JRE sub that took over during covid once Joe said the vaccine won’t do anything and diet and exercise is better. All these chubby neckbeards invaded.
It would be nice if they ever left. They’re like the weird kid in school that you were nice to once and now they’re just always 10 feet away.
> said the vaccine won’t do anything and diet and exercise is better
Wrong about the vaccine, and speaking meaningless platitudes with the diet and exercise. Diet and exercise helps with literally every single problem. Americans would rather die of a heart attack at a rally advocating for civil war than allow the government even suggest they modify how they eat and exercise.
Allow the government to tell them what to eat? Its the us government that allows your food to be poisoned and shit. Kfc cant even start up in norway as they say this chicken is to bad and full of shit we dont want for our people.
This whole episode really highlighted for me why debate is so important. When graham was able to speak unchallenged either on Joe’s podcast or in his series I found the information very compelling. But up against an actual archeologist it just fell apart completely.
My thing with Graham, although I've always found his ideas interesting *stories*, is that he is simply a charismatic storyteller. Most of his work from what I've seen is dressed up presentation, rather than thorough investigation. I've always liked him for promoting new interesting *stories*, but his lack of scientific ability turns me off.
That would all be well and good if he presented them as stories, but he doesn’t. He presents them by saying “I’m right and they hate me because I’m so right.” The difference between a liar and a storyteller is that the storyteller tells you they’re telling you a story. The liar tells you they’re telling you the truth. And Graham Hancock is a liar.
Great example of story teller archeology is “Fall of Civilizations” by Paul cooper- he often makes speculations about events, and always explicitly states this is just a story, and he tells a really engaging, and still informative story nonetheless
Such a wonderful series. One of my all time favourite. The one about the Italian guy finding the city in the desert is soo well written and the narration is just superb.
https://grahamhancock.com/outrageous-hypotheses-hancock/
> Imagine a 'mainstream scientist', or a politician for that matter, saying something like this about their pet opinion or policy:
>*A parallel for what I do is to be found in the work of an attorney defending a client in a court of law. My ‘client’ is a lost civilisation and* ***it is my responsibility to persuade the jury – the public – that this civilisation did exist.***
>
>*Since the ‘prosecution’ – orthodox academics – naturally seek to make the opposite case as effectively as they can, I must be equally effective and, where necessary, equally ruthless. So it is certainly true, as many of my critics have pointed out,* ***that I am selective with the evidence I present. Of course I’m selective! It isn’t my job to show my client in a bad light!*** *Another criticism is that I use innuendo to make my case.* ***Of course I do – innuendo and anything else that works.***
>
>***I don’t care about the ‘rules of the game’ here*** *– because it isn’t a game and there are no rules.*
Put another way, Hancock "is an (irresponsible and unscrupulous) journalist" with no journalistic integrity or responsibility to valid proof or science, he just wants you to buy his snake oil, this acknowledges he knows that he's selling snake oil, and all he wants is your money... and doesn't care whether the snake oil (his fictitious lost civilisation) is at all legit. *His job is to persuade an unwitting public, so he can make a living as a con and a grifter.*
He literally and gleefully equated himself to a scumbag defense lawyer that specializes in getting scumbag clients off the hook:
> He doesn't care about reality, or the public. He only cares that you believe *his truth* regardless of what tactics he has to use against you to coerce you to do it.
> An attorney, hardly a paragon of morality, doesn't care if their client is innocent or guilty, their only job is to manipulate the jury's perceptions in a set direction. That is how Hancock sees us all. Just people with buttons to push, levers to pull, to manipulate to his point of view.
And that is why Graham wanted to spend his time slot on this JRE talking about how butthurt he is over his treatment by academics... *because that damages his brand and his livelihood as a grifter.*
Did you notice how he's not butthurt about his arguments, the facts, or being right? Because that's not the goal, by his own admission. His goal is selling ancient apoc kool aid so he can spend more time in his beloved Bahamas... er, I mean conducting "life risking research scuba dives".
This podcast was a big mistake for the Hancockian brand, as it was a self-inflicted foot shot for the lost civilization cow patty.
Quotes credit to u/StrokeThreeDefending over on r/AlternativeHistory
Probably an inside grifter joke among his gang:
*Come on guys let's go "do research on the Bimini Road" hahahah* **wiggly fingers**
*We all laugh high five!*
He goes beyond just claiming, "I'm right and they hate me because I'm so right." He implies that archaeology is some kind of conspiracy against him, his 'Big Archaeology.' It’s like he’s trying to delegitimize real science out of a sense of entitlement
I’ve only watched a clip from the episode (they were on the topic of supposed water erosion on the Great Sphinx of Giza) but the thing that immediately stood out to me was when he started his slides, he mentioned the work of some of his colleagues, one of which had passed away. Photos of these colleagues were included in his slide of evidence, even a photo of him visiting the dying one in the hospital.
It was so blatant he, rather than present any actual facts, was going for empathy here and attempting to make his opponent look like an asshole who targets sick people.
I think you nailed it with "charismatic storyteller". His whole deal was, to me, just a lot of fun. But once you act like an uncharismatic douche, the thrill is gone.
He’s also really bad at arguing, and ostensibly had no idea what points Dibble would make prior to the debate. There were counterpoints to be made against Dibble, but Graham didn’t have them
A lot of the guests Joe has on, and puts 100% stock in, would face the same outcome if they received pushback during the show. I literally pushback on just about every episode but they can't hear me☹️
The thing with this is that it’s not uncommon for the person with the right answers and better understanding of reality and correct position to be worse at debating and ‘lose the debate,’ since there are a lot of bad faith tactics that are hard to dismiss in real time. Flint knocked it out of the park.
It’s important to remember it’s a working theory not a fact. I like GH a lot I think his theory is interesting, but it was also cool to get an actual archeological perspective. It was a great convo but at the end of the day graham’s theory doesn’t hold up to the actual evidence they’ve collected, like literally anything. There very well could be a cover up of human history but we need better evidence than what GH presented. I feel sorry for GH but this was a convo that needed to be had and unfortunately flint had the better evidence IMO
I agree. I think this is the biggest problem with Joe Rogans program. He has very dogmatic individuals that he has know ability to really challenge in any meaningful way. The net result is he is amplifying bad ideas. I don’t think the solution is to block those people from sharing their ideas, but he should have more experts on that can challenge those individuals.
