spiritual people that exist in the ether.
4. He also believes that depression and ADD are not legitimate and are mainly propelled forward by "big pharma" for profit.
Yet having a background in Sociology means Hancock understands = what "motivates" populations - and thus how to exploit the same.......... Add to that his background for a time as a journalist - though he departed from that a looong time ago and ceased to abide by journalistic standards for veracity and verification - and you have an added facet of his deception.
A good journalist does not simply relate information in a pat manner = they must also be _"a good storyteller."_ News media be it print or televised depends upon viewers/readers and hence journalists must be able to relate information in a manner to make it both readable and = _"entertaining........"_
Moral: the most successful grifters by definition must also be uncommonly good liars. If not no one will listen to them and act upon what they say - their being "unconvincing". So Hancock certainly can sound "convincing" - to those who are not skilled at recognizing rhetorical argumentation and deception. Those able to discern such however = immediately see through him..... Enjoy your day.
p.s. - "conspiracy theory" is very much a business model much as LAHT - in fact they are intertwined. Much of the LAHT customer base ascribes to conspiracy theories - their hating/fearing all things "government"/"mainstream". Thus like any businessman Hancock desiring as broad a customer base as possible panders to them the same as he does those with overactive imaginations vis a vis "LAHT".
@@varyolla435 You’ve never been to college. 😂
@@75YBA 🤣🤦 I'll take _Poor Assumptions_ for $1,000 Alex.........
I'm so glad that a legitimate academic in the field of history takes the time to call out Hancock's bullshit. I'm a self-educated "history buff" so my critique carries no weight, but I have enough common sense to understand that Hancock and Rogan are both in the entertainment business. Hancock is a really a show-biz huckster in the tradition of P.T. Barnum, "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" and Eric Von Daniken. The "lost civilization" shtick is his gig. I give him credit for his sheer panache and for playing it to the hilt. He's made a good living from it. But it is not factual nor is it scientific. I suppose it's harmless, but it's irritating because real history is way more fascinating.
Exactly, the UFO entertainment complex is a multi billion dollar per year market... it existed before Daniken, pyramidiots have been around for a long time, but he gave it a big push... from time to time though they have to invent new products to sell, as they tend to recirculate the same entertainment products for decades...
Some of the popular products now are ancient lost ancient high technology and precision... UFO's renamed as UAP's are a national security threat... megalopic ruins actually being tens of thousands of years older...
GH's exciting new product that he introduced to the entertainment market is to actually refute the UFO fan bois ancient astronauts schtik, and refer to actual real historical and archaeological research, to make his ancient civilization ideas appear more valid...
Clever businessmen, one does have to give them credit for that...
I would say convincing gullible people not to trust legitimate sources is harmful to the field
It's not harmless.
There's a certain likelyhood that von Däniken and Hancock DO beleive the nonsense they write about, at least to a degree. Faking it completely for 30 years of "Career" is pretty hard and exhausting.
Yea it’s not harmless. There are people out there that take graham hancock as being right in ever way. People with cult ties. My family member is obsessed with this guy and Hermes. “Magic” and ancient wisdom etc. these kind of guys like Billy Carlson Terrence Howard Randall Carlson and graham hancock are all feeding into it.
The simplest most basic structure there is to build is a pile of stones receding to the top. Why would an advanced civilization build such a simple structure and not something far more complex like we have today?
Give a child a bucket of wooden blocks and ask it to build something, the first recognisable thing it will manage to construct with any height is a pyramid because it is simple and it is built by a child. Ancient civilization is the child that grew up to be today's modern advanced civilization.
You could give these buckets of blocks to children all around the world, seperated by oceans with no way of communicating with each other, it will always come to the same conclusion.
You, among the rest of these assumptive people, know nothing about the mathematical complexities and precision of these incredible structures. The pyramids are not in any way comparable to the work of children.
I think a lot of the people here were easily convinced by Graham Hancock’s theories by their own superficiality and lust for fun stories. I think the people here believed him without knowing any of the concrete evidence (there is a mountain of concrete evidence, that is undeniable) and therefore believed this opposed view of him just as easily too.
