Thanks for taking your time in reviewing this article with Lutfi and Harry and sharing it with us! It's so important to hear the voices of the professionals who are actually working at the stuff at hand. It seems to be very typical for certain promoters of such far-fetched hypotheses to avoid contact with experts who might disagree with them. *Subscribed.*
Came from the Joe Rogan podcast, my deep respect for taking up that unpleasent discussion with Gram. He seems more likely to talk about his victim status instead of archeology. You did a great job. THANK YOU.
Great explanation on why the paper is so flakey. It really puts the argument into perspective when you have local archaeologists critiquing the piece. The fact that no standard archaeological processes have been followed, no evidence of valid artefacts, the shoddy core sample analysis and the "stepped terrace vs pyramid" clarification had me convinced. Great work, thank you.
Just came here after the JRE podcast to thank you for going on there! We need more professionals like you willing to debate and stand ground on large forums. You came prepared and it was a really engaging discussion. This video I’m commenting on was good too but the live professional debate with many substantiated counter points and high quality audio seems where the money is. Great work!
I'm an Indonesian and work as a serials librarian. I can tell you that there are so many pseudo-science articles in scientific journals in Indonesia, especially when connected to nationalism and religion (Islam). Indonesia is facing a big problem of publishing too many 'scientific articles' but does not pay attention to their quality and credibility.
I think mainstream archaeology is in a panic that their ancient hidden star chamber headquarters, below gunang-padang has been revealed at last, and they can't get their Stargate out to the backup site yet. 😁 I agree that it's an impressive site and I hope to visit it someday myself. It's a testament to the original builders that should last for many more millennia to come.
I usually like Graham but i feel he done himself a large disservice by making it so personal as opposed to attempting to refute your evidence based responses to his ideas.
The persecution is what sells books. Sadly there's an audience that hates science so they love hearing Hancock say that scientists are incompetent and dogmatic and afraid of the truth. It makes them feel smarter.
When he resorts to character assassination, instead of actually discussing Flint's evidence and objections to his evidence, he probably knows deep down that his entire hypothesis is built on sand
What no one is touching on, is how were the authors capable of excavating there , even disturbing the site by using inadequate methods such as shovels and spades for shallow surface digs. But also the staff of the president declared himself that Gunund Padang was a pyramid, he was well aware of the purpose of the excavation, as he was aware Natawidjaja also tried to explore other mountains for traces of ancient pyramids
yes, one of my take aways from talking with Lutfi and Harry was that there was a lot more that could be investigated and discussed on these topics. I have no answers, but hope we will hear more about this issue that includes the ethics and politics of archaeology from them and others.
Came here from Joe Rogan. Saw a comment on the JRE clips RUclips that said you guys should have a show together. You absolutely should. It would be amazing!! Also, bravo to you for going on and arguing with a beloved guest. I’m a huge Graham Hancock fan and we need more of these talks regardless of who is right and who is wrong
Flint, you are a true scholar. I am amazed by and greatly appreciate the depth of your knowledge and expertise. You exposed Hancock as a hack in my opinion. Well done. Subscribed.
Flint, I want to thank you for going on JRE. With it, you did what I had been hoping for quiet some time. I know some other actual archeologists started to adress Hancocks pseudoarcheology in the way you did, but what we needed was someone battling him on his own home turf. On JRE, where he goes unquestioned and often cheered. Shermer and Defant were fine, but not enough. I think you did a great job and the way Graham was pushing and often relying on his imagined victimhood throughtout the whole thing is only proof of that.
Please don't stop doing these videos and don't stop correcting fake archeology and fake history! I am sorry you got trolled by people who don't want to hear the truth, but there are a ton of us out here who DO want the truth and we are behind you. Many many thanks!
People watch too many movies and then expect the world to be exactly the same. Real archaeology is boring by their standards. Pair this with their non-critical distrust of nearly every institution that is vital to the progress of humanity and you get people who are pseudo junkies. The pseudo junkie then falls deeper into the pockets of their "teachers" when they interpret everyone correcting them as just another conspiracy against them. Hancock especially is constantly framing himself as under attack from these institutions. He communicates that this only lends credibility to his position.
This was a really great conversation and I think it was absolutely vital that we hear Indonesian voices on this topic. What stands out to me is Lutfi wasn't approached at all by Danny Hillman for input as he went into doing the work, an extremely strange circumstance; and Harry's point about speaking to the public and sharing our work. Oh.. and "Little Mermaid!" Ha! :)
Hey Flint, Hope you un-Earth my comments here on your soon to be wildly popular channel. I'm a huge Graham Hancock fan, but Sir.... you've earned my RESPECT for the way you rep'd the entire World of Archeology, and so.... I'm now your fan, as well! Outstanding!
HOW? Most times Graham asked him a question it was deflected or responding with "because it isn't". He did a disservice to the archeological community by pulling race into the equation. That's not a scientific way to shoot down someone's argument or theories. They should have brought in a real professional to debate Graham, not this rookie living off his dad's reputation.
@@krisray8096 I didn't agree with his comments in articles about Graham being associated with White Supremacy, but specifically about his appearance on Joe Rogan; I thought he did well to back-up his claims that dispute Graham's theories with archeological evidence, but most wasn't accepted, rather dismissed as not being enough evidence. Yet, it was actually a lot of evidence Flint Dibble was citing. Again, huge fan of Graham Parker, and he does NOT come off as racist in his theories, however, he did not present a strong enough or to be honest even coherent or cohesive argument... other than NO evidence, which is why it's a LOST CIVILIZATION? That's not enough... but I do believe Graham won the Egypt argument as older erosion dating should be accepted by mainstream archeologists.
@@ChristianVedder1Can you please explain something to me? Why do people ignore the narrative from Hancock? He clearly says that all the non white people needed help from white people to build structures. But for structures built by white people, no help was needed. Do you not see how white supremacists would love that narrative?
@@loudorchen9897 You mean white people like Hancock who described the Maya as "semi-civilized," "jungle-dwelling Indians" and then gets butthurt when people point out the problems with such statements.
@@RugMann I agree that Flint Dibble came across as arrogant, possibly because he adopts a completely different approach to archaeology. He often mentions, "Working from the known to unknowns," but the challenge is that Graham Hancock has very few "knowns" compared to mainstream archaeology. Dr. Dibble rightly holds his ground, supporting claims rooted in evidence-based mainstream archaeology. Mainstream archaeology has been recognized as a scientific discipline for approximately 200 years. It gained significant traction in the 19th century, with the development of systematic excavation methods and the establishment of archaeological societies and institutions. Moreover, Dibble is an academic, a Professor in his field, and I'm sure as a teacher... he emphasizes to his students the importance of presenting arguments with supporting evidence. Whether you like him or not, that's how Dibble operates, and it is the established practice of archaeology. Meanwhile, Hancock utilizes myths coupled with sporadic evidence to draw conclusions, suggesting that a few survivors from a lost advanced civilization might have circumnavigated the globe and passed information to surviving hunter-gatherers. However, there's a lack of hard evidence to support this claim. On the topic of Egypt dating, I lean towards Hancock's perspective, as it aligns with the findings of Robert M. Schoch. This, I believe, provides the strongest evidence for an advanced civilization predating the Younger Dryas period. Graham Hancock is also correct in that the Sahara and the Amazon are barely touched areas, and that alone should hold the door open for further exploration, where both mainstream archaeology and alternative approaches can better complement one another.
Great breakdown. Thanks. I'm in Indonesia right now shooting a travel show. We recently filmed at Gunung Padang . Still looking for an archaeologist to contradict the ice age theory, Will reach out to these gentlemen!
Hey Flint, just heard the episode with you and Graham on JRE, that was really cool and i wanted to say i was actually pretty moved at the end there when you and Graham kinda found a little common ground over the need to keep archaeology alive and thriving. I learned lots of cool stuff and I'm gonna start looking through your channel for more cool things to learn!
Flint! Great conversation on JRE you had real evidence and really came across like I was hoping ❤ Graham seemed to have an axe to grand and a few photos rather than being fully prepared which was odd
I watched you on the Joe Rogan podcast, thank you for clarifying the importance of undisputable evidence. With social media, information spreads like wildfire and because of this it's important bring up the truth every once in a while. You did a great thing for archeology.
That's a great question. You don't need volcanic rocks to do lithic mulching though. And it's mostly useful in dry areas because it holds moisture. So I'm betting it wasn't needed. But I don't know, and it's a topic I'm interested in
Seems like all the trolls have come over since the debate dropped. I just wanted to say that I listened to the entire debate and you presented well. The burden of proof is on Hancock and as he admits there is no proof. Over time as archaeologists such as yourself continue to diligently work the truth will reveal itself fully.
Agreed. Hancock's entire argument is that proof could be found if we just did more digging, but Flint made an amazing comment at about 1 hour and 17 minutes in, "Why do we have so much evidence for ephemeral hunter gatherers, but not evidence from an advanced civilization that is global? That should leave behind monuments that are far more easier to find...". He's right! We can find thousands of rock tools the size of lemons, but we can't find unambiguous gigantic structures from this lost advanced civilization?