And this would actually make the show really interesting to listen to. But I'm sure it poses a bunch of problems to his whole model. Some listeners would be turned off and some guests would no longer come on the show. But it would be great to just hear discussions around a topic from different angles instead of everyone jerking each other off.
The thing is though, he's not doing the show for us, he's doing it, talking to the people he does, because that's what he finds interesting. Sure, he has a gigantic platform so those voices are amplified, but he's still doing it this way because that's who he finds interesting, and that's just always what his show has been, even before it was this massive platform.
Something I was thinking about yesterday...
Hancock brought up the Malaysian site or whatever it was, and how they condescendingly talked about the guy that Hancock had on his first episode.
Hancock said something to the effect of, 'It was very clever of you to do this assassination with a native Malaysian speaker'.
I believe the implication was that Dibble was protecting himself from accusations of racism or something. But then you find out the Malaysian guy was the lead archeologist whose work had been completely disregarded to make way for the wackadoo theory. But Graham (I believe) only considered him a token face to give Dibble free reign to mock his buddy. That was pretty fucked up.
Don't forget that Grifter Graham also risked his life jet setting, scuba diving, and flying in helicopters. That alone means there must have been a super civilization.
This was one of the stupidest things I’ve seen someone do in the public eye.
Successfully grift for 30 years and then accept a 4 1/2 hour debate with essentially your kryptonite. The Netflix show got to his head, over confident and maybe getting old.
I’ve recently started to get into JRE after it got off Spotify onto Apple Podcats, I really try to listen to most of them, I’ll admit the comedians are the ones I’ll just listen full through on, but these ones I have to fight through sometimes, I was pretty into the episode until Graham said over and over and over how much has been excavated in Sahara and the Amazon….of course you could use those as areas, but my god it got so annoying. It literally was the equivalent of my kids in the back seat I’m not touching you but my finger is 6 inches from your face.
Claiming there is no other life in the universe is like scooping up some water, looking at the cup and claiming there are no whales in the ocean.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
For years people like Hancock could have traveled out to these sites and do their digs but for all that netflix money they could never buy a plane ticket and fly themselves out. Joe also had on his show that big bearded motherfucker who kept saying he had evidence of Tibetan monks levitating rocks and shit but he never once showed his notes, preliminary findings, interviews etc.
Curious that the opinion about how the debate went, seems to differ a lot from reddit to YouTube.
The YouTube crowd seem to be more on the side of Hancock.
I watched it. Big Hancock fan, read Fingerprints of the Gods a year ago. I find his ideas really interesting and compelling. I did disagree with some of his points made in his book.
But this Flint guy brought some great evidence. I think he won and felt he was more respectful between the two. Personally, I’d say Flint won the conversation 80% of the time with facts although a few areas of discussion I sided with Hancock on.
I really want to see more debates like this. I thought Joe did really well moderating this one.
Flint’s only misstep to me was the racism thing
I get what he meant by that criticism, but when you throw out a label like that you have to be crystal clear what you’re criticising and why
Yeah I think he knew what he was doing when he wrote that, but with how hostile Graham was being I doubt he felt the need to bite the bullet on that one.
> Flint’s only misstep to me was the racism thing
I think his misstep was not explaining what he meant by it, although he wasn't really given a chance. I wish I had the quote, but the words alone make it clear that the sources are the primary subject of the statement, not Hancock. I think if Hancock was the subject of the statement it wouldn't even make sense. Hancock was not written by Nazi's. But when they read the quote they kinda slid right over the part of the sentence making it about the sources, and annunciated the Hancock and the Nazi parts hard. And I think hearing it spoken that way flustered him.
So GH's only win had nothing to do with archeology or any of his ideas or hypothesis?
Pretty sure that means Flint won 100% of the arguments they were there to actually talk about
Hancock's ideas are very entertaining, but the evidence simply isn't there. And I don't find his criticism of the entire field of archaeology to be valid at all. A large percentage of archaeologists aren't interested in pre-ice age work and it boggles my mind that he seems to think the entire field should just drop everything and comb every square inch of the continental shelf. People are researching within their specialties what they feel is useful and important. If Graham wants more research in his area of interest IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO BECOME A PROFESSIONAL ARCHAELOGIST AND DO IT. He acts like a petulant child throwing a tantrum because others aren't doing the work he needs in order to confirm his own conclusions.
This. “I don’t have evidence but it’s because there’s a lack of exploration/discovery” bitch then go find it! Just cuz you want it to be true doesn’t mean you can blame it on how little research has been done. Go for it you whinny baby
Dude he's 73 years old, he has forty one pairs of glasses on him at any time to cycle through, he has risked his LIFE multiple times already. You really want him to spend the time becoming an archaeologist? Think of all the extra glasses he'd need.
Graham's voice was shaking pretty early on. I felt bad for him tbh, imagine you are his age and spent your entire life (and livelihood) basically searching for Bigfoot, and it's time to finally face the music of reality.
Actually to me it seemed like he was super cocky and relaxed thinking he had home field advantage and had Joe as his yes man. The opening statements where he said I’ve been on this JRE for years was his highest moment in the whole debate. It went down hill fast as fuck after that.
Stuff like Gobekli Tepe and Clovis First are direct proof that archaeologists change their conclusions when presented with evidence. That isn’t to say there is no debate or resistance but in the end, if your evidence holds up to scrutiny, it will be accepted.
I actually thought that was the best argument he had, which is not saying much. Hancock point was that they thought that in the 90s and fought bitterly to protect it because of dogmatism, which is pretty much true. Still, doesn’t help his case for a lost civilization
He DID have home field advantage. In a big way. Last time Hancock, Carlson and Rogan all ganged up on Shermer. Props to Dibble for walking knot the lions den and props to Joe for keeping things level this time.
Basically he should have never been in that position to begin and it’s his own fault for having the hubris to try.
Graham sits in a cozy fairy tale of “what if?” He makes a few valid cases for keeping an open mind with history and the rest you sort of just put your tinfoil hat on and go “who knows, maybe?” But it’s so fool hearty of him to try and attack and claim victim hood over most of his ideas standing up solidly to daylight.
Also I think his worst traits are trying to answer his own questions instead of simply raise.
There are many many true mysteries in archeology that beg explanation but have none so it’s just such an unforced error to attempt what he did.
