I used to hate Graham Hancock’s wild theories but after this debate I now understand what he is trying to point out. Archeologist in general and mainstream academia are so close minded and they are making just as many interpretations and assumptions as Graham. No wonder their theories continue to be disproven. I’ve learned it’s important to keep an open mind. Graham won this debate.
youve never met or known a close minded archeologist. why do yall keep making that up? bs arguement thats fully just made up cuz they thought graham theory was weak shit
Hancock completely looked ridiculous during this "debate." He back tracked on everything. Hancock and his "evidence" has been debunked over and over. Hancock is fun to listen to simply for entertainment.
He did tho he stated that many times. No archaeologist worth his salt would ever claim that we know everything but theres certain claims that can be easily debunked with the evidence we do have and the evidence we do have goes a lot deeper than most people realize
Show me the tools. Show me a method of transport. He can't point to anything capable if moving behemoth stones. No one is prepared to answer those questions with archeological evidence. Unprepared to back up his racism claims. Unprepared might be too strong. Ill-equipped might be the proper term.
flint was condescending by laughing at graham's points, and he rudely evaded accountability regarding the inferred references to white supremacy. flint made a few good points along the way but lost points by continually mischaracterizing graham's points and findings
Graham spent more time likening himself to Galileo or any other hero that was wrongfully burned at the stake than he did presenting any persuasive evidence that didn't rely on "...but doesn't it LOOK man made". And he openly admitted there was no evidence for his super ancient super smart super society.😂
No, i dont think that was the case. Graham didn't made points other than the percentage of excavation in the Sahara. Other than that he was being a douche and centered his talk on how he has been attacked. Sorry bro but Hancock did horrible on this one and ive seen him talk live so im definitely not a hater
What he meant is that the 'ancient lost civilisation' BS had its origins in white supremacy. The Nazis and Fascists supported it, too. He did okay for a dude with so little experience in media. Rogan and Hancock have thousands of hours on him.
To be clear. None of us really know. Time out lasts us all. So a smart as Flint dibble sounds. He's acting like a know it all. And that sums up the human race. We are very narcissistic and we think we're the only ones in the universe, yet we don't even really understand even how big the universe is. Evolution is for the open-minded. People that were ridiculed for thinking differently. Those kinds of people are the people that throughout history have made progress in the evolution of mankind. And it will continue to be like that because that's how evolution works. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with Graham Hancock exploring possibilities.
The sci-fi believers will say Hankcok won Much with his sensationalist beliefs The other gentleman tho was debating Rogan and the other dude with facts, evidence and laughter lol
@tenkarausa5294 Can you quote me one or two instances? Not trying to argue I just can't remember him doing that. He get mad at the race stuff, but who wouldn't? EDIT: I mean I dont remember him using personal attacks. It got contentious, but Flint did call him a racist in the press.
@@DerajDoh depends on how you look at it, I saw it as him bringing up articles in a way that put words into flints mouth by reading headlines as if they were spoken by flint. And prominently highlighting and bolding it on his reference sheet making joe even think it was the way the article was written. All in all my opinion is that flint had more coherent arguments against grahams evidence. I believe there is more history to uncover but the way graham cherry picks his reports and then is actively combative to people that attempt to disprove him is a red flag. I get he is at the forefront of his investigation but the real way to convince his opponents would be to get enough evidence that meets the current standards for how we affirm evidence. I WANT THE VOLCANOES TO HAVE BEEN TREES TOO so it kinda just bummed me out how personal everything was and how little the theories were discussed
@tenkarausa5294 I agree that it got way to personal, but I can see why. Graham was angry that he has been lambasted as a white supremacist. I'd be angry if my lifes work was associated with Racisim because of articles written by people who disagree with me. Ill admit Flint did destroy his number theory for sure with the 420 argument. But I also think Flint was a little weasley about the articles written by him. I doubt he would have said those things about people who agreed with him. I did not see Graham attack him personally though, which much of been hard considering what Flint repersents to Graham. Graham did get a little contentious. I would respect him more if he kept calm, but thats asking alot in that environment. He is human. Part of me feels like they were not even debating the same topic. Rogan hit the nail on the head whem he said "Both povs can be true". I would like to see Flint on agaon though. You think he will come back? He wrote another article the next day "Why I went on Rogan" and kinda shit on the whole thing.