@@12postI'm wondering why these ancient people always decided to force the natives to build structures that didn't even offer shelter when teaching them how to plant crops would have been really helpful.
Hey flint, i'm just some random person that came from the JRE. I'm really glad you took time out of your day to share your views and defend your points against graham. You really had some very interesting points and insights and you handled the disagreements professionally. At the end of the day, i understand the disagreements and and perspectives. To an extent, we should challenge thoughts and theories but inba constructive way. You seemed very professional and I hope graham also goes forward in respecting you. The end goal is to push forward us as humans. We have different ways of doing that, yes there is some criticism deserved here and there. I hope we can not necessarily agree but work together in some way and agree for the sake of humanity. Thank you.
I’ve just finished the JRE episode. You were really good. Hancock using Brandolini's Law as much as he could but you were really knowledgeable even with the topics outside of your field. Cardiff are lucky to have an educator like you. Your passion for teaching came out every time the discussion found its way into your fields of expertise. Brilliant work.
Flint, You did a great job on the Rogan podcast, I am a follower of Hancock's work, but you opened my eyes to a lot of possibilities in correction to his. Please ignore the childish comments from people who did not sit through the whole podcast because of sensitivity. lol.
Just watched you on Rogan! Your channel better get more subs than grams or the world is lost! Thank you for staying with facts and keeping your composer! I'll be watching your vids!!!
I just saw you on the big podcast. I remember watching part of that silly Netflix series a while back. It’s nice to see it revisited by professionals. I have followed archeology since childhood, my brother had found a early man tool in an old river bank when I was a kid. Since then I have been to archeological museums in London, Berlin, and many times in Athens (Also, Athens has a war museum with trireme parts) very cool stuff. It’s nice to have found your channel and I will subscribe for more of your topics, etc.
If you want to know of the site where we found the early tool let me know. We did call the university next to where we had found it. I’m not sure if the area had been looked at since. GVSU
Oh, also, you're clearly a passionate and brilliant person. You should channel that into the current day and age and educate people and interest them. Thank you
You did a great job on JRE podcast sir keep up what you do, hope the podcast gives u some good coverage. u spoke very kindly and spoke facts i like graham handcock for his out of the box thinking because it challenges people like yourself and gives u coverage if u and ur colleagues come out and speak against it but dont call people arrogant or nicely put racists, hope u do another podcast or 2 with graham in the future....... And the winner here archeology yes!!!
The fact people are so "open minded" clearly intelligent but can only look thru a scope of how they see history as opposed to the millions of substories that are evident in every minute of human existence. You honestly think some form of civilization could not exist before the accepted standards of our own civilization that is less then ten thousand yrs old... Humans have been around for at least a million yrs if not more. The earth reclaims and more is forgotten than we will ever know. The bible points this out
Sure they have just the population is so small throughout history the evidence is hard to find. Just like neanderthals were knuckle draggers with tiny brains. Not able to make complex clothing nor fire. Tiny brain non tool making apes. We know know neanderthals live on today among us. Had larger brains. Capable of chemistry and made art and jewelry. Modern man was considered evolved and walking on the earth fifty thousands years ago not that long ago and if you said you believed they were around two hundred thousands years ago you would have been laughed under the desk that misinformed a few generations of us. Mitochondrial eve dates bake 450 thousand years ago. This is proven genetics. Along with discoveries of modern man beside the very archaic populations we were supposed to have evolved from. You know many scientists are coming out saying evolution is wrong. It's much more evident adaption by selective breeding is the option we should be focusing on. One day lidar or some better technique will prove human have been doing what humans do for much long and people who aren't like me will have to accept that. I'm ok with people thinking I'm "crazy" I've been around the world and seen more than a American should that's why I think like i do. But what will you think when proven ignorant
I enjoyed your initial counter points in the latest episode of JRE, but sticking to graham hancock being a white supremacist is absurd... he's in an interracial marriage... when would a white supremacist ever marry someone who isnt white... you lost the debate with graham hancock on this point alone...
First of all, why do you think it's impossible for someone to marry a person they think is beneath them? Do you think any abusive person in a relationship is abusive to their spouse they consider an equal? Second, Hancock's work can be racist without him being racist. His books talk about the white gods who taught all the non white natives their building skills and legends. Yet the white British built Stonehenge just fine. Can you explain why that's not racist?
@@cashmir5883 On what? That writing a book about non white people needing the help from white people to stack rocks is promoting racism? That's obvious to everyone but racists.
Great job on JRE. I wasn't a fan of Graham's anyway, but funnily enough, a proper rebuttal requires exploring all the archeological evidence we have to the "settling/agriculaturalizing/building" of ancient cultures that we have, which is fascinating to see, and I was pretty awe-struck by the level of knowledge and prep Flint brought to the table. I'm a stats guy myself, so I felt like the discussion danced what I saw as the main issue -- the philosophy and science of skepticism. If you want to publish a science paper, you need to have a significant p-value in your findings. Explaining what a p-value is (or better-yet, a bayesian factor) would dismantle Graham's arguments. The basic idea is that we do not have the resources to excavate all 25 million square miles of costline or whatever absurd high bar Graham sets. Instead, we have to take a few samples and then extrapolate the most reasonable conclusion we have from those (that's statistics, baby!). How we get a bayesian factor that is that we think about how likely our current situation is under a) the assumption of your null theory (no atlantis) and b) the assumption under your alternative theory (there was an atlantis). These competing probabilities guide our judgment. In this case, if there was no atlantis, then all we have to be confused about are a handful of weird geologically formed rocks, so that's not a big leap. However, if atlantis was real, then we have to wonder why such an advanced global civilization left behind no traces of archeological record while the much less advanced hunter gatherers left behind DROVES of artifacts and evidence. This imbalance of probabilities is why it's safe to assume there was no atlantis.
@@MichaelPK03 The reason you know about any of these topics is because of academics who discover and study constantly. There was no evidence of Gobekli until there was and it has been continuously studied now for 3 decades but it has not pushed back the date for civilization or agriculture. Why are you upset with Flint for pointing out facts about white supremacy and Atlantis belief? There was a tie in with the early idealogy and people need to understand and acknowledge it.
@@MichaelPK03You seem to be proud of getting facts wrong. There's no evidence of agriculture at Gobekli Tepe. Science doesn't deny that something doesn't exist, but it will tell you when evidence doesn't exist. You seem to think relying on evidence is a bad thing. Also you should research the history of Atlantis. Flint isn't imagining a tie between Atlantis and Nazi Germany, it already exists.
You shit on Graham my guy, his whole argument was “but these rocks are cool and cause we haven’t found a global lost civilization you can’t prove there isn’t one.”
I saw you on JRE and I really enjoyed both you and Graham. I know very little about the subject, and was not aware of the drama. I thought both of you were a bit terse perhaps but that makes sense when tensions are high.
"Tense" as in calling and black balling Graham as a white supremacist. Flint isn't conducting himself like a scientist. It's embarrassing. I wonder if he thinks his father is proud of him
Came from Joes show, i thought you stood your corner well,i like Graeme too, but its good to keep our feet on the ground!!( ill overlook the pronouns for now) 😂
Nice job on JRE all your shoutouts at the end and the sincere ❤ that you had for society, archeology, our future won me over. I bet it was tough getting called out for 💩 talking in the past but we all do that 😅. That guys been on JRE a bunch of times this was the first we got to hear another voice. Thank you. PS stop staying "right?"
Thank you for coming on JRE, I thought you did really well. I'd like to see a solo episode with you and Joe just talking about Ancient Greece or any other topic. I disagree Graham has malicious intent and it's a shame that people are weaponising his theories for something heinous but you convinced me Graham is wrong about the timeline, so thank you. Audio is quite scratchy at times but I enjoyed this thanks
@@loudorchen9897 You mean white people like Hancock who described the Maya as "semi-civilized', "jungle-dwelling Indians? And who is married to a woman of color but admits to repeatedly verbally abusing her for no reason while under the influence of drugs?
Flint i just watched you on JRE and even though i am a supporter of Graham Hancock, i thought you represented yourself and your work in a way that has earned my respect. Im actually disappointed that it seemed like he was trying to get payback instead of showing evidence to discuss.. You definitely did not change my mind about a ice age civilization, but i do think I need to look at more information from opposing views of Grahams..
So glad to see you on Rogan today! I like learning about archaeology and always wanted Joe to have some real archaeoligists on his show. The truth is more interesting than Graham Hancock's made up pseudo-archaeology.
Read Hancock’s first book on the subject. He mentions a white race of bearded men sailing around teaching natives. It’s a theory that was popularised by the nazis. For the record, I don’t think Hancock is racist at all, he clearly isn’t. But I can see why people would read that and think he was.
@@casualviewing1096 Calling someone a racist when they are clearly not is a tactic intentionally used to discredit and destroy someone and gain attention for one's self.