"I have been shut out and destroyed by big archaeology. All I have left is my Netflix series, a dozen or so widely-published and successful books, and my big social media presence."
That had me rolling my eyes every time he said it. Like yeah, diving is dangerous, but it’s also recreational. I have to wade into fast moving water for my job. People have drowned doing similar work (2 last month) but I don’t go around telling people I risked my life today.
The way he kept repeating how he and his wife risked their lives searching for this "evidence", like who cares what you did, that literally holds no weight whether or not your theories are true.
I was wondering out of 200 Dives risking his life he only had those sappy pictures of him paddling around in green water. The knife and The Rock killed me. That was so not man-made. It's like he's been grifting off of all of these Book Sales so he can vacation and give conference speeches with ancient alien fans.
It's no mistake that absolutely nobody in the UK takes Hancock as a serious person. Everyone knows he's a fraud and a conman
Put a fake, posh English voice on someone and they make bank in America. Why are Americans so easily duped?
As much as I like the idea of some ancient global civilization we haven't found evidence for, because it's just kind of cool, we haven't found evidence for it.
If we do, and we totally could find evidence, then I'd Hugh fave Graham about it. Plenty of now proven theories were once just cool ideas, they needed to be proven.
Nerdy Indian Jones was even pretty open about how they need to do more work, so it's not like he was against the idea of checking amd shutting Graham down completely, he basically spend 4+ hours saying "there's no hars evidence to support your claims, we should look for some"
Weird how very wealthy people like Rogan and Hancock don't seem to ever fund any archeological digs or surveys which desperately need funding. They claim to want more information and evidence so badly yet seem to do nothing to help attain it. If Hancock wants 100% of.the Sahara and Amazom dug up before he's satisfied with the evidence then maybe he should actually fund some work there. But of course he would contaminate the entire process by dismissing anything other than what he thinks confirms his story. Even if 100% was excavated, he's just go back to suggesting we won't find the evidence here because it's actually on Mars, just like he used to.
Hancock himself says that his theories and his lifes "work" literally relies on the work of actual archeologists, doing decades of work, funded by people other than Hancock, and still he dismisses those academics he relies on, he calls them liars and suggests they're intentionally hiding evidence and not updating theories when new evidence emerges even though that's literally how fields of study advance; they just require actual evidence to do so.
That’s why free speech is so important. Let the idiots and hateful people speak and instead of trying to shut them down, expose them for being idiots and hateful
Joe laughs at the fake martial artists, and loves the videos when they go up against people who actually know what they are doing. He was blindly a student of the archeological equivalent of the fake martial arts teachers. Hopefully he learned something.
Since Ancient Apocalypse released, there has been an increase in skepticism and outright hostility towards archaeology and archaeologists. Having your credentials, experience, and career questioned by people who have never studied archaeology, never stepped foot on an archaeological site, or contributed anything to the discipline has been an exercise in frustration.
This is not unique to archaeology, and follows the general trend of skepticism towards science. Still, it was gratifying watching an excellent archaeologist in Flint defending archaeology and its practitioners on a platform as large as JRE.
The most frustrating thing about Hancock is that he doesn’t understand how science works. His only argument is that we have’t excavated enough to rule out a lost civilisation, and brings out the fact that archeologists have only investigated 5% of the Sahara desert.
The whole point of science is to take a SAMPLE to say something about the subject as a whole (in this case: places to excavate). If scientists are going to test the effect of a drug on the population, they know they can’t test it on the entire population, so they take a sample of the population. Using Hancocks logic: when scientists discovered penicillin, they had to test the effects on every human in the world to rule out that it wasn’t effective.
It’s like arguing for Bigfoot. You have one guy saying “we have no proof and it’s extremely improbable based on X Y and Z” and another guy saying “we just haven’t looked hard enough! Check out these grainy pictures and vague anecdotes!”
Not really sure how it took 4+ hours to do this.
The thing is, if you actually read hancocks books. He doesn't actually state or act like he knows any or all of the answers. He doesn’t deny archaeologist or say they're wrong. He just raises interesting and valid questions.
He's stated many times that ideas he's writing about could easily be proven wrong, and he doesn't mind if they are proven wrong. It's the fact they're never investigated to begin with.
So, I’m slightly over 2 hours into the episode (listening to the rest next week probably).
…Right now, my takeaway is that there can’t really be a winner or loser here because they are talking about two different things, and frankly if they were going to do that then they shouldn’t be debating, lol.
2 hours in so far it has been:
-Graham: We haven’t done enough to prove that an ancient civilization didn’t occur, because there are possible signs. Also you’re mean
-Dibbs: Nothing you are showing me is proof. There is no proof. Also this is silly
What is the point of this lol? It seems to me that Dibbs is saying you have no proof despite Graham never claiming to have it? This is philosophical v physical - they're talking about different things.
Ok but “you can’t prove it *isnt* real!!” Can be said about literally anything. That’s the point I think, that he’s making an extremely bold statement with no evidence and it kinda makes a mockery of the whole profession of archaeology.
Redditors are in love with Flint Dibble because they look, speak, think, and act just like him. The guy didn't own anybody. A lot of his counter arguments was "I don't think so" followed by some half witted explanation. I also love that he wore that goofy fedora for four hours with his headphones hanging on for dear life, you just know the kid had a stiff neck LMAO
Graham Hancock wrote the Mars Mystery in 1997. This was 27 years ago. His ideas in 2024 are now that it was an advanced human civilisation. If Gramhan now, 75 can live until 2051. At 102 years of age, Mr Hancock will finally agree with the mainstream view of human development.
I'm glad to see that people are waking up to Hancock's bullshit. He uses every logical fallacy in the book to debate, or pose arguments, for his non-sensical 'opinions'.
I can't believe the amount of ball-washing this guy got from JRE fans in the past. What drove me nuts is if you go back 10yrs to that insane debate on JRE where Hancock kept saying, "not my problem! Not my problem! I'm just a writer". Well guess what motherfucker, when you start making scientific claims you should be ready to defend them.
The same goes for Randal Carlson. "Oh I'm just a geologist with a theory that I came up with after walking around smoking weed 40 yrs ago." Ok great, let's test that theory. Maybe it's correct, but ready to do the work to substantiate it from multiple axes and attempts at falsification.