There's no destroying anyone when Dibble was acting like a rude pompous brat. You know the *saying. "Nobody likes a know it all." And by the end I could tell even Joe Rogan thought this guy's a dick. That's why he brought up Egypt and because he knows that is Graham Hancock's area of expertise. Both Joe and Graham wanted to put this guy in the hot seat. And still Dibble was in denial to the very end. The point is Joe Rogan couldn't find a single thing to get Dibble to have a rational conversation. Flint Dibble was in cognitive dissonance mode. If you didn't catch that that's why Joe kept pointing out things that really look to him like they could be something. Flint Dibble constantly denying anything and everything. I'm not really sure it mattered what it was he was just there to destroy Graham hancocks reputation anyway that he could.
The Azor's pyramids on the bottom of the ocean floor off. The coast of Portugal are the most important build on the face of the planet. Because, how did they build that on the bottom of the ocean? Randall carlson has a theory that places the building up to a million years ago and The theory is that a huge ice age hit the Earth, which collapsed the Poles and buckled the Atlantic ocean floor which took the Pyramid under the waters.
@user-vn3ut5tm6n the 'look at me, I'm an idiot!' contest, yes,. The hat says everything anyone needs to know about that guy. Or kid, really. Adolescent mind he has.
@user-vn3ut5tm6n You're believing lies, so I'm not quite sure you realize what honesty is. Nor do you know how to zing all that well. I sincerely hope you learn both.
He spent most of his time with ad hominem attacks against the archaeological community (and very little time debating any points dibble made), wouldnt you say? Opposite of the Shermer debate
I think Graham Hancock and Flint Dibble were debating about 2 different things. Graham Hancock's point is that Archeology isn't taking into serious consideration other perspectives outside their inner circle occult. That part of the debate he clearly won. Flint dibble was debating that Graham Hancock's theory of an ancient advanced lost civilization is literally impossible to a lack of direct evidence. Their minds are just wired completely differently. I personally don't think anyone really won. Because Graham Hancock can't prove the lost civilization existed and Flint dibble can't disprove that the civilization never existed. But if anyone was to win the original debate it would be Graham Hancock based on his claims about persecution just for having an outside perspective.
You can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on Graham to backup his extraordinary claims, for which he admitted he has none. The archeology community is “persecuting” him for using this anti intellectual movement that propped up in the past decade or so to create this narrative that “they” are the gatekeepers, and that he shouldn’t be criticized for spreading unverifiable theories for his own personal gain.
Flint lost about the domesticaded grass situation, and so would alot of geologists due to the fact that they don’t take into account the consequences of a possible cataclysmic event. 12 k years ago
I think it went both ways! It was definitely not a Graham win or a Dibble win!! It only proves we need to share ideas and argue theories!! Why is this so hard not? We need to talk to each other!!
I agree that nobody really truly won this debate, however, people like Flint there's no room for questioning the current paradigm. Graham Hancock has a message of wisdom that it may be possible that humans don't know everything yet. And so we must keep searching for new possibilities and things that we might have missed.
Flint lost hands down. His mind is too small to consider things outside of it's box. The first step to freeing his mind is to take that hat off that he hides behind. Really, this isn't even much of a debatable topic. There are people who can think outside the box and appreciate where Graham is coming from and those who can't. Dibble is the latter, as is almost everyone else in academia, no matter their subject of supposed expertise. Those in academia are generally there because they are gatekeepers, not because they are actually qualified masters of the their subject.
U are a retrd. I agree people should think out of the box but always with some sort of evidence backing u up, not just ancient stories.. U are the type of people who are highly susceptible to manipulation. Always go with evidence even if the other side of the story sounds like a badass novel
Flint condescending attitude made him so unlikable, he said some things I definitely thought were dumb but overall idk if he’s right.. but as far as won? He lost to me just as a rare obnoxious guest
Would you take if kindly that someone claims that they are a sciencetist and should be taken seriously when they do none of the work and just made up stories.