@@casualviewing1096 Atlantis alone is typically linked to white supremacy so Hancock screwed up from the start by jumping on the bandwagon. He also didn't do himself any favors by saying that the white people who built Stonehenge didn't need any help.
Dude I tell you, keep wearing the hat and the suit for marketing. Ud be more recognizable given that u already was on Joe. U'd hear some insults but if u want to make urself more marketable and pursue that.. know what I'm sayin
I see u liked my comment. 😮 No lie ive watched the pod w joe 3/4 times. I just love that u had the courage to go debate. And u presented legitimate tangible evidence. Unlike the other guy that can only say 'It looks man made' or 'u persecuting me, u hurt my feelings' 🤣. I believed in that woo stuff for more than I want to admit. You, minuteman, and steffan milo are my guys for archeology. Keep it up dude!
Concerning the JRE episode: What i havent seen mentioned or maybe considered by @FlintDibble - is the changing of seeds and ancient agricultural development happening over thousands of years as he finds in research POSSIBLY being because it happened out of necessity - due to ancient population growth. As more people start living together, it seems like “gathering” becomes less of an option to sustain more people. If its possible to acknowledge domestic plants and seeds can/would be reverting back to wild plants again if left alone - seems like its entirely possible for that to happen after a global catastrophic event - where then you would (again) see plants converting (or actually reverting) back to domesticated versions as humans began to slowly repopulate. If they started to live in larger groups, eventually forming towns/cities (using those terms loosely) it seems like “gathering” becomes less of an option. Not to play devils advocate - but isnt that an entirely logical sequence of events after a massive depopulation event, to find evidence of slow growth and development back into a civilization again? If plants WILL change back and forth from domestic forms to wild, couldnt that have happened multiple times in this earth history?
Well asides from the fact that there's no evidence of this happening, it's not easy to just revert to a hunter gatherer lifestyle once you've developed an agricultural civilisation. Hunter gatherers required a lot of skills to survive and thrive, and a civilisation that develops intensive agriculture will lose most of those skills. Also, Hancocks basic premise is frankly moronic. Aside from the overwhelming lack of archaeological evidence there's also a lack of linguistic evidence and a lack of common sense. If this "advanced" civilisation managed to send out survivors all around the world and have significant impacts on native hunter gatherer peoples around the globe then why are there no traces of common language between say south america and the ancient middle east? And if they don't actually bring any of that advanced technology with them, then why would those native hunter gatherers listen to them or help them survive? If a group of strangers turned up and told you that they came from an advanced civilisation which has failed to survive and don't actually bring any useful technology with them why would you take them in? Their civilisation failed whilst yours survived, and these people want you to completely change your way of life to imitate their old one? Seems absurd.
@@Pentagathusosaurus I think that logic lacks common sense. If our world ended today, and the next era of man started to dig up what we left behind in this country, what would u find? The area that covers large developed cities pales in comparison to the amount of land mass being lived on by small numbers of people. Most of our biggest cities are on the coast lines and would be gone if water levels rose - for the simple reason that older civilizations will always develop first near the coast lines due to easy access to resources. You make it sound like the few people that would survive today - would eventually seek other survivors inland - living as self sustained small groups - and just "change" everything about those people rather than assimilate to newfound groups already surviving on their own. There's no need to farm if you live with 30 other people. When that number grows to 300, then 3,000 - you NEED to learn how to farm. If you fled to mexico to escape and survive, you wouldn't change their language to English. You'd learn Spanish. People who'd leave Italy and flee to Russia would learn Russian. The idea of it taking modern humans thousands of years to invent the wheel (umm, a circle) is comical.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime understand this: There is only 1 constant when it comes to "Science" - and that is - they never know as much as they thought they did. And yes - science ABSOLUTELY deals with possible - that's how advancements (and mistakes) are made. Unless youd like to explain where gravity comes from - and what it actually is - cause we still have no real idea - yet all of physics is based on it. When it comes to ancient history they are making educated guesses, cause that's all they can do. Their "science and ancient history" is so "settled" they are still arguing how the pyramids were built, and are simultaneously claiming the people were advanced enough to be skilled in astrology, geometry, science ECT - but were somehow too stupid and ineptit to invent a wheel or realize that a simple circle would roll.
@@kctyphoon No, science isn't about the possible. It investigates what might be possible, but papers are only about the evidence. Your analogy about gravity is funny because if science were to take your attitude we would never have aircraft or flight because we don't know what causes mass to attract mass. You're just looking at the unknown and trying to claim it's a reason to doubt what we know. That's not only lazy it's childish. Science isn't about absolutes but you can reach a conclusion when evidence is enough.
I hope you read this. I just watched you for 4 and 1/2 hours. I could watch you for 4 and 1/2 more. You have opened my eyes, sir. You are somebody who I can agree with and disagree with simultaneously, and who holds a radically different point of view from myself. And I love you. This is one of the best episodes of JRE ever. Thank you so much, and I am a subscriber, and a fan, and I'll start to watch your content. Please don't listen to any negative comments from negative people. Just like you said, there's assholes everywhere. I seen one guy comment already, that he looked at your twitter, and something in your bio, it made him lose his trust. I don't have trust in that individual. He is the example, or the counterexample rather. He comes on here, to your channel, because he likes you, initially, from rogan. Then he sees one thing, from your profile, and decides he doesn't trust you. This is very shallow thinking. This is why I loved the podcast so much. I can see clearly that you are strong and your point of view, and you are unrelenting, and well articulated, and well-researched. And graham, on the other hand, is just as passionate and articulate, and he's very clever with words and language, he can talk about things that make no sense and it sounds lovely. Anyways, I left you another paragraph on another one of your videos, I won't bore you with too much information, but I just really appreciate you sir. Flint Dibble is one of my heroes.
Watching your debate with Graham Hancock I found your arguments were logical and found myself agreeing with your side of the argument. What I can’t agree with is the attempts to push the White Supremacy narrative to smear Hancock. These tactics are quite disgraceful and makes it seam like you would rather suppress Hancock by these means instead of letting your ideas be openly debated.
Hancock wouldn't get associated with it if he didn't constantly source it and push it tho innit. He's not pushing anything orginal tho, it's an old scam
Have you actually read what Hancock said in terms of race in books such as Fingerprints of the Gods? A lot of people seem to be defending hancock based on the highly sanitized version of his work presented in the Netflix series but are not familiar with his overall body of work.
@@jackrifleman562 _"Have you actually read what Hancock said in terms of race in books such as Fingerprints of the Gods? A lot of people seem to be defending hancock based on the highly sanitized version of his work presented in the Netflix series but are not familiar with his overall body of work"_ Have you noticed that prior to the racism aspect being brought to the forefront, all the Hancock fans were insistent that you HAD to read the books. But now that focus is back on the books, it seems the fans are pretending to not know what was in the books.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime yeah you get some of that. Point out some of the really bad stuff from Fingerprints and they say oh that was 30 years ago. Oblivious to the fact that GH said that he took responsibility for all of his work in response to the Netflix backlash. Which means it is all fair game. Which indicates that many of his supporters only have a loose understanding of even his most recent comments. But they still want to slug away. Go figure.
Exactly, this is a shallow thinking. If you like the man, come to his channel and compliment him for his great performance on the JRE podcast. If you're so bothered by the fact that he respects people who pay adherence to gender pronouns, maybe you should grow a little.
And I'm saying this from the point of view of somebody who doesn't pay adherence to gender pronouns, necessarily. I bought some dope from a transgendered woman today, and I called Bonnie she. I get it. I have transgender people in my family too, and all kinds of stuff. Gangsters, mental illness, soldiers, musicians, chefs, laborers, firefighters,. This is what me and my brothers do. I'm the chef musician gangster. Anyways, even if I don't agree with somebody's opinion, I still respect their opinion. Because respect is more important than argumentation. Especially when argumentation is totally unnecessary. I'd rather go to war.
The fact that you would say this too, do you imagine this would encourage him to change his point of view or cause them to double down? What understanding of humanity do you have. If you're uncomfortable with the way that he adheres to gender pronouns, bring it up in a respectful manner. Think of an argumentation or a debate. I assume you just watched a 4 1/2 hour debate between two geniuses and one of the best commentators and hosts in the world. Show a little bit of respect why don't you
You did a really great job on JRE. Very knowledgeable and you can hear the passion of your work when you speak. Your dad would be so proud ! ❤ ignore the assh*les.
We need the dibbler to start fact checking all dubious joe rogan episodes and uploading a video explaining why the guest is wrong, start with the Tucker episode.
@dudeDOGnLoL. Hancock is an active tourist while people like Flint will work with various other fields to give Hancock the data he can lie to you about from his office. Tell me genius, why does Hancock still claim that the underwater pillars near Nan Madol are stone? Why is he hiding the fact that an actual scientist cut them open and studied them? Or better yet, why id Hancock creating fictional data about the Younger Dryas? It's really amazing how people like you seem to value being lied to.