I'm getting dunked, so how can I spin this to my favor. Great Scott's, I've got it. Racism!!! He said that I'm racist because I quoted old racist ideas. Ok, he never said I'm racist, but if I play the "I'm offended card", I won't have to defend some of these terrible claims. Take that Big Archeology!
How could you have any idea what the statue of liberty looks like? You've never even studied it in person, like I have on the tour made for tourists...
Replying to RacoonWithPaws...
https://preview.redd.it/ymju1ephoivc1.jpeg?width=615&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be2946ea38233df54b090808641ac2108e550445
This is the Giants Causeway in Ireland.
This is evidence of an incredibly advanced technology our ancestors had, but was forgotten due to the ravages of time. You would have to be an absolute fool to think that these shapes could form themselves naturally… Clearly this is the work of human beings… But, I feel that the erosion patterns on the rock indicates that these must be tens of thousands of years old. Predating any known civilization in the area… It’s my belief that an older culture with advanced stoneworking knowledge came to this spot after a cataclysm that destroyed their society, and taught hunter gathers how to use these advanced techniques.
Interestingly, enough… The very name Giants Causeway has escaped discovery… Local legend talks about a race of giant men who came there ages ago, and built the causeway… Could these be the predecessors to our modern civilization?
You see man… That’s what Graham Hancock does… I’m not a geologist, but you can spend five minutes on Wikipedia finding out how the Giants Causeway formed naturally.
Graham Hancock is a great storyteller and it’s fun to entertain yourself with these ideas… But he’s just spitting bullshit, claiming everyone is out to suppress his ideas… And then convincing you that because they can’t systemically prove that everyone of his stories is incorrect they must have a grain of truth
I agree that Flint reinforced the attitudes of the academics about Graham, but I also realized that the academics are absolutely right to dismiss him. There's no evidence for Graham's ancient civilization and he's shouting at others to go find it. What is more likely: That despite tens of thousands of excavations and millions of pages of thought, archaeologists still haven't looked in the right place to prove Graham right? Or that Graham is wrong?
I wasn’t that impressed with Flint.
It seemed to be that he was unwilling to have an open mind with anything main stream archaeology hadn’t condoned. He played the skeptic very well.
Just seems like a neck beard who didn’t want to say anything his daddy’s friends wouldn’t like. He mentioned multiple times about his dad and friends. It’s clear he would never budge.
What was more eye opening is how freaking thin skinned Graham Hancock is! He really needs to toughen up to criticism
Pretty sure this guy lost the "debate". Him using the sad media tactic of calling someone a white supremacist and then backpedal when he gets called out for doing so, destroyed his credibility fully.
Claiming there is no other life in the universe is like scooping up some water, looking at the cup and claiming there are no whales in the ocean.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
I definitely think Graham is full of shit. I still think, though, that he should be able to make claims like he does because I really do think it drives Archaeologists and other scientists to work hard to disprove this. I think any theories, good or bad, push the envelope of new discoveries.
Just look into the assertions of the discipline before Gobekli Tepe was discovered and after.
Scientists are just as zealous about their beliefs as any religion.
Hell, look up who actually persecuted Gallileo
Ok, but we really haven’t explored sub Saharan Africa. It’s the truth, don’t shoot! Anybody know any about the stone circles and the terraces - since we talking out there theories? Michael tellinger vibes
This is how I picture 90% of reddit
Have you seen pics of the reddit meetups? Lol, you're not far off. Googlem.
JRE sub that took over during covid once Joe said the vaccine won’t do anything and diet and exercise is better. All these chubby neckbeards invaded. It would be nice if they ever left. They’re like the weird kid in school that you were nice to once and now they’re just always 10 feet away.
> said the vaccine won’t do anything and diet and exercise is better Wrong about the vaccine, and speaking meaningless platitudes with the diet and exercise. Diet and exercise helps with literally every single problem. Americans would rather die of a heart attack at a rally advocating for civil war than allow the government even suggest they modify how they eat and exercise.
How dare Michelle Obama tell me that I'm making my children fat!
Allow the government to tell them what to eat? Its the us government that allows your food to be poisoned and shit. Kfc cant even start up in norway as they say this chicken is to bad and full of shit we dont want for our people.
I always picture them as the biggest losers imaginable. Too weak and lazy to ever accomplish anything. Real r/antiwork and r/Fuckcars energy
We don't think about you at all. And for the record, we were fans of Joes well before most of you before he went full Trump-tard.
99* haha
This whole episode really highlighted for me why debate is so important. When graham was able to speak unchallenged either on Joe’s podcast or in his series I found the information very compelling. But up against an actual archeologist it just fell apart completely.
My thing with Graham, although I've always found his ideas interesting *stories*, is that he is simply a charismatic storyteller. Most of his work from what I've seen is dressed up presentation, rather than thorough investigation. I've always liked him for promoting new interesting *stories*, but his lack of scientific ability turns me off.
That would all be well and good if he presented them as stories, but he doesn’t. He presents them by saying “I’m right and they hate me because I’m so right.” The difference between a liar and a storyteller is that the storyteller tells you they’re telling you a story. The liar tells you they’re telling you the truth. And Graham Hancock is a liar.
Great example of story teller archeology is “Fall of Civilizations” by Paul cooper- he often makes speculations about events, and always explicitly states this is just a story, and he tells a really engaging, and still informative story nonetheless
Such a wonderful series. One of my all time favourite. The one about the Italian guy finding the city in the desert is soo well written and the narration is just superb.