You were superficially convinced with ease to believe him, so you are now just as easily pulled away.
@@tombusby3380those "mathematical complexities" pale in comparison to the mathematical complexities of building a modern skyscraper.
@@christheghostwriterAgreed....allegorically, In the same way that an abacus compares to a quantum computer.
DO you still have a site to leave voicemail questions I have one for you about geopolymers and tiwanaku please
speakpipe.com/DavidMiano
These gate-keeping charletons.. shame on scientists for dismissing alchemy and witchcraft
I would give more cred to the scientist if they had the same fervor about pseudoscience in the academics (like all the humanities today) as on Joe Rogan. One is far more dangerous.. and no, not Rogan.. noone uses Rogan to back policy decisions.
If you consider alchemy to be the transmutation of base elemental metals into noble elemental metals such as gold than alchemy is actually real as its entirely possible through nuclear fusion of lighter metals or fission of heavy onss.
Exactly. Bill carlson and all these guys out here feeding into deception
Joe Rogan should host a debate between you and Hancock next.
Nah. Don't give his channel any credit.
It should be ignored, shunned, then eventually shut down.
@lococomrade3488 I give credit rogan had Dibble, but, they teamed him, and didn't let him show all his proof, profit over truth, and gram brings the bucks off the fools
Joe Rogan couldn't adequately host a tapeworm.
@@garros I mean he fed people bull balls... x factor
@@lococomrade3488 idiot. How do you expect to change anything? Joe isnt a host, he is a platform. Of course a debate that would educate millions of people would be worth it.
GH spends half his air time beating up "mainstream" archaeologists, but when one of those same archaeologists does work that he likes, its very interesting to observe how he switches into the 1st person plural... its not "they" anymore, but "now WE have..." as if GH had something to do with that person's work... Klaus Schmidt excavated Gobeklii Tepe for some 20 years, GH visited him for 1 day (or maybe it was for an hour, we weren't there), and he proclaims "now WE have"...
and of course Schmidt was also "mainstream," he spent a couple decades finding and analyzing real evidence... not a few hours of web browsing after taking peyote... and he was very outspoken about various categories of persons misrepresenting his work... he certainly didn't share any of GH's viewpoints...
Göbekli Tepe is indeed a very clear example of "mainstream" archeology being more than eager to rewrite the books in the face of new evidence.
Klaus Schmidt did not lose his job or destroy his career.
It is alot like football fans, when the team looses: they lost, while in case of victory: we won.
💯 agree, Hancock doesn't use logical arguments and gets emotional, no evidence and picks on archeologists whom he assumes is weak. Evidence should be challenged, that's the scientific method. Did you see the most recent episode with an English engineer who talks about all sorts of weird stuff involving the pyramids, it's insane. Anybody with an analytical mind should know better. You have the right to propose a theory, but you need evidence to back it up.
I know right. He has cried for DECADES that academia doesn't listen to him... Yet when asked for evidence Hancock has to admit he has none. So wtf is he complaining about exactly? 🙄
Who needs 'actual evidence' when you got 'whataboutisms' in unlimited supply ?
Like when gram says archeologist accept the date of gobekli tepe? Does he know who dated it lol, he uses word manipulation to fool people
@@drummerdad80 yeap, it's not fair to people out there in the field putting in the work, while I love Joe Rogan for having a open mind, he should give people who have the confidence and integrity a chance to speak. He has a bias towards Hancock because they used to get high together on the show. Just because you perceive someone as "cool" doesn't make them right... That's the problem nowadays... Too many people get caught up on someone being "cool for the gram" and don't take the time to actually be objective about facts.
All I know is that carbon dating seems very very flawed. But archeologists spout it as holy gospel.
I think Hancock may have some ideas that are right! But for me lost a lot of credibility on his debate with Clint Dibble.