Hancock doesn't have the qualifications to excavate a site or analyze archaeological materials. What he could do is use some of the wealth that he has generated to hire professional archaeologists to excavate where he things there might be something of significance. Anything beyond that is like suggesting that an anti-vaxxer with no education in medicine, biology, chemisty etc. go into the Center for Disease Control and work with scientists. Or a flat earther with a B.A in Physical Ed going to NASA to collaborate with the research staff with Ph.D.'s in astrophysics.
OBJECTIVE PEER REVIEW OR BASELESS ACCUSATIONS? by Danny Hilman Natawidjaja. After watching the linked video ( ruclips.net/video/UxaHo3V4lGg/видео.html ), we were deeply disappointed by the lack of professionalism displayed by the individuals involved. Their behaviors were far from that of scientists engaging in constructive discourse; instead, they resembled more of a disrespectful and mocking-giggling tone, as if they were participating in a gossip session rather than a serious discussion about research. It’s evident that they have completely misunderstood or misinterpreted the content of our paper. Their comments lacked substance and evidence, and their attempt to connect our research on Gunung Padang with the Atlantis issue and politics is particularly perplexing and demonstrates an apparent misunderstanding of our work. Ironically, despite their emphasis on the importance of data over opinion, their entire conversation seemed devoid of any meaningful data-driven discussion. Seeing such unprofessional conduct in what should have been a constructive dialogue is disheartening. Let's continue to prioritize respectful and evidence-based discussions in the scientific community.
@@Manbearpig4456 Oh you're here defending Hancock again? Wow. So what was the evidence of man-made carvings of rock at Gunung Padang? I read the paper and saw the claim but they left out the evidence.
I must say that the evidence you brought to good Rogan podcast changed my mind on a few things. But your cocky laugh really says a lot about your character. And I’m glad you listed your pronouns on your Twitter page. Because I wasn’t sure if your beard was real or fake.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime There's a difference between someone acting like an arrogant a-hole, and a speech impediment. The former is controllable; the latter not so much. This is not a good comparison.
@@OctopusDanceParty _"There's a difference between someone acting like an arrogant a-hole, and a speech impediment"_ I'd expect most people to understand that but the evidence suggests that Hancock fans do not. _'The former is controllable; the latter not so much. This is not a good comparison"_ So sorry but that's totally wrong. Wow. I can't believe you said this. You just assumed that toe label of "arrogant a-hole" was objective. When was THAT established? What was the criteria? If you want to turn this into a discussion about whether Flint is an "arrogant a-hole" then I am TOTALLY interested in what you have to say. But, and this is a giant BUT, you are going to establish what you want to argue. Because that's the primary problem. There's no real argument.
Ladies and gentlemen referee, Joe Rogan has called a stop to this contest at 26 minutes and 59 seconds hour number four! Declaring the winner by KNOCKOUT!!!! Aaaaaannnnndddddd NEW! Undisputed, RUclips podcast BMF champion of the world, the pride of archaeology Flint ‘The ArchaeoJester’ Dibble!
Graham always saying on the debate “ you can’t prove unicorns don’t exist!!!” Nice job flint GH looked like a total douche. He just kept saying the same thing over and over… you can’t prove unicorns don’t exist as nausea. Blah.
Fair play to you going on Rogan. Great debate. Please stop with the pronoun bs though…. And dont like the ‘racism’ attack on Graham that’s just spiteful. Your work is good and would reach more people if you stopped those things.
I would suggest reading Hancock's work. He described the Maya as "semi-civilized" "jungle-dwelling Indians" who had to have help to develop a calendar. If you understood how archaeology (anthropology) works you would understand that telling someone in that field to stop talking about race in discussing Hancock would be like telling a professional political scientist to stop talking about politics when discussing the work of people like Rush Limbaugh.
@@jackrifleman562 I’m sorry but Hancock is not a racist in the slightest. I have read finger prints of the gods. He also has a black wife. Describing a culture as semi civilized doesn’t need the race card. Many cultures are still semi civilized to be honest 😂
@@brandonroodbmx. What matters is what people say. Hancock can be quoted as saying things that are problematic in terms of race even if one wants to argue that he is not racist. He used loaded terminoloy to argue that white civilizing agents were responsible for the development of civilizations in Latin America to sell books to people into Atlantis mythology. Stuff like that negatively influences other peoples' viewpoints in terms of race. That is the issue, not what is in his heart of hearts. Being in a mixed marriage with a person from one "race" doesn't render one incapable of saying bad things about other groups. Not even sure why people think that is a reasonable defense. "many cultures are still semi-civilized to be honest." Depends on which chair one is sitting in. If a maya published a book stating that the Irish were "semi-civilized, bog-dwelling Celts" who needed somebody else to show up to tell them how to build hillforts I suspect that a lot of the same people who don't take issue with Hancock's comments on the Maya would suddenly find themselves taking umbrage at the wording and find it worthy of discussion.
@@brandonroodbmx _"I’m sorry but Hancock is not a racist in the slightest. I have read finger prints of the gods. He also has a black wife"_ Well that's a lot of unrelated topics that aren't really true. First, you can still marry someone that isn't your skin color and feel that they are inferior to you, just like you can marry someone that isn't your gender and think they are inferior to you (sometimes per what a religion tells you). Second, if you read the book you should know that Hancock NEVER suggests that white people needed white people to teach them to build. It's only the non white people. Do you really need help understanding what that means? _"Describing a culture as semi civilized doesn’t need the race card. Many cultures are still semi civilized to be honest"_ Too bad that Hancock never describes the white ones that way. I wonder why. You don't seem to know Hancock very well.
Thanks for taking your time in reviewing this article with Lutfi and Harry and sharing it with us! It's so important to hear the voices of the professionals who are actually working at the stuff at hand. It seems to be very typical for certain promoters of such far-fetched hypotheses to avoid contact with experts who might disagree with them.
*Subscribed.*
Thanks! That's the goal here to share the expertise of actual archaeologists (who in this case have just been simply ignored)
Agreed. I just found this video.
@@StraightWhiteGuy. Saying what? You're not saying anything specific. Did you find errors in pointing out that a volcano isn't a pyramid?
@@FlintDibble You aren't a real archeologist but rather a nepo baby fully immersed in American Marxism. Hancock exposed you quickly.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrimeyea his dad was the pro he's just chasing clout and is mad Graham and the most historical accurate book ever written is right
Came from the Joe Rogan podcast, my deep respect for taking up that unpleasent discussion with Gram. He seems more likely to talk about his victim status instead of archeology. You did a great job. THANK YOU.
Great explanation on why the paper is so flakey. It really puts the argument into perspective when you have local archaeologists critiquing the piece. The fact that no standard archaeological processes have been followed, no evidence of valid artefacts, the shoddy core sample analysis and the "stepped terrace vs pyramid" clarification had me convinced. Great work, thank you.
Thanks for the kind comments! 🎉
Thank you @lurkst3r
Saw you on JRE and I think you killed it. A man who is proud of his father is a good man.
It’s just like Flint always says: we have to figure out how to fire the pyramids back up to get clean free energy back for the world. Great work man
Just came here after the JRE podcast to thank you for going on there! We need more professionals like you willing to debate and stand ground on large forums. You came prepared and it was a really engaging discussion. This video I’m commenting on was good too but the live professional debate with many substantiated counter points and high quality audio seems where the money is. Great work!
Saya orang yang tinggal di sekitar gunung padang. Informasi ini sangat menarik. Terimakasih Filnt Dibbel atas edukasinya.
Great discussion again Flint. + Harry and Lutfi are really great guests, full of answers AND questions about this special site.
I'm an Indonesian and work as a serials librarian. I can tell you that there are so many pseudo-science articles in scientific journals in Indonesia, especially when connected to nationalism and religion (Islam). Indonesia is facing a big problem of publishing too many 'scientific articles' but does not pay attention to their quality and credibility.
I think mainstream archaeology is in a panic that their ancient hidden star chamber headquarters, below gunang-padang has been revealed at last, and they can't get their Stargate out to the backup site yet. 😁
I agree that it's an impressive site and I hope to visit it someday myself. It's a testament to the original builders that should last for many more millennia to come.
Please do come. Greeting from Gunung Padang.
Rahayu
They should be in a panic considering this nepo baby exposed himself as a Marxist hack.
It was great to see real archeology on JRE, not only that fake foolish rubbish. Thanks Flints for educating all on seeds and such
I usually like Graham but i feel he done himself a large disservice by making it so personal as opposed to attempting to refute your evidence based responses to his ideas.
The persecution is what sells books. Sadly there's an audience that hates science so they love hearing Hancock say that scientists are incompetent and dogmatic and afraid of the truth. It makes them feel smarter.
I agree completely. Graham seems to be a hack. He isn't data driven. He doesn't use the scientific method.
When he resorts to character assassination, instead of actually discussing Flint's evidence and objections to his evidence, he probably knows deep down that his entire hypothesis is built on sand
@@AncientCreature-i2oof course… he has no credentials in archeology but a masters in communication…
He takes it personally because its part of his being. If he accepts he is wrong, it would mean all his work is a lie.