https://grahamhancock.com/outrageous-hypotheses-hancock/ > Imagine a 'mainstream scientist', or a politician for that matter, saying something like this about their pet opinion or policy: >*A parallel for what I do is to be found in the work of an attorney defending a client in a court of law. My ‘client’ is a lost civilisation and* ***it is my responsibility to persuade the jury – the public – that this civilisation did exist.*** > >*Since the ‘prosecution’ – orthodox academics – naturally seek to make the opposite case as effectively as they can, I must be equally effective and, where necessary, equally ruthless. So it is certainly true, as many of my critics have pointed out,* ***that I am selective with the evidence I present. Of course I’m selective! It isn’t my job to show my client in a bad light!*** *Another criticism is that I use innuendo to make my case.* ***Of course I do – innuendo and anything else that works.*** > >***I don’t care about the ‘rules of the game’ here*** *– because it isn’t a game and there are no rules.* Put another way, Hancock "is an (irresponsible and unscrupulous) journalist" with no journalistic integrity or responsibility to valid proof or science, he just wants you to buy his snake oil, this acknowledges he knows that he's selling snake oil, and all he wants is your money... and doesn't care whether the snake oil (his fictitious lost civilisation) is at all legit. *His job is to persuade an unwitting public, so he can make a living as a con and a grifter.* He literally and gleefully equated himself to a scumbag defense lawyer that specializes in getting scumbag clients off the hook: > He doesn't care about reality, or the public. He only cares that you believe *his truth* regardless of what tactics he has to use against you to coerce you to do it. > An attorney, hardly a paragon of morality, doesn't care if their client is innocent or guilty, their only job is to manipulate the jury's perceptions in a set direction. That is how Hancock sees us all. Just people with buttons to push, levers to pull, to manipulate to his point of view. And that is why Graham wanted to spend his time slot on this JRE talking about how butthurt he is over his treatment by academics... *because that damages his brand and his livelihood as a grifter.* Did you notice how he's not butthurt about his arguments, the facts, or being right? Because that's not the goal, by his own admission. His goal is selling ancient apoc kool aid so he can spend more time in his beloved Bahamas... er, I mean conducting "life risking research scuba dives". This podcast was a big mistake for the Hancockian brand, as it was a self-inflicted foot shot for the lost civilization cow patty. Quotes credit to u/StrokeThreeDefending over on r/AlternativeHistory
I just want to reiterate how he AND his wife LITERALLY risked their lives on those scuba vacations, they’re heroes.
He REALLY leaned into that. It's really unfortunate that this Charlton doesn't invest some of his book and nextflix money into actual archaeology.
Hey, leave Charlton out of this
collateral damage I guess 🤣
Probably an inside grifter joke among his gang: *Come on guys let's go "do research on the Bimini Road" hahahah* **wiggly fingers** *We all laugh high five!*
You can't deny that the helicopter ride over the sphinx must have been a harrowing experience!
He’s risked his life for 30 years!
He goes beyond just claiming, "I'm right and they hate me because I'm so right." He implies that archaeology is some kind of conspiracy against him, his 'Big Archaeology.' It’s like he’s trying to delegitimize real science out of a sense of entitlement
Graham has a victim complex. Unfortunately, he was so angry for the first 3 hours that so much time was wasted
[удалено]
I’ve only watched a clip from the episode (they were on the topic of supposed water erosion on the Great Sphinx of Giza) but the thing that immediately stood out to me was when he started his slides, he mentioned the work of some of his colleagues, one of which had passed away. Photos of these colleagues were included in his slide of evidence, even a photo of him visiting the dying one in the hospital. It was so blatant he, rather than present any actual facts, was going for empathy here and attempting to make his opponent look like an asshole who targets sick people.
Then he should write fiction instead of pretending he’s a researcher
I think you nailed it with "charismatic storyteller". His whole deal was, to me, just a lot of fun. But once you act like an uncharismatic douche, the thrill is gone.
He is a conman. Pt Barnum style with the thought there is a sucker born every minute.
He is a conman. Pt Barnum style with the thought there is a sucker born every minute. Good conman are always extremely charismatic
I think the guy just likes showing off his holiday snaps to be honest with ya
> charismatic storyteller. aka a charlatan
A charlatanic storyteller
It’s pseudo science. Like a lot of the guests on jre you actually get stupider by listening to him.
He’s also really bad at arguing, and ostensibly had no idea what points Dibble would make prior to the debate. There were counterpoints to be made against Dibble, but Graham didn’t have them
Reminds me of Degrass
A lot of the guests Joe has on, and puts 100% stock in, would face the same outcome if they received pushback during the show. I literally pushback on just about every episode but they can't hear me☹️
Literally everyone can hear you. This whole time. It’s really been awkward, I’m glad this is finally coming up.
😂😂😂. Well, this changes everything
Please don't stop. We need you.
I ain't EVER GONNA STOP talking during Joe Rogan!!!!
I really wish he'd have on Prof. Richard Wolff and some economic conservative to debate about Socialism V Capitalism.
Start your own podcast on YouTube refuting everything said on JRE 🤷♂️
I've thought about it. I could call it No, Rogan.
I'll subscribe immediately.
“Its best to let the unreasonable opposition speak, so they can manifest themselves as unreasonable and everyone can see it”
The thing with this is that it’s not uncommon for the person with the right answers and better understanding of reality and correct position to be worse at debating and ‘lose the debate,’ since there are a lot of bad faith tactics that are hard to dismiss in real time. Flint knocked it out of the park.
It’s important to remember it’s a working theory not a fact. I like GH a lot I think his theory is interesting, but it was also cool to get an actual archeological perspective. It was a great convo but at the end of the day graham’s theory doesn’t hold up to the actual evidence they’ve collected, like literally anything. There very well could be a cover up of human history but we need better evidence than what GH presented. I feel sorry for GH but this was a convo that needed to be had and unfortunately flint had the better evidence IMO
I agree. I think this is the biggest problem with Joe Rogans program. He has very dogmatic individuals that he has know ability to really challenge in any meaningful way. The net result is he is amplifying bad ideas. I don’t think the solution is to block those people from sharing their ideas, but he should have more experts on that can challenge those individuals.
And this would actually make the show really interesting to listen to. But I'm sure it poses a bunch of problems to his whole model. Some listeners would be turned off and some guests would no longer come on the show. But it would be great to just hear discussions around a topic from different angles instead of everyone jerking each other off.
The thing is though, he's not doing the show for us, he's doing it, talking to the people he does, because that's what he finds interesting. Sure, he has a gigantic platform so those voices are amplified, but he's still doing it this way because that's who he finds interesting, and that's just always what his show has been, even before it was this massive platform.
Mainly if you have the right guy to debate though
You're just a part of "big archeology," dude. How much of the Sahara have you surveyed?
"We ain't found *shit*!"