It seems Graham Hancock has done a great deal of work. And I think his writings reflect that. Flint analyzes seeds. I don't think that plant seeds can tell us everything about history but it sure is fascinating
I think it should be fairly obvious at this point that Graham Hancock has done his fair share of research and work. Whether or not it's an accepted for of academics is not up to you
Flint lost many times that day. Graham has been studying nearly as long as Flint has been living. He seemed unprepared for the subject matter. He had one solid argument...but that doesn't help his stance. How could post hunter/gatherers build all the megalithic structures without some sort of help? If you can answer that, you da man.
What do you mean, ALL the megalithic structures? They primarily discussed just one site - gobekli tepe. Built pre-pottery neolithic, by early quasi-sedentary farmers. Dibble said they spent 6 months a year at the site. Did you miss that?
I don't think nerds ever win no matter how right or wrong they are nerds are a subspecies and they cannot win and even if they try to win they cannot win because their nerds .
@@danielduvana well... First, by dangling off his daddies nuts. 2nd pretending there are no gate keepers in archeology. That basic tenant.... Means you can't trust anything he says. Lying about Dr Hancock. Saying he's a white supremacist
I used to hate Graham Hancock’s wild theories but after this debate I now understand what he is trying to point out. Archeologist in general and mainstream academia are so close minded and they are making just as many interpretations and assumptions as Graham. No wonder their theories continue to be disproven. I’ve learned it’s important to keep an open mind. Graham won this debate.
“They are close minded” but “they are making just as many interpretations as Graham” - irrational contradiction.
@gravitonthongs1363 keep an open mind. You might just find it is not a contradiction 😂
@@gravitonthongs1363the bible is full of contradictions and one can clearly see the following that religion has. 🤨
youve never met or known a close minded archeologist. why do yall keep making that up? bs arguement thats fully just made up cuz they thought graham theory was weak shit
Hancock completely looked ridiculous during this "debate." He back tracked on everything. Hancock and his "evidence" has been debunked over and over. Hancock is fun to listen to simply for entertainment.
I think it is unbelievable that Dibble cannot bring himself in admitting that archeology does not know it all.
He did tho he stated that many times. No archaeologist worth his salt would ever claim that we know everything but theres certain claims that can be easily debunked with the evidence we do have and the evidence we do have goes a lot deeper than most people realize
Agreed. I love Graham and think he’s still onto something, but Flint won the debate with his evidence for sure.
Show me the tools. Show me a method of transport. He can't point to anything capable if moving behemoth stones. No one is prepared to answer those questions with archeological evidence. Unprepared to back up his racism claims. Unprepared might be too strong. Ill-equipped might be the proper term.
flint was condescending by laughing at graham's points, and he rudely evaded accountability regarding the inferred references to white supremacy.
flint made a few good points along the way but lost points by continually mischaracterizing graham's points and findings
Graham spent more time likening himself to Galileo or any other hero that was wrongfully burned at the stake than he did presenting any persuasive evidence that didn't rely on "...but doesn't it LOOK man made". And he openly admitted there was no evidence for his super ancient super smart super society.😂
No, i dont think that was the case. Graham didn't made points other than the percentage of excavation in the Sahara. Other than that he was being a douche and centered his talk on how he has been attacked. Sorry bro but Hancock did horrible on this one and ive seen him talk live so im definitely not a hater
What he meant is that the 'ancient lost civilisation' BS had its origins in white supremacy. The Nazis and Fascists supported it, too.
He did okay for a dude with so little experience in media. Rogan and Hancock have thousands of hours on him.
Hancock has no points or findings.
To be clear. None of us really know. Time out lasts us all. So a smart as Flint dibble sounds. He's acting like a know it all. And that sums up the human race. We are very narcissistic and we think we're the only ones in the universe, yet we don't even really understand even how big the universe is. Evolution is for the open-minded. People that were ridiculed for thinking differently. Those kinds of people are the people that throughout history have made progress in the evolution of mankind. And it will continue to be like that because that's how evolution works. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with Graham Hancock exploring possibilities.
The sci-fi believers will say Hankcok won
Much with his sensationalist beliefs
The other gentleman tho was debating Rogan and the other dude with facts, evidence and laughter lol
What an interesting perspective.
Graham looked like a petty baby that whole time. Flint destroyed his logic and he really couldn’t do anything but personally attack flint
When did he personally attack Flint?