@@Willsredcar how when flint openly lies seeveal times ,like his ice core charts didn't even have ice age on their graph when that was one of his three big debunks
I will say, about 5 years ago I stumbled across Hancock and was immediately drawn in by his story and the framing of his theories. It felt apart like wet tissue though when I started seeing archaeological evidence and videos rebutting his claims. And now I have a strong interest in the actual history of early humanity, the fascinating and important evidence that people doing the real work share through their work on RUclips. The truth, as ever, is far more powerful than a titillating tale of elites and deception about the history of our species. Thank you for work Doctor
The most depressing thing about Hancock is how his schtick does in fact appeal to the ‘Everyman’. What it comes down to imo is average people like fantastical stuff. Normal academic information is just too ‘boring’ for average people. A secret society of pot smoking pyramid builders just sounds more fun to people.
Yeah, and if it's more fun it's more true, isn't it.
Lots of "experts" say ancient structures had to have been built with forgotten tech to move so many heavy stones etc....seems those ancient builders forgot how to levitate stones so fast they forgot to build huge bridges...ports ...roads using the same magical techniques....once the pyramids were done they went back to just working hard.
I can't listen to Hancock for 5 seconds without going "hang on that's quite misleading".
I wish I could give Hancock a hug. That kind of victimization complex must make life absolutely exhausting.
Perhaps if he was being genuine
I'd just like to thank you for challenging Rogan and Hankock. I worry we live in a world filled with misinformation. I'm not an archaeologist but I know enough about science to see Hancock's confirmation bias in the face of no actual confirmation
I almost fell in Hancocks rabbit hole a few years ago. Then something really interesting happened. Musk started talking about IT. And it just hit me: archeologists aren’t trying to silence Hancock but are utterly annoyed by his stupid gibberish nonsense. Because I was in their shoes when I’ve heard Musk.
Yet to be honest Musty Trolla happens to be = one of the biggest trolls out there............... Now that he owns a social media platform he has gone off the rails. His "X" = is riddled with trolls/bots - especially Russian ones sowing disinformation.
During the last election "X" was noted again and again to be the source of disinformation originating from Russia which was then picked up and spread by rubepublican politicians and their rube base.
As far as "AI". While he makes a plausible concern as far as the companies rushing to develop "AI" appearing to be doing so for purely economic reasons with little regard for potential adverse consequences* = he is among them............. He has also been working towards "AI development and hence his arguments then risk being disingenuous.
In so much as he as alluded to has a history of online trolling himself then criticizing "AI" development which he happens to be involved in could simply be his = casting aspersions upon potential competitors.......
* - man as history shows has a loooong history of developing new technologies faster than he can learn to use them in a socially responsible way. It is simple greed and the nature of our economic system whereby the first in often dominates the marketplace.
Consequently new development is often based upon that leading to "downstream" unintended adverse consequences emerging after some new tech is rushed out and monetized upon.
Right!?! Musk is so dumb! I mean Americans didn’t even have a space program and had to ride to space with the Russians. Then it took Musk like five whole years to start the world’s first private rocket enterprise and give NASA astronauts a trip to the ISS. 5 whole years! What a dummy. All while running a solar company, electric car company, and accepting payments to those companies from the literal worldwide payment system called PayPal that he invented.
I can see why you’re laughing at him. Your contributions to society have been so much more impactful.
Also, 82% of this video is explaining how “we don’t have an ego, we’re just smart”. You need to research the word Ego. Must not have been in your studies.
tbh people just jealous of people with money and hope to discredit them.
@@Wade06MV3Wouldn't you be jealous if you're a day to day archeologist doing the actual work, and along comes a conspiracy theorist with published books, a tv series and world's largest podcast to boost the narrative that their field isn't even a science, that their findings and interpretations are wrong, while admitting that he has no material proof of his theories other than 'this looks man made', while millions of people clamoring his brilliance for less than subper work?
@@kseriousr Handcock work all his life but it's also kind of a vacation seeing all these ancient cites. Good for him.
This is epic Dr. Miano! ❤
Holy cow, thanks for the shout-out to Potholer54, he's one of the most underrated science communication channels out there
I'm so glad that professional historians and archaeologists are finally going all out on this fraud. I hope they don't stop.
I'd say it's not a mystery why Joe listens to Graham as a guru.