What no one is touching on, is how were the authors capable of excavating there , even disturbing the site by using inadequate methods such as shovels and spades for shallow surface digs. But also the staff of the president declared himself that Gunund Padang was a pyramid, he was well aware of the purpose of the excavation, as he was aware Natawidjaja also tried to explore other mountains for traces of ancient pyramids
yes, one of my take aways from talking with Lutfi and Harry was that there was a lot more that could be investigated and discussed on these topics. I have no answers, but hope we will hear more about this issue that includes the ethics and politics of archaeology from them and others.
Came here from Joe Rogan. Saw a comment on the JRE clips RUclips that said you guys should have a show together. You absolutely should. It would be amazing!! Also, bravo to you for going on and arguing with a beloved guest. I’m a huge Graham Hancock fan and we need more of these talks regardless of who is right and who is wrong
Love it when Lutfi always laughs when he agrees with the point being made, absolute legend
Flint, you are a true scholar. I am amazed by and greatly appreciate the depth of your knowledge and expertise. You exposed Hancock as a hack in my opinion. Well done. Subscribed.
Flint, I want to thank you for going on JRE.
With it, you did what I had been hoping for quiet some time. I know some other actual archeologists started to adress Hancocks pseudoarcheology in the way you did, but what we needed was someone battling him on his own home turf. On JRE, where he goes unquestioned and often cheered. Shermer and Defant were fine, but not enough.
I think you did a great job and the way Graham was pushing and often relying on his imagined victimhood throughtout the whole thing is only proof of that.
Please don't stop doing these videos and don't stop correcting fake archeology and fake history! I am sorry you got trolled by people who don't want to hear the truth, but there are a ton of us out here who DO want the truth and we are behind you. Many many thanks!
Thanks, I will!
Apparently peddling pseudo archaeology can pay for regular trips around the world.
God knows real archaeology can't.
People watch too many movies and then expect the world to be exactly the same. Real archaeology is boring by their standards.
Pair this with their non-critical distrust of nearly every institution that is vital to the progress of humanity and you get people who are pseudo junkies.
The pseudo junkie then falls deeper into the pockets of their "teachers" when they interpret everyone correcting them as just another conspiracy against them. Hancock especially is constantly framing himself as under attack from these institutions. He communicates that this only lends credibility to his position.
Great to hear from experts in the field who have also done work on the site!
This was a really great conversation and I think it was absolutely vital that we hear Indonesian voices on this topic. What stands out to me is Lutfi wasn't approached at all by Danny Hillman for input as he went into doing the work, an extremely strange circumstance; and Harry's point about speaking to the public and sharing our work. Oh.. and "Little Mermaid!" Ha! :)
😂😂 yeah that last one cracked me up
Hey Flint, Hope you un-Earth my comments here on your soon to be wildly popular channel. I'm a huge Graham Hancock fan, but Sir.... you've earned my RESPECT for the way you rep'd the entire World of Archeology, and so.... I'm now your fan, as well! Outstanding!
HOW? Most times Graham asked him a question it was deflected or responding with "because it isn't". He did a disservice to the archeological community by pulling race into the equation. That's not a scientific way to shoot down someone's argument or theories. They should have brought in a real professional to debate Graham, not this rookie living off his dad's reputation.
@@krisray8096 I didn't agree with his comments in articles about Graham being associated with White Supremacy, but specifically about his appearance on Joe Rogan; I thought he did well to back-up his claims that dispute Graham's theories with archeological evidence, but most wasn't accepted, rather dismissed as not being enough evidence. Yet, it was actually a lot of evidence Flint Dibble was citing. Again, huge fan of Graham Parker, and he does NOT come off as racist in his theories, however, he did not present a strong enough or to be honest even coherent or cohesive argument... other than NO evidence, which is why it's a LOST CIVILIZATION? That's not enough... but I do believe Graham won the Egypt argument as older erosion dating should be accepted by mainstream archeologists.
@@ChristianVedder1Can you please explain something to me? Why do people ignore the narrative from Hancock? He clearly says that all the non white people needed help from white people to build structures. But for structures built by white people, no help was needed. Do you not see how white supremacists would love that narrative?
@@loudorchen9897 You mean white people like Hancock who described the Maya as "semi-civilized," "jungle-dwelling Indians" and then gets butthurt when people point out the problems with such statements.
@@RugMann I agree that Flint Dibble came across as arrogant, possibly because he adopts a completely different approach to archaeology. He often mentions, "Working from the known to unknowns," but the challenge is that Graham Hancock has very few "knowns" compared to mainstream archaeology. Dr. Dibble rightly holds his ground, supporting claims rooted in evidence-based mainstream archaeology. Mainstream archaeology has been recognized as a scientific discipline for approximately 200 years. It gained significant traction in the 19th century, with the development of systematic excavation methods and the establishment of archaeological societies and institutions. Moreover, Dibble is an academic, a Professor in his field, and I'm sure as a teacher... he emphasizes to his students the importance of presenting arguments with supporting evidence. Whether you like him or not, that's how Dibble operates, and it is the established practice of archaeology. Meanwhile, Hancock utilizes myths coupled with sporadic evidence to draw conclusions, suggesting that a few survivors from a lost advanced civilization might have circumnavigated the globe and passed information to surviving hunter-gatherers. However, there's a lack of hard evidence to support this claim. On the topic of Egypt dating, I lean towards Hancock's perspective, as it aligns with the findings of Robert M. Schoch. This, I believe, provides the strongest evidence for an advanced civilization predating the Younger Dryas period. Graham Hancock is also correct in that the Sahara and the Amazon are barely touched areas, and that alone should hold the door open for further exploration, where both mainstream archaeology and alternative approaches can better complement one another.
Great breakdown. Thanks. I'm in Indonesia right now shooting a travel show. We recently filmed at Gunung Padang . Still looking for an archaeologist to contradict the ice age theory, Will reach out to these gentlemen!
Great! Definitely there's no better person than Dr. Yondri who excavated the site and published a book on it
@@FlintDibble He is also an American Marxist nepo baby?
Hey Flint, just heard the episode with you and Graham on JRE, that was really cool and i wanted to say i was actually pretty moved at the end there when you and Graham kinda found a little common ground over the need to keep archaeology alive and thriving.
I learned lots of cool stuff and I'm gonna start looking through your channel for more cool things to learn!
This is important
Mr. Dibble I enjoyed u on JRE. I though it was nice you gave a shout out to ur late father. RIP
Yo Flint Dibble. You the man!
Flint! Great conversation on JRE you had real evidence and really came across like I was hoping ❤
Graham seemed to have an axe to grand and a few photos rather than being fully prepared which was odd
I watched you on the Joe Rogan podcast, thank you for clarifying the importance of undisputable evidence. With social media, information spreads like wildfire and because of this it's important bring up the truth every once in a while. You did a great thing for archeology.
I am not sure why Graham Hancock was complaining about this video: three guys having a good time and having a good laugh, what‘s wrong with that?
Thank you, it's great to see actual professionals discussing these topics instead of some random guys!
You did a surprisingly good job on JRE. Well done!
Now I’m wondering if the volcanic rocks were used to create rock gardens like in Rapa Nui
That's a great question. You don't need volcanic rocks to do lithic mulching though. And it's mostly useful in dry areas because it holds moisture. So I'm betting it wasn't needed. But I don't know, and it's a topic I'm interested in
Seems like all the trolls have come over since the debate dropped. I just wanted to say that I listened to the entire debate and you presented well. The burden of proof is on Hancock and as he admits there is no proof. Over time as archaeologists such as yourself continue to diligently work the truth will reveal itself fully.
Agreed. Hancock's entire argument is that proof could be found if we just did more digging, but Flint made an amazing comment at about 1 hour and 17 minutes in, "Why do we have so much evidence for ephemeral hunter gatherers, but not evidence from an advanced civilization that is global? That should leave behind monuments that are far more easier to find...". He's right! We can find thousands of rock tools the size of lemons, but we can't find unambiguous gigantic structures from this lost advanced civilization?
I'm not sure they have a clue what is in the video that they're commenting on.
@@12postI'm wondering why these ancient people always decided to force the natives to build structures that didn't even offer shelter when teaching them how to plant crops would have been really helpful.
Hey flint, i'm just some random person that came from the JRE. I'm really glad you took time out of your day to share your views and defend your points against graham. You really had some very interesting points and insights and you handled the disagreements professionally. At the end of the day, i understand the disagreements and and perspectives. To an extent, we should challenge thoughts and theories but inba constructive way. You seemed very professional and I hope graham also goes forward in respecting you. The end goal is to push forward us as humans. We have different ways of doing that, yes there is some criticism deserved here and there. I hope we can not necessarily agree but work together in some way and agree for the sake of humanity. Thank you.
This is great, and such a wonderful opportunity for amateurs like me to get some real insight into the process.