@@DerajDoh the whole show…. He just complained and provided little evidence
@tenkarausa5294 Can you quote me one or two instances? Not trying to argue I just can't remember him doing that. He get mad at the race stuff, but who wouldn't?
EDIT: I mean I dont remember him using personal attacks. It got contentious, but Flint did call him a racist in the press.
@@DerajDoh depends on how you look at it, I saw it as him bringing up articles in a way that put words into flints mouth by reading headlines as if they were spoken by flint. And prominently highlighting and bolding it on his reference sheet making joe even think it was the way the article was written. All in all my opinion is that flint had more coherent arguments against grahams evidence. I believe there is more history to uncover but the way graham cherry picks his reports and then is actively combative to people that attempt to disprove him is a red flag. I get he is at the forefront of his investigation but the real way to convince his opponents would be to get enough evidence that meets the current standards for how we affirm evidence. I WANT THE VOLCANOES TO HAVE BEEN TREES TOO so it kinda just bummed me out how personal everything was and how little the theories were discussed
@tenkarausa5294 I agree that it got way to personal, but I can see why. Graham was angry that he has been lambasted as a white supremacist. I'd be angry if my lifes work was associated with Racisim because of articles written by people who disagree with me.
Ill admit Flint did destroy his number theory for sure with the 420 argument. But I also think Flint was a little weasley about the articles written by him. I doubt he would have said those things about people who agreed with him. I did not see Graham attack him personally though, which much of been hard considering what Flint repersents to Graham. Graham did get a little contentious. I would respect him more if he kept calm, but thats asking alot in that environment. He is human.
Part of me feels like they were not even debating the same topic. Rogan hit the nail on the head whem he said "Both povs can be true".
I would like to see Flint on agaon though. You think he will come back? He wrote another article the next day "Why I went on Rogan" and kinda shit on the whole thing.
Dibble did not win he is defending his career and financial backing (nothing below the clovis culture) what a lie.
He destroyed Handcock
There's no destroying anyone when Dibble was acting like a rude pompous brat. You know the *saying. "Nobody likes a know it all." And by the end I could tell even Joe Rogan thought this guy's a dick. That's why he brought up Egypt and because he knows that is Graham Hancock's area of expertise. Both Joe and Graham wanted to put this guy in the hot seat. And still Dibble was in denial to the very end. The point is Joe Rogan couldn't find a single thing to get Dibble to have a rational conversation. Flint Dibble was in cognitive dissonance mode. If you didn't catch that that's why Joe kept pointing out things that really look to him like they could be something. Flint Dibble constantly denying anything and everything. I'm not really sure it mattered what it was he was just there to destroy Graham hancocks reputation anyway that he could.
@@Capnobot he was there to present the scientific evidence. Further destruction to GH’s low reputation was just an inevitable consequence.
Imagine being called Flint Dibble
With a brother named 'Chip'.
I actually think he has a perfect name for an archeologist of antiquity lol
He looks very much like you would expect by his name. And he does look like a true archaeologist
The Azor's pyramids on the bottom of the ocean floor off. The coast of Portugal are the most important build on the face of the planet. Because, how did they build that on the bottom of the ocean? Randall carlson has a theory that places the building up to a million years ago and The theory is that a huge ice age hit the Earth, which collapsed the Poles and buckled the Atlantic ocean floor which took the Pyramid under the waters.
I think the effects of long term cannabis/mushroom use are starting to take their toll on Graham. He lost this one, unforunately
Flint wasnt remotely prepared.
@user-vn3ut5tm6n the 'look at me, I'm an idiot!' contest, yes,.
The hat says everything anyone needs to know about that guy. Or kid, really. Adolescent mind he has.
@user-vn3ut5tm6n You're believing lies, so I'm not quite sure you realize what honesty is. Nor do you know how to zing all that well.
I sincerely hope you learn both.
Flint was incredibly prepared, did you even watch the episode??
i agree with ya
I don’t put much trust in Hancock.
I need a part 2.... no. I need a part 23.
I think you must have been on those mushrooms Rogan pushes.
Graham was there for his pound of flesh. He was mad about flint coloring him a racist.