He tells him what he wants to hear. He plays on his own preconceptions and justifies what he wants to be true.
To most people, that's enough.
its funny you mention rogan having hancock on as his go to 'archaelogist', because if some unknown started saying this or that about BJJ or MMA, with no practical experience, he would readily dismiss the opinions as lacking expertise or training.
rogan is easily led around by his nose with people he believes are smarter than himself(whether they actually are or not), as can be witnessed on countless hours of video or better yet, save your time, read books written by people in the fields.
i'd like to know one thing hancock believes he's proven... because he talks like a man who has reems of proof backing up his fiction.
The biggest problem with folks like Graham Hancock and Erich von Däniken. Is that they know, that they don't have to convince archeologists. Only the largely ignorant general public. Hence their success.
Dr. Miano, I'm re-watching this after Hancock has been put onto Rogan again, and Lex Friedman, and making his own video of how he's a poor victim of Flint Dibble's "lies". I wish I could like your video twice. It's crazy how much Hancock is able to double down on his Atlantis and get new audiences to demonize archeology. Kind of sad. Wish everyone could see your video to understand how fantastically manipulative these alternative theories really are.
11:21 when Hancock says ice age what does he mean? does he mean the last inter glacial period or the one before that, or is he referring to the last glacial period, the problem with Hancock, he doesn't specify anything he just uses generalisation, i don't know what he means by advanced civilization, there have been loads of advanced civilizations depending on ones definition of advanced. As a student of history I learn new things everyday, there is so much to learn and absorb to be definite of anything for certain though i do think archeologists need to be more flexible where ever possible, and unless it's factual dater all we have is speculation.
I'd go so far it's a trademark of GH to avoid specific definitions so he he can lean the one way or the other. Just like YEC's never define what a "kind" is to save their face about evolution of kinds after the flood but still not evolution in the way evolutionary theory describes it.
Graham’s insistence on his right to attack anybody and his anger when people clap back at him do seem familiar somehow
Men, I don't know Graham, and everyone involved seem like they love the sell of their dung
Really imortant analysis of the way Hancock actually lies.
Interesting how he says things about others, that actually describes what he is doing in that very moment.
W video
I always hear the "legitimate" archeologist criticism of Graham and others but never an explanation on how bronze aged people moved 900 ton stones 100s of miles crossing mountains in the process. Then they snub their nose at anyone suggesting they had know how and technology that we are ignorant of.
Where did this happen?
@@WorldofAntiquity Well, what do you think of the Trilithon stones? Isn't it sensible to wonder how they got there?
@@WorldofAntiquity Colossi of Memnon is a good start. Temple of the Sun Ollantaytambo is another. I get that the "legitimate" archeologist are super duper smart and the only people allowed to speak so speak. How? How did they do it?
@@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745 Exactly. 800 plus ton stones lifted out of the quarry and placed on top of one another. Why do we never hear the "legitimate" archeologist explain how that was accomplished?
@@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745 The trilithon stones (which I have already made a video about) were moved downhill a half mile.
I feel like through all criticism videos i have watched on Graham Hancock I have gotten a very mild and lenient picture of the man. When he started rambling about hallucinogenics and religion and patriotism and stuff I was really caught off guard. Not to mention his idea about “mind control” which is the most paranoid, out of touch conspiracy theorist thing. I felt like I knew the full extent of this man’s insanity and I simply did not. I have to give huge credit to you for being so focused on his historical claims and not whatever insane ideas he has . It showcases so much professionalism on your part. Just another great thing about Dr Miano
you must be boosted to the gills
Patriotism?
Mind control is a conspiracy? You might spend some time with the Church hearings or the countless FOIA releases since. I don’t know Graham’s statements on it, but it’s been a vastly funded pillar of the most powerful intelligence agencies on earth for 80 years.
@@Kitties-of-Doom I’m mostly confused and concerned if I’m being honest hahaha
@@d.darling.honeyboy you boosted too?
I will forever be grateful to my high school history teacher for (what then seemed to us) bickering on and on about proper source criticism.