Came from JRE, you killed it bro, don't care about your pronouns. New sub
I’ve just finished the JRE episode. You were really good. Hancock using Brandolini's Law as much as he could but you were really knowledgeable even with the topics outside of your field. Cardiff are lucky to have an educator like you. Your passion for teaching came out every time the discussion found its way into your fields of expertise.
Brilliant work.
Flint, You did a great job on the Rogan podcast, I am a follower of Hancock's work, but you opened my eyes to a lot of possibilities in correction to his.
Please ignore the childish comments from people who did not sit through the whole podcast because of sensitivity. lol.
We're here to find out! ^_^
Just watched you on Rogan! Your channel better get more subs than grams or the world is lost! Thank you for staying with facts and keeping your composer! I'll be watching your vids!!!
Should rephrase your introduction to, "Hi, I'm Flint Dibble and my father was an archeologist"
So you're saying if he loved his father he should never admit that?
I just saw you on the big podcast.
I remember watching part of that silly Netflix series a while back. It’s nice to see it revisited by professionals. I have followed archeology since childhood, my brother had found a early man tool in an old river bank when I was a kid. Since then I have been to archeological museums in London, Berlin, and many times in Athens (Also, Athens has a war museum with trireme parts) very cool stuff. It’s nice to have found your channel and I will subscribe for more of your topics, etc.
If you want to know of the site where we found the early tool let me know. We did call the university next to where we had found it. I’m not sure if the area had been looked at since. GVSU
Hey flint just wanted to say I enjoyed listening to you on the recent Joe Rogan Podcast.
Oh, also, you're clearly a passionate and brilliant person. You should channel that into the current day and age and educate people and interest them. Thank you
Great stuff. Thanks.
You did a great job on JRE podcast sir keep up what you do, hope the podcast gives u some good coverage. u spoke very kindly and spoke facts i like graham handcock for his out of the box thinking because it challenges people like yourself and gives u coverage if u and ur colleagues come out and speak against it but dont call people arrogant or nicely put racists, hope u do another podcast or 2 with graham in the future....... And the winner here archeology yes!!!
Good job on JRE dude, subscribed
Bro thankyou for doing this, you have a new fan
The fact people are so "open minded" clearly intelligent but can only look thru a scope of how they see history as opposed to the millions of substories that are evident in every minute of human existence. You honestly think some form of civilization could not exist before the accepted standards of our own civilization that is less then ten thousand yrs old... Humans have been around for at least a million yrs if not more. The earth reclaims and more is forgotten than we will ever know. The bible points this out
The Bible also says Earth is flat and only 6000 years old. Meanwhile science is only interested in evidence.
Humans haven't been around for a million years lol
Sure they have just the population is so small throughout history the evidence is hard to find. Just like neanderthals were knuckle draggers with tiny brains. Not able to make complex clothing nor fire. Tiny brain non tool making apes. We know know neanderthals live on today among us. Had larger brains. Capable of chemistry and made art and jewelry. Modern man was considered evolved and walking on the earth fifty thousands years ago not that long ago and if you said you believed they were around two hundred thousands years ago you would have been laughed under the desk that misinformed a few generations of us. Mitochondrial eve dates bake 450 thousand years ago. This is proven genetics. Along with discoveries of modern man beside the very archaic populations we were supposed to have evolved from. You know many scientists are coming out saying evolution is wrong. It's much more evident adaption by selective breeding is the option we should be focusing on. One day lidar or some better technique will prove human have been doing what humans do for much long and people who aren't like me will have to accept that. I'm ok with people thinking I'm "crazy" I've been around the world and seen more than a American should that's why I think like i do. But what will you think when proven ignorant
@@borismelev8957okay so I’m guessing you know this in an expert matter right? “Lol”
I enjoyed your initial counter points in the latest episode of JRE, but sticking to graham hancock being a white supremacist is absurd... he's in an interracial marriage... when would a white supremacist ever marry someone who isnt white... you lost the debate with graham hancock on this point alone...
First of all, why do you think it's impossible for someone to marry a person they think is beneath them? Do you think any abusive person in a relationship is abusive to their spouse they consider an equal? Second, Hancock's work can be racist without him being racist. His books talk about the white gods who taught all the non white natives their building skills and legends. Yet the white British built Stonehenge just fine. Can you explain why that's not racist?
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime You're really making that argument? You're a confused child.. Grow up.
@@bluegkevWhich argument? Where's your counter to the argument? Are you too angry to make a point?
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime Get a grip
@@cashmir5883 On what? That writing a book about non white people needing the help from white people to stack rocks is promoting racism? That's obvious to everyone but racists.
Great job on JRE. I wasn't a fan of Graham's anyway, but funnily enough, a proper rebuttal requires exploring all the archeological evidence we have to the "settling/agriculaturalizing/building" of ancient cultures that we have, which is fascinating to see, and I was pretty awe-struck by the level of knowledge and prep Flint brought to the table.
I'm a stats guy myself, so I felt like the discussion danced what I saw as the main issue -- the philosophy and science of skepticism. If you want to publish a science paper, you need to have a significant p-value in your findings. Explaining what a p-value is (or better-yet, a bayesian factor) would dismantle Graham's arguments. The basic idea is that we do not have the resources to excavate all 25 million square miles of costline or whatever absurd high bar Graham sets. Instead, we have to take a few samples and then extrapolate the most reasonable conclusion we have from those (that's statistics, baby!). How we get a bayesian factor that is that we think about how likely our current situation is under a) the assumption of your null theory (no atlantis) and b) the assumption under your alternative theory (there was an atlantis).
These competing probabilities guide our judgment. In this case, if there was no atlantis, then all we have to be confused about are a handful of weird geologically formed rocks, so that's not a big leap. However, if atlantis was real, then we have to wonder why such an advanced global civilization left behind no traces of archeological record while the much less advanced hunter gatherers left behind DROVES of artifacts and evidence. This imbalance of probabilities is why it's safe to assume there was no atlantis.
@@MichaelPK03Troy was a legend with more than one hostorical reference. The allegorical writing of Plato is the only known reference to Atlantis.
@@MichaelPK03 The reason you know about any of these topics is because of academics who discover and study constantly. There was no evidence of Gobekli until there was and it has been continuously studied now for 3 decades but it has not pushed back the date for civilization or agriculture. Why are you upset with Flint for pointing out facts about white supremacy and Atlantis belief? There was a tie in with the early idealogy and people need to understand and acknowledge it.
@@MichaelPK03You seem to be proud of getting facts wrong. There's no evidence of agriculture at Gobekli Tepe. Science doesn't deny that something doesn't exist, but it will tell you when evidence doesn't exist. You seem to think relying on evidence is a bad thing. Also you should research the history of Atlantis. Flint isn't imagining a tie between Atlantis and Nazi Germany, it already exists.
You absolutely bodied Hancock. Keep it up.
you're hilarious 😂
@@bluegkevAh yes, the typical mocking emoji reply from people who can't handle having their conspiracy theory exposed.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrimeWhat are you talking about? He looked like a raving lunatic bringing race into everything. Woke ideology is a cult
You shit on Graham my guy, his whole argument was “but these rocks are cool and cause we haven’t found a global lost civilization you can’t prove there isn’t one.”
You say that like it's not logical.
I hope you post to other sites and list them. I hate using this one, conversation is very limited as a result of constant censorship by google.
Im here after the Pod, bc I was more interested in what you were saying but you kept getting interrupted.
Huge fan now
Why all th disliks? seriously
I saw you on JRE and I really enjoyed both you and Graham. I know very little about the subject, and was not aware of the drama.
I thought both of you were a bit terse perhaps but that makes sense when tensions are high.
"Tense" as in calling and black balling Graham as a white supremacist. Flint isn't conducting himself like a scientist. It's embarrassing. I wonder if he thinks his father is proud of him
Dont even know this channel exist before. Great works. Subscribe
Thanks!🎉
Here from JRE. Now you need to post a debrief video.
Sorry was traveling. Hoping it will drop today
Came from Joes show, i thought you stood your corner well,i like Graeme too, but its good to keep our feet on the ground!!( ill overlook the pronouns for now) 😂
Can you do a show on the “Bosnian pyramids”
Joe rogan and graham H sent me here ❤
Looks like the paper was retracted.
Thanks for the heads up on this news! 👀
I really enjoyed your prospective on JRE! Can’t wait to see you back
Nice job on JRE all your shoutouts at the end and the sincere ❤ that you had for society, archeology, our future won me over. I bet it was tough getting called out for 💩 talking in the past but we all do that 😅. That guys been on JRE a bunch of times this was the first we got to hear another voice. Thank you. PS stop staying "right?"
Thank you for coming on JRE, I thought you did really well. I'd like to see a solo episode with you and Joe just talking about Ancient Greece or any other topic. I disagree Graham has malicious intent and it's a shame that people are weaponising his theories for something heinous but you convinced me Graham is wrong about the timeline, so thank you. Audio is quite scratchy at times but I enjoyed this thanks
Great job on Rogan. Thanks for taking the time.