He spent most of his time with ad hominem attacks against the archaeological community (and very little time debating any points dibble made), wouldnt you say? Opposite of the Shermer debate
Graham is a braggar and a liar he got offended so easy too
It was Joe and Graham debating dude
I think Graham Hancock and Flint Dibble were debating about 2 different things. Graham Hancock's point is that Archeology isn't taking into serious consideration other perspectives outside their inner circle occult. That part of the debate he clearly won. Flint dibble was debating that Graham Hancock's theory of an ancient advanced lost civilization is literally impossible to a lack of direct evidence. Their minds are just wired completely differently. I personally don't think anyone really won. Because Graham Hancock can't prove the lost civilization existed and Flint dibble can't disprove that the civilization never existed. But if anyone was to win the original debate it would be Graham Hancock based on his claims about persecution just for having an outside perspective.
You can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on Graham to backup his extraordinary claims, for which he admitted he has none. The archeology community is “persecuting” him for using this anti intellectual movement that propped up in the past decade or so to create this narrative that “they” are the gatekeepers, and that he shouldn’t be criticized for spreading unverifiable theories for his own personal gain.
Flint lost about the domesticaded grass situation, and so would alot of geologists due to the fact that they don’t take into account the consequences of a possible cataclysmic event. 12 k years ago
I think it went both ways! It was definitely not a Graham win or a Dibble win!! It only proves we need to share ideas and argue theories!! Why is this so hard not? We need to talk to each other!!
I agree that nobody really truly won this debate, however, people like Flint there's no room for questioning the current paradigm. Graham Hancock has a message of wisdom that it may be possible that humans don't know everything yet. And so we must keep searching for new possibilities and things that we might have missed.
I thought it was boring
Flint lost hands down. His mind is too small to consider things outside of it's box. The first step to freeing his mind is to take that hat off that he hides behind.
Really, this isn't even much of a debatable topic. There are people who can think outside the box and appreciate where Graham is coming from and those who can't. Dibble is the latter, as is almost everyone else in academia, no matter their subject of supposed expertise.
Those in academia are generally there because they are gatekeepers, not because they are actually qualified masters of the their subject.
U are a retrd. I agree people should think out of the box but always with some sort of evidence backing u up, not just ancient stories.. U are the type of people who are highly susceptible to manipulation. Always go with evidence even if the other side of the story sounds like a badass novel
No. No he did not
I just can't bring myself to say Dibble won. He's so annoying.
Flint condescending attitude made him so unlikable, he said some things I definitely thought were dumb but overall idk if he’s right.. but as far as won? He lost to me just as a rare obnoxious guest
Would you take if kindly that someone claims that they are a sciencetist and should be taken seriously when they do none of the work and just made up stories.
It seems Graham Hancock has done a great deal of work. And I think his writings reflect that. Flint analyzes seeds. I don't think that plant seeds can tell us everything about history but it sure is fascinating
I think it should be fairly obvious at this point that Graham Hancock has done his fair share of research and work. Whether or not it's an accepted for of academics is not up to you
What the hell does Joe Rogan know about anything???
Flint lost many times that day. Graham has been studying nearly as long as Flint has been living. He seemed unprepared for the subject matter. He had one solid argument...but that doesn't help his stance. How could post hunter/gatherers build all the megalithic structures without some sort of help? If you can answer that, you da man.
What do you mean, ALL the megalithic structures? They primarily discussed just one site - gobekli tepe. Built pre-pottery neolithic, by early quasi-sedentary farmers. Dibble said they spent 6 months a year at the site. Did you miss that?
@@ryandebruys2762I couldn't hear arguments under his stupid hat...he was a joke ...a pathetic joke
Saying that an actual archaeologist was unprepared is insane😂😂
Absolutely and his stupid hat 🤠
I don't think nerds ever win no matter how right or wrong they are nerds are a subspecies and they cannot win and even if they try to win they cannot win because their nerds .
Such a nerdy thing to say
Flint is a clown.
To be honest I think both are stupid and clowns
How so?
@@danielduvana well... First, by dangling off his daddies nuts. 2nd pretending there are no gate keepers in archeology. That basic tenant.... Means you can't trust anything he says. Lying about Dr Hancock. Saying he's a white supremacist