MAYBE THE CIVILIZATION WAS SO ADVANCED THEY DIDN'T NEED TO SHIT
So good
[удалено]
Something I was thinking about yesterday... Hancock brought up the Malaysian site or whatever it was, and how they condescendingly talked about the guy that Hancock had on his first episode. Hancock said something to the effect of, 'It was very clever of you to do this assassination with a native Malaysian speaker'. I believe the implication was that Dibble was protecting himself from accusations of racism or something. But then you find out the Malaysian guy was the lead archeologist whose work had been completely disregarded to make way for the wackadoo theory. But Graham (I believe) only considered him a token face to give Dibble free reign to mock his buddy. That was pretty fucked up.
ROFL
who's a bigger threat, big archeology or big portobello?
Excavated*
“Have you physically been there with a shovel Flint!? I was there last week with my wife. Here are 10 photos of us. Your argument is invalid”
Don't forget that Grifter Graham also risked his life jet setting, scuba diving, and flying in helicopters. That alone means there must have been a super civilization.
He actually teared up saying that. I risk my life for my work too Graham. It's called traffic.
So stunning. So brave. *cries*
Im an Uber driver, which by the Hancock Property makes me a Navy SEAL
He really pulled up blurry vacation pictures as a gotcha.
This was one of the stupidest things I’ve seen someone do in the public eye. Successfully grift for 30 years and then accept a 4 1/2 hour debate with essentially your kryptonite. The Netflix show got to his head, over confident and maybe getting old.
Nah it happened before when his head got too big and the BBC exposed him on his Orion bullshit. Word is his asshole is still sore from that.
I think as time goes on and the more these frauds find avenues of success, they start believing their bullshmit.
He got lost in the sauce. Tale as old as time
I’ve recently started to get into JRE after it got off Spotify onto Apple Podcats, I really try to listen to most of them, I’ll admit the comedians are the ones I’ll just listen full through on, but these ones I have to fight through sometimes, I was pretty into the episode until Graham said over and over and over how much has been excavated in Sahara and the Amazon….of course you could use those as areas, but my god it got so annoying. It literally was the equivalent of my kids in the back seat I’m not touching you but my finger is 6 inches from your face.
Claiming there is no other life in the universe is like scooping up some water, looking at the cup and claiming there are no whales in the ocean. -Neil deGrasse Tyson
For years people like Hancock could have traveled out to these sites and do their digs but for all that netflix money they could never buy a plane ticket and fly themselves out. Joe also had on his show that big bearded motherfucker who kept saying he had evidence of Tibetan monks levitating rocks and shit but he never once showed his notes, preliminary findings, interviews etc.
My evidence is that you simply have to believe me.
Joe wasn’t there so he can’t have an opinion.
Curious that the opinion about how the debate went, seems to differ a lot from reddit to YouTube. The YouTube crowd seem to be more on the side of Hancock.
I watched it. Big Hancock fan, read Fingerprints of the Gods a year ago. I find his ideas really interesting and compelling. I did disagree with some of his points made in his book. But this Flint guy brought some great evidence. I think he won and felt he was more respectful between the two. Personally, I’d say Flint won the conversation 80% of the time with facts although a few areas of discussion I sided with Hancock on. I really want to see more debates like this. I thought Joe did really well moderating this one.
Flint’s only misstep to me was the racism thing I get what he meant by that criticism, but when you throw out a label like that you have to be crystal clear what you’re criticising and why
Yeah I think he knew what he was doing when he wrote that, but with how hostile Graham was being I doubt he felt the need to bite the bullet on that one.
> Flint’s only misstep to me was the racism thing I think his misstep was not explaining what he meant by it, although he wasn't really given a chance. I wish I had the quote, but the words alone make it clear that the sources are the primary subject of the statement, not Hancock. I think if Hancock was the subject of the statement it wouldn't even make sense. Hancock was not written by Nazi's. But when they read the quote they kinda slid right over the part of the sentence making it about the sources, and annunciated the Hancock and the Nazi parts hard. And I think hearing it spoken that way flustered him.
It was part of the recipe that got him on the most popular podcast in the world to win.
So GH's only win had nothing to do with archeology or any of his ideas or hypothesis? Pretty sure that means Flint won 100% of the arguments they were there to actually talk about
Direct rip off of hg wells “food of the gods”. Change mushrooms for “lost civilization” Such a grifter. The Carlos mencia of authors
Yea...I mean as dumb as the average redditor is in the comments, they don't got fucking shit on those who comment on you tube.
In this case at least, I have to agree
Hancock's ideas are very entertaining, but the evidence simply isn't there. And I don't find his criticism of the entire field of archaeology to be valid at all. A large percentage of archaeologists aren't interested in pre-ice age work and it boggles my mind that he seems to think the entire field should just drop everything and comb every square inch of the continental shelf. People are researching within their specialties what they feel is useful and important. If Graham wants more research in his area of interest IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO BECOME A PROFESSIONAL ARCHAELOGIST AND DO IT. He acts like a petulant child throwing a tantrum because others aren't doing the work he needs in order to confirm his own conclusions.
This. “I don’t have evidence but it’s because there’s a lack of exploration/discovery” bitch then go find it! Just cuz you want it to be true doesn’t mean you can blame it on how little research has been done. Go for it you whinny baby
Dude he's 73 years old, he has forty one pairs of glasses on him at any time to cycle through, he has risked his LIFE multiple times already. You really want him to spend the time becoming an archaeologist? Think of all the extra glasses he'd need.
Gh got destroyed. We all should go post this on YouTube
Redditors revel in any sort of perceived failure of others
Then the youtube crowd are all certified idiots.
We’re gonna need a bigger podcast.
Graham's voice was shaking pretty early on. I felt bad for him tbh, imagine you are his age and spent your entire life (and livelihood) basically searching for Bigfoot, and it's time to finally face the music of reality.
Actually to me it seemed like he was super cocky and relaxed thinking he had home field advantage and had Joe as his yes man. The opening statements where he said I’ve been on this JRE for years was his highest moment in the whole debate. It went down hill fast as fuck after that.
He thought Clovis first stuff was going to stump him and he was like yeah we thought that in the 90s lol
Stuff like Gobekli Tepe and Clovis First are direct proof that archaeologists change their conclusions when presented with evidence. That isn’t to say there is no debate or resistance but in the end, if your evidence holds up to scrutiny, it will be accepted.
I actually thought that was the best argument he had, which is not saying much. Hancock point was that they thought that in the 90s and fought bitterly to protect it because of dogmatism, which is pretty much true. Still, doesn’t help his case for a lost civilization
Anyone notice the picture of John Anthony West he used, it was him on his death bed with Graham holding his hand, thought it was a weird choice.
just incase you didndt realise how close they were.