@@loudorchen9897 You mean white people like Hancock who described the Maya as "semi-civilized', "jungle-dwelling Indians? And who is married to a woman of color but admits to repeatedly verbally abusing her for no reason while under the influence of drugs?
Flint i just watched you on JRE and even though i am a supporter of Graham Hancock, i thought you represented yourself and your work in a way that has earned my respect. Im actually disappointed that it seemed like he was trying to get payback instead of showing evidence to discuss.. You definitely did not change my mind about a ice age civilization, but i do think I need to look at more information from opposing views of Grahams..
So glad to see you on Rogan today! I like learning about archaeology and always wanted Joe to have some real archaeoligists on his show. The truth is more interesting than Graham Hancock's made up pseudo-archaeology.
Calling someone a racist because they disagree with you is intellectually lazy.
How about when Hancock says that non white natives needed white people to teach them how to stack rocks?
Read Hancock’s first book on the subject. He mentions a white race of bearded men sailing around teaching natives. It’s a theory that was popularised by the nazis. For the record, I don’t think Hancock is racist at all, he clearly isn’t. But I can see why people would read that and think he was.
@@casualviewing1096 Calling someone a racist when they are clearly not is a tactic intentionally used to discredit and destroy someone and gain attention for one's self.
@@casualviewing1096 Atlantis alone is typically linked to white supremacy so Hancock screwed up from the start by jumping on the bandwagon. He also didn't do himself any favors by saying that the white people who built Stonehenge didn't need any help.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrimewho is linking Atlantis to white supremacy besides dint flibble?
Dude I tell you, keep wearing the hat and the suit for marketing. Ud be more recognizable given that u already was on Joe. U'd hear some insults but if u want to make urself more marketable and pursue that.. know what I'm sayin
I see u liked my comment. 😮 No lie ive watched the pod w joe 3/4 times. I just love that u had the courage to go debate. And u presented legitimate tangible evidence. Unlike the other guy that can only say 'It looks man made' or 'u persecuting me, u hurt my feelings' 🤣. I believed in that woo stuff for more than I want to admit. You, minuteman, and steffan milo are my guys for archeology. Keep it up dude!
Bro you send Hancock into mount doom.
Great job
Just found you from jre im not far from cardiff and love your work and also this video also is amazing.
Concerning the JRE episode: What i havent seen mentioned or maybe considered by @FlintDibble - is the changing of seeds and ancient agricultural development happening over thousands of years as he finds in research POSSIBLY being because it happened out of necessity - due to ancient population growth. As more people start living together, it seems like “gathering” becomes less of an option to sustain more people. If its possible to acknowledge domestic plants and seeds can/would be reverting back to wild plants again if left alone - seems like its entirely possible for that to happen after a global catastrophic event - where then you would (again) see plants converting (or actually reverting) back to domesticated versions as humans began to slowly repopulate. If they started to live in larger groups, eventually forming towns/cities (using those terms loosely) it seems like “gathering” becomes less of an option. Not to play devils advocate - but isnt that an entirely logical sequence of events after a massive depopulation event, to find evidence of slow growth and development back into a civilization again? If plants WILL change back and forth from domestic forms to wild, couldnt that have happened multiple times in this earth history?
Science doesn't deal with possible, it deals with evidence.
Well asides from the fact that there's no evidence of this happening, it's not easy to just revert to a hunter gatherer lifestyle once you've developed an agricultural civilisation. Hunter gatherers required a lot of skills to survive and thrive, and a civilisation that develops intensive agriculture will lose most of those skills.
Also, Hancocks basic premise is frankly moronic. Aside from the overwhelming lack of archaeological evidence there's also a lack of linguistic evidence and a lack of common sense. If this "advanced" civilisation managed to send out survivors all around the world and have significant impacts on native hunter gatherer peoples around the globe then why are there no traces of common language between say south america and the ancient middle east?
And if they don't actually bring any of that advanced technology with them, then why would those native hunter gatherers listen to them or help them survive? If a group of strangers turned up and told you that they came from an advanced civilisation which has failed to survive and don't actually bring any useful technology with them why would you take them in? Their civilisation failed whilst yours survived, and these people want you to completely change your way of life to imitate their old one? Seems absurd.
@@Pentagathusosaurus I think that logic lacks common sense. If our world ended today, and the next era of man started to dig up what we left behind in this country, what would u find? The area that covers large developed cities pales in comparison to the amount of land mass being lived on by small numbers of people. Most of our biggest cities are on the coast lines and would be gone if water levels rose - for the simple reason that older civilizations will always develop first near the coast lines due to easy access to resources. You make it sound like the few people that would survive today - would eventually seek other survivors inland - living as self sustained small groups - and just "change" everything about those people rather than assimilate to newfound groups already surviving on their own. There's no need to farm if you live with 30 other people. When that number grows to 300, then 3,000 - you NEED to learn how to farm. If you fled to mexico to escape and survive, you wouldn't change their language to English. You'd learn Spanish. People who'd leave Italy and flee to Russia would learn Russian. The idea of it taking modern humans thousands of years to invent the wheel (umm, a circle) is comical.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime understand this: There is only 1 constant when it comes to "Science" - and that is - they never know as much as they thought they did. And yes - science ABSOLUTELY deals with possible - that's how advancements (and mistakes) are made. Unless youd like to explain where gravity comes from - and what it actually is - cause we still have no real idea - yet all of physics is based on it. When it comes to ancient history they are making educated guesses, cause that's all they can do. Their "science and ancient history" is so "settled" they are still arguing how the pyramids were built, and are simultaneously claiming the people were advanced enough to be skilled in astrology, geometry, science ECT - but were somehow too stupid and ineptit to invent a wheel or realize that a simple circle would roll.
@@kctyphoon No, science isn't about the possible. It investigates what might be possible, but papers are only about the evidence. Your analogy about gravity is funny because if science were to take your attitude we would never have aircraft or flight because we don't know what causes mass to attract mass. You're just looking at the unknown and trying to claim it's a reason to doubt what we know. That's not only lazy it's childish. Science isn't about absolutes but you can reach a conclusion when evidence is enough.
I hope you read this. I just watched you for 4 and 1/2 hours. I could watch you for 4 and 1/2 more. You have opened my eyes, sir. You are somebody who I can agree with and disagree with simultaneously, and who holds a radically different point of view from myself. And I love you. This is one of the best episodes of JRE ever. Thank you so much, and I am a subscriber, and a fan, and I'll start to watch your content. Please don't listen to any negative comments from negative people. Just like you said, there's assholes everywhere. I seen one guy comment already, that he looked at your twitter, and something in your bio, it made him lose his trust. I don't have trust in that individual. He is the example, or the counterexample rather. He comes on here, to your channel, because he likes you, initially, from rogan. Then he sees one thing, from your profile, and decides he doesn't trust you. This is very shallow thinking. This is why I loved the podcast so much. I can see clearly that you are strong and your point of view, and you are unrelenting, and well articulated, and well-researched. And graham, on the other hand, is just as passionate and articulate, and he's very clever with words and language, he can talk about things that make no sense and it sounds lovely. Anyways, I left you another paragraph on another one of your videos, I won't bore you with too much information, but I just really appreciate you sir. Flint Dibble is one of my heroes.
You did a good job representing your profession on JRE. Don't listen to the haters on the internet.
Thanks for this video ❤
Watching your debate with Graham Hancock I found your arguments were logical and found myself agreeing with your side of the argument.
What I can’t agree with is the attempts to push the White Supremacy narrative to smear Hancock. These tactics are quite disgraceful and makes it seam like you would rather suppress Hancock by these means instead of letting your ideas be openly debated.
Hancock wouldn't get associated with it if he didn't constantly source it and push it tho innit. He's not pushing anything orginal tho, it's an old scam
Explain how you support Hancock claiming only the non white natives needed white people to build structures.
Have you actually read what Hancock said in terms of race in books such as Fingerprints of the Gods? A lot of people seem to be defending hancock based on the highly sanitized version of his work presented in the Netflix series but are not familiar with his overall body of work.
@@jackrifleman562 _"Have you actually read what Hancock said in terms of race in books such as Fingerprints of the Gods? A lot of people seem to be defending hancock based on the highly sanitized version of his work presented in the Netflix series but are not familiar with his overall body of work"_ Have you noticed that prior to the racism aspect being brought to the forefront, all the Hancock fans were insistent that you HAD to read the books. But now that focus is back on the books, it seems the fans are pretending to not know what was in the books.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime yeah you get some of that. Point out some of the really bad stuff from Fingerprints and they say oh that was 30 years ago. Oblivious to the fact that GH said that he took responsibility for all of his work in response to the Netflix backlash. Which means it is all fair game. Which indicates that many of his supporters only have a loose understanding of even his most recent comments.
But they still want to slug away. Go figure.
i can't help but notice this entire review was done starting from a decided conclusion and worked backwards to what is inside the actual paper
As are all peer reviews. You read the paper and formulate a critique. It's not livestreaming our reactions while reading the paper
That would mean that the paper is inconclusive in the same manner as the review.