Over the years I've come to understand how valuable this teaching was, not just regarding history. People are rarely without motives.
Mr. Hancock has built a career and a persona around his theories, he is financially and emotionally motivated to keep up the charade whether he believes in it or not.
You are doing a great service by calling people back to important things like facts and evidence
Next Up: "How Anti-Woke Crypto-zoologist Toddler Fooled Joe Rogan"
"Googoo gaga"
"That's wild bro"
I always get my info from the booster-jabbs community
There was a time when I devoted far too much bandwidth to this bs spewed by people like Hancock and Carlson. Then, one day, the light bulb turned on. Thanks, David, for another illuminating video.
Great to hear.
Been there.. used to be fascinated by Hancock and Carlson, but people like Miano and Stefan Milo made me snap out of it. Those stories sound pretty cool, but prefer reality.
Personally I never believed a second of Hancocks rubbish. I think maturity and life experience has something to do with that. Stefan Milo is a fantastic resource as is David
@@octavius428ball Used to do way too much speed and also believed in crazy conspiracy theories for some years. Don't think I would have fallen for it without the drug abuse. After sobering up I quickly stopped believing insane conspiracy theories but still took Hancock and Carlson seriously for a while. Watching Milo's video about the Younger Dryas was a turning point.
Clown
I appreciate the modest tone you take in delivering your message in this video. Keep the faith and keep up the good work.
Modest? 🤡
I like to tell the story of how an old girlfriend of mine took one of Hancock's Egyptian tours in 1990 or 1991, and the stuff he was touting then is basically identical to what he is touting now - lost highly advanced civilizations helping ancient civilizations like Egypt. Yet the field of archaeology has moved massively beyond what we knew 30 years ago, for example how sites like Gobekli Tepe changed our view on hunter-gatherers and permanent settlements. Yet, in an obvious sign of projection, Hancock is the one claiming archaeologists are the hide-bound ones, sticking to their cherished beliefs, evidence only looked at if it supports their established views.
Im sorry she paid for his “rock pointing” tour! Did he point to the helicopter and lightbulb glyphs? That’s seems to be their go-to. No history or education involved in those tours. (I used to be a big fan of the alternate guys, and watched a livestream of Brien Foerster leading an Egypt tour to their Dendera lightbulb grand finale. Someone on the tour asks: “What do the hieroglyphs say?” To which Brien replies: “Now that I’m not sure, but you can see here this clearly looks like a lightbulb.” What a tour guide, packed full of such wonderful knowledge!
But I think they have updated the alternative tours, they’ve added a new rock to point at, some jaggedy saw cut lines that look “suspicious.”
Great, so how were were 100 ton stones moved into place?
@@koko4kosh960 There were many ways the ancients moved 100 ton stones. Ever been to Rome? Seen those Egyptian obelisks? Some weigh more than 400 tons and were shipped as a single piece. And archaeologists have demonstrated how the Egyptians likely moved and placed large stones. The only mystery is why people listen to people like Hancock who say "impossible" and ignore the actual people who work in the field (unlike Hancock) who explain how they likely did it.
@@jeremygilbert7190 Right with steel ships and steam engines. Where is the evidence of this level of technology?
@@jeremygilbert7190
Yes, the Roman's moved obelisks. How did the Egyptians move the stone blocks, some weighing as much as 80 tons into place on the Great Pyramid? We aren't able to do it today with all of our technology. The only way that we could come close is by using concrete.
Also, if the Great Pyramid is a burial chamber for a Pharoah, how many years did it take to shape and place the 2.3 million stones? Did it happen in one lifetime, two lifetimes, or many lifetimes?
I’m only 20 minutes in and this is very interesting and neatly laid out. It’s nice to see a respectful and well thought out discussion. This is who Joe needs to have on with Graham. Flint seems very knowledgeable, but in a way he was the perfect person to have on to help gain Graham sympathy. This is the type of push back I can really appreciate. Good job 👏🏻
Im so glad people like YOU and Miniminuteman cover these fringe topics for what they are. Its annoying how much Graham is recommended and given credibility. Thank you for your amazing work!! This video is very well done.