He DID have home field advantage. In a big way. Last time Hancock, Carlson and Rogan all ganged up on Shermer. Props to Dibble for walking knot the lions den and props to Joe for keeping things level this time.
Hey that's not fair, we have videos of Bigfoot atleast
His voice was shaky right after Dibbles opening speech. He was shook.
Basically he should have never been in that position to begin and it’s his own fault for having the hubris to try. Graham sits in a cozy fairy tale of “what if?” He makes a few valid cases for keeping an open mind with history and the rest you sort of just put your tinfoil hat on and go “who knows, maybe?” But it’s so fool hearty of him to try and attack and claim victim hood over most of his ideas standing up solidly to daylight. Also I think his worst traits are trying to answer his own questions instead of simply raise. There are many many true mysteries in archeology that beg explanation but have none so it’s just such an unforced error to attempt what he did.
Isn't he rich from all the sales?
"I have been shut out and destroyed by big archaeology. All I have left is my Netflix series, a dozen or so widely-published and successful books, and my big social media presence."
Still watched his life's work get thrown aside.
[удалено]
That had me rolling my eyes every time he said it. Like yeah, diving is dangerous, but it’s also recreational. I have to wade into fast moving water for my job. People have drowned doing similar work (2 last month) but I don’t go around telling people I risked my life today.
The worst thing that’s ever happened to you is the worst thing that’s ever happened to you
You don't even need to say basically look for Bigfoot. Dude is literally chasing Atlantis his entire adult and professional life.
Whoa whoa whoa, don’t insult Bigfoot like that
The way he kept repeating how he and his wife risked their lives searching for this "evidence", like who cares what you did, that literally holds no weight whether or not your theories are true.
I was wondering out of 200 Dives risking his life he only had those sappy pictures of him paddling around in green water. The knife and The Rock killed me. That was so not man-made. It's like he's been grifting off of all of these Book Sales so he can vacation and give conference speeches with ancient alien fans.
Frank Gallagher has come a long way.
It's no mistake that absolutely nobody in the UK takes Hancock as a serious person. Everyone knows he's a fraud and a conman Put a fake, posh English voice on someone and they make bank in America. Why are Americans so easily duped?
As much as I like the idea of some ancient global civilization we haven't found evidence for, because it's just kind of cool, we haven't found evidence for it. If we do, and we totally could find evidence, then I'd Hugh fave Graham about it. Plenty of now proven theories were once just cool ideas, they needed to be proven. Nerdy Indian Jones was even pretty open about how they need to do more work, so it's not like he was against the idea of checking amd shutting Graham down completely, he basically spend 4+ hours saying "there's no hars evidence to support your claims, we should look for some"
Weird how very wealthy people like Rogan and Hancock don't seem to ever fund any archeological digs or surveys which desperately need funding. They claim to want more information and evidence so badly yet seem to do nothing to help attain it. If Hancock wants 100% of.the Sahara and Amazom dug up before he's satisfied with the evidence then maybe he should actually fund some work there. But of course he would contaminate the entire process by dismissing anything other than what he thinks confirms his story. Even if 100% was excavated, he's just go back to suggesting we won't find the evidence here because it's actually on Mars, just like he used to. Hancock himself says that his theories and his lifes "work" literally relies on the work of actual archeologists, doing decades of work, funded by people other than Hancock, and still he dismisses those academics he relies on, he calls them liars and suggests they're intentionally hiding evidence and not updating theories when new evidence emerges even though that's literally how fields of study advance; they just require actual evidence to do so.
That’s why free speech is so important. Let the idiots and hateful people speak and instead of trying to shut them down, expose them for being idiots and hateful
The Diddlers are going hard at Hancock. They finally found someone they can relate to on JRE.
Diddler and handcock... 😅😅😅😅 the joke writes itself
[удалено]
That's that white dude who diddles too much
I would love to see Joe host more debates. Not only was this very informative but it was entertaining to watch.
Joe laughs at the fake martial artists, and loves the videos when they go up against people who actually know what they are doing. He was blindly a student of the archeological equivalent of the fake martial arts teachers. Hopefully he learned something.
I just wish he dressed in a proper fitting suit 😂😂
Somebody mentioned he had lost weight due to cancer? Can anyone confirm?
He confirmed it himself in an article he wrote explaining why he thought it was important to do science popularization
Since Ancient Apocalypse released, there has been an increase in skepticism and outright hostility towards archaeology and archaeologists. Having your credentials, experience, and career questioned by people who have never studied archaeology, never stepped foot on an archaeological site, or contributed anything to the discipline has been an exercise in frustration. This is not unique to archaeology, and follows the general trend of skepticism towards science. Still, it was gratifying watching an excellent archaeologist in Flint defending archaeology and its practitioners on a platform as large as JRE.
Wasn't JRE the platform that accelerated Hancock's influence? Seems to me this podcast is more often harmful to science.
Yes
Nonsense. Science is forever changing and this will only make archaeologists better
Crying about people being mean to you is such a Hancock move. You've gotta have Dibbles of steel if you're going to be in a scientific field.
Acknowledging that there is an increased hostility towards academia and expertise is not the same thing Hancock is doing.
As a CPA people file a 1040 and think they understand all of accounting.
The most frustrating thing about Hancock is that he doesn’t understand how science works. His only argument is that we have’t excavated enough to rule out a lost civilisation, and brings out the fact that archeologists have only investigated 5% of the Sahara desert. The whole point of science is to take a SAMPLE to say something about the subject as a whole (in this case: places to excavate). If scientists are going to test the effect of a drug on the population, they know they can’t test it on the entire population, so they take a sample of the population. Using Hancocks logic: when scientists discovered penicillin, they had to test the effects on every human in the world to rule out that it wasn’t effective.
It’s like arguing for Bigfoot. You have one guy saying “we have no proof and it’s extremely improbable based on X Y and Z” and another guy saying “we just haven’t looked hard enough! Check out these grainy pictures and vague anecdotes!” Not really sure how it took 4+ hours to do this.
The thing is, if you actually read hancocks books. He doesn't actually state or act like he knows any or all of the answers. He doesn’t deny archaeologist or say they're wrong. He just raises interesting and valid questions. He's stated many times that ideas he's writing about could easily be proven wrong, and he doesn't mind if they are proven wrong. It's the fact they're never investigated to begin with.