The reasoning to avoid working backwards still stands.
Just started the JRE episode. Went to your Twitter page. Pronouns in bio. You already lost my trust right there.
So instead of evidence you're more interested in pronouns?
L comment, research is research. Dumba**
Exactly, this is a shallow thinking. If you like the man, come to his channel and compliment him for his great performance on the JRE podcast. If you're so bothered by the fact that he respects people who pay adherence to gender pronouns, maybe you should grow a little.
And I'm saying this from the point of view of somebody who doesn't pay adherence to gender pronouns, necessarily. I bought some dope from a transgendered woman today, and I called Bonnie she. I get it. I have transgender people in my family too, and all kinds of stuff. Gangsters, mental illness, soldiers, musicians, chefs, laborers, firefighters,. This is what me and my brothers do. I'm the chef musician gangster. Anyways, even if I don't agree with somebody's opinion, I still respect their opinion. Because respect is more important than argumentation. Especially when argumentation is totally unnecessary. I'd rather go to war.
The fact that you would say this too, do you imagine this would encourage him to change his point of view or cause them to double down? What understanding of humanity do you have. If you're uncomfortable with the way that he adheres to gender pronouns, bring it up in a respectful manner. Think of an argumentation or a debate. I assume you just watched a 4 1/2 hour debate between two geniuses and one of the best commentators and hosts in the world. Show a little bit of respect why don't you
You did a really great job on JRE. Very knowledgeable and you can hear the passion of your work when you speak. Your dad would be so proud ! ❤ ignore the assh*les.
We need the dibbler to start fact checking all dubious joe rogan episodes and uploading a video explaining why the guest is wrong, start with the Tucker episode.
came here because of JRE.
I'd like to see you work with Graham Hancock on a site. Not to prove anyone wrong but to bring peace to your profession.
Hancock does not work on sites.
@dudeDOGn You are great at representing your type.
@dudeDOGnLoL. Hancock is an active tourist while people like Flint will work with various other fields to give Hancock the data he can lie to you about from his office. Tell me genius, why does Hancock still claim that the underwater pillars near Nan Madol are stone? Why is he hiding the fact that an actual scientist cut them open and studied them? Or better yet, why id Hancock creating fictional data about the Younger Dryas? It's really amazing how people like you seem to value being lied to.
Hancock doesn't have the qualifications to excavate a site or analyze archaeological materials. What he could do is use some of the wealth that he has generated to hire professional archaeologists to excavate where he things there might be something of significance. Anything beyond that is like suggesting that an anti-vaxxer with no education in medicine, biology, chemisty etc. go into the Center for Disease Control and work with scientists. Or a flat earther with a B.A in Physical Ed going to NASA to collaborate with the research staff with Ph.D.'s in astrophysics.
@@jackrifleman562 you had my full attention until the libtard nonsense... Best of luck bud
OBJECTIVE PEER REVIEW OR BASELESS ACCUSATIONS?
by Danny Hilman Natawidjaja.
After watching the linked video ( ruclips.net/video/UxaHo3V4lGg/видео.html ), we were deeply disappointed by the lack of professionalism displayed by the individuals involved. Their behaviors were far from that of scientists engaging in constructive discourse; instead, they resembled more of a disrespectful and mocking-giggling tone, as if they were participating in a gossip session rather than a serious discussion about research.
It’s evident that they have completely misunderstood or misinterpreted the content of our paper. Their comments lacked substance and evidence, and their attempt to connect our research on Gunung Padang with the Atlantis issue and politics is particularly perplexing and demonstrates an apparent misunderstanding of our work.
Ironically, despite their emphasis on the importance of data over opinion, their entire conversation seemed devoid of any meaningful data-driven discussion. Seeing such unprofessional conduct in what should have been a constructive dialogue is disheartening.
Let's continue to prioritize respectful and evidence-based discussions in the scientific community.
Is that you, Danny?
@@Manbearpig4456 Oh you're here defending Hancock again? Wow. So what was the evidence of man-made carvings of rock at Gunung Padang? I read the paper and saw the claim but they left out the evidence.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime Oh you're here supporting these Ad Hominem and Strawman fallacies again? 🫵🤡
@@MagicRing Care to cite specific examples of fallacies or just emojis? Wait, is this an alt account bingo?
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime bro. literally everything he says. In the context of his arguments, literally everything.
I must say that the evidence you brought to good Rogan podcast changed my mind on a few things. But your cocky laugh really says a lot about your character. And I’m glad you listed your pronouns on your Twitter page. Because I wasn’t sure if your beard was real or fake.
Who would not laugh at the absurd comments and narrative employed by Hancock?
It's really odd how people really can't stop tone policing. If he had a stutter would you think his evidence was fake?
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime There's a difference between someone acting like an arrogant a-hole, and a speech impediment. The former is controllable; the latter not so much. This is not a good comparison.
@@OctopusDanceParty _"There's a difference between someone acting like an arrogant a-hole, and a speech impediment"_ I'd expect most people to understand that but the evidence suggests that Hancock fans do not.
_'The former is controllable; the latter not so much. This is not a good comparison"_ So sorry but that's totally wrong. Wow. I can't believe you said this.
You just assumed that toe label of "arrogant a-hole" was objective. When was THAT established? What was the criteria?
If you want to turn this into a discussion about whether Flint is an "arrogant a-hole" then I am TOTALLY interested in what you have to say. But, and this is a giant BUT, you are going to establish what you want to argue. Because that's the primary problem. There's no real argument.
Thank you for your great work on Rogan's podcast. I appreciate you.
bro nailed the Joe rogan Experience !!!!!!!!!!!!
Disassembled temple similar to Nam Madol
Graham simply can’t accept he’s a fiction writer that grafts onto ancient history to sell his shit
*NO.*
No, it's not.
That will save 42 minutes and 24 seconds. 🤣
{:o:O:}
Ladies and gentlemen referee, Joe Rogan has called a stop to this contest at 26 minutes and 59 seconds hour number four! Declaring the winner by KNOCKOUT!!!! Aaaaaannnnndddddd NEW! Undisputed, RUclips podcast BMF champion of the world, the pride of archaeology Flint ‘The ArchaeoJester’ Dibble!
Graham always saying on the debate “ you can’t prove unicorns don’t exist!!!” Nice job flint GH looked like a total douche. He just kept saying the same thing over and over… you can’t prove unicorns don’t exist as nausea. Blah.
It was a great podcast on JRE
bosnian pyramids anyone ?
Pyramids are all over the world, as are Egyptian Obelisk & those practicing the Dark Arts.
Fair play to you going on Rogan. Great debate. Please stop with the pronoun bs though…. And dont like the ‘racism’ attack on Graham that’s just spiteful.
Your work is good and would reach more people if you stopped those things.
How is it not racist to say that only the non white natives needed white people to build structures?
I would suggest reading Hancock's work. He described the Maya as "semi-civilized" "jungle-dwelling Indians" who had to have help to develop a calendar. If you understood how archaeology (anthropology) works you would understand that telling someone in that field to stop talking about race in discussing Hancock would be like telling a professional political scientist to stop talking about politics when discussing the work of people like Rush Limbaugh.
@@jackrifleman562 I’m sorry but Hancock is not a racist in the slightest. I have read finger prints of the gods. He also has a black wife. Describing a culture as semi civilized doesn’t need the race card. Many cultures are still semi civilized to be honest 😂
@@brandonroodbmx. What matters is what people say. Hancock can be quoted as saying things that are problematic in terms of race even if one wants to argue that he is not racist. He used loaded terminoloy to argue that white civilizing agents were responsible for the development of civilizations in Latin America to sell books to people into Atlantis mythology. Stuff like that negatively influences other peoples' viewpoints in terms of race. That is the issue, not what is in his heart of hearts.
Being in a mixed marriage with a person from one "race" doesn't render one incapable of saying bad things about other groups. Not even sure why people think that is a reasonable defense.
"many cultures are still semi-civilized to be honest."
Depends on which chair one is sitting in. If a maya published a book stating that the Irish were "semi-civilized, bog-dwelling Celts" who needed somebody else to show up to tell them how to build hillforts I suspect that a lot of the same people who don't take issue with Hancock's comments on the Maya would suddenly find themselves taking umbrage at the wording and find it worthy of discussion.
@@brandonroodbmx _"I’m sorry but Hancock is not a racist in the slightest. I have read finger prints of the gods. He also has a black wife"_ Well that's a lot of unrelated topics that aren't really true. First, you can still marry someone that isn't your skin color and feel that they are inferior to you, just like you can marry someone that isn't your gender and think they are inferior to you (sometimes per what a religion tells you). Second, if you read the book you should know that Hancock NEVER suggests that white people needed white people to teach them to build. It's only the non white people. Do you really need help understanding what that means?
_"Describing a culture as semi civilized doesn’t need the race card. Many cultures are still semi civilized to be honest"_ Too bad that Hancock never describes the white ones that way. I wonder why.
You don't seem to know Hancock very well.
Post more videos!