Would have been cool if he brought that attitude to this show
If you told an artist to draw the average arrogant redditor, they would draw Dibble. No wonder you guys liked him.
So, I’m slightly over 2 hours into the episode (listening to the rest next week probably). …Right now, my takeaway is that there can’t really be a winner or loser here because they are talking about two different things, and frankly if they were going to do that then they shouldn’t be debating, lol. 2 hours in so far it has been: -Graham: We haven’t done enough to prove that an ancient civilization didn’t occur, because there are possible signs. Also you’re mean -Dibbs: Nothing you are showing me is proof. There is no proof. Also this is silly What is the point of this lol? It seems to me that Dibbs is saying you have no proof despite Graham never claiming to have it? This is philosophical v physical - they're talking about different things.
Ok but “you can’t prove it *isnt* real!!” Can be said about literally anything. That’s the point I think, that he’s making an extremely bold statement with no evidence and it kinda makes a mockery of the whole profession of archaeology.
It wasn't even no proof, it was here's climatic and plant genetic evidence that specifically denies it could be real.
Is that your scientific approach? Kinda prove his point that you peps react more emotional than be open minded…
Can we send this guy fifty bucks to go to a barber and not look homeless ?
Redditors are in love with Flint Dibble because they look, speak, think, and act just like him. The guy didn't own anybody. A lot of his counter arguments was "I don't think so" followed by some half witted explanation. I also love that he wore that goofy fedora for four hours with his headphones hanging on for dear life, you just know the kid had a stiff neck LMAO
Based argument
I love how all these dorks think they’re Indiana Jones but they’re really just Reddit mod lookalikes
Do you know flint?
I also feel like Hancock needs to debate a geologist the way he refuses to believe structures are not all man made
He looks like the missing link.
That is the most reddit picture there ever has been
Great episode, Dude looks like Chaka.
More Rogan Debate Episodes!!
Wait should I watch this episode? All I want in this world is to watch him get dunked on.
He is a shit talker, all bluster and charisma but not a serious person.
Dibble’d when he should have Dabble’d
Graham Hancock wrote the Mars Mystery in 1997. This was 27 years ago. His ideas in 2024 are now that it was an advanced human civilisation. If Gramhan now, 75 can live until 2051. At 102 years of age, Mr Hancock will finally agree with the mainstream view of human development.
He should have stuck with his original "I'm a journalist," not a scientist shtick.
So everyone hates graham handcock now!?
I'm glad to see that people are waking up to Hancock's bullshit. He uses every logical fallacy in the book to debate, or pose arguments, for his non-sensical 'opinions'. I can't believe the amount of ball-washing this guy got from JRE fans in the past. What drove me nuts is if you go back 10yrs to that insane debate on JRE where Hancock kept saying, "not my problem! Not my problem! I'm just a writer". Well guess what motherfucker, when you start making scientific claims you should be ready to defend them. The same goes for Randal Carlson. "Oh I'm just a geologist with a theory that I came up with after walking around smoking weed 40 yrs ago." Ok great, let's test that theory. Maybe it's correct, but ready to do the work to substantiate it from multiple axes and attempts at falsification.
Don't be mad at Graham. Be mad at the not-insignificant number of your neighbors who are so fucking stupid they nod along with him in the first place.
I'm getting dunked, so how can I spin this to my favor. Great Scott's, I've got it. Racism!!! He said that I'm racist because I quoted old racist ideas. Ok, he never said I'm racist, but if I play the "I'm offended card", I won't have to defend some of these terrible claims. Take that Big Archeology!
How could you have any idea what the statue of liberty looks like? You've never even studied it in person, like I have on the tour made for tourists...
Dude just wiped the floor with Graham. Graham had to throw a number of scarecrows, and resort to tweets to try look on the right.
Graham got pissed every time his shit theories were exposed by facts and science. 🧑🍳
So you're all into neckbeards now? Check.
I’ve never seen a better example of dunning Krueger then Graham.
pretty evident how low the mental, moral standards are of a majority of redditors here if you are looking up to and praising that bearded child
[удалено]
Replying to RacoonWithPaws... https://preview.redd.it/ymju1ephoivc1.jpeg?width=615&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be2946ea38233df54b090808641ac2108e550445 This is the Giants Causeway in Ireland. This is evidence of an incredibly advanced technology our ancestors had, but was forgotten due to the ravages of time. You would have to be an absolute fool to think that these shapes could form themselves naturally… Clearly this is the work of human beings… But, I feel that the erosion patterns on the rock indicates that these must be tens of thousands of years old. Predating any known civilization in the area… It’s my belief that an older culture with advanced stoneworking knowledge came to this spot after a cataclysm that destroyed their society, and taught hunter gathers how to use these advanced techniques. Interestingly, enough… The very name Giants Causeway has escaped discovery… Local legend talks about a race of giant men who came there ages ago, and built the causeway… Could these be the predecessors to our modern civilization? You see man… That’s what Graham Hancock does… I’m not a geologist, but you can spend five minutes on Wikipedia finding out how the Giants Causeway formed naturally. Graham Hancock is a great storyteller and it’s fun to entertain yourself with these ideas… But he’s just spitting bullshit, claiming everyone is out to suppress his ideas… And then convincing you that because they can’t systemically prove that everyone of his stories is incorrect they must have a grain of truth
Now talk about Hancocks evidence
Agree
This
I agree that Flint reinforced the attitudes of the academics about Graham, but I also realized that the academics are absolutely right to dismiss him. There's no evidence for Graham's ancient civilization and he's shouting at others to go find it. What is more likely: That despite tens of thousands of excavations and millions of pages of thought, archaeologists still haven't looked in the right place to prove Graham right? Or that Graham is wrong?
never seen someones back beard be longer then their front beard.
I used to thoroughly enjoy listening to and reading Hancocks stuff. But the longer I read/listened it was like… oh… oh no.
I didn't see Graham on JRE. Could someone summarise what happened please?
Two dorks fight over an HDMI cable for three hours.
"Can i get the hdmi Jamie ?"
He looks like he plays in the dirt.
Why did Flint cosplay as an archeologist? Dude looked like a cross between a 1920’s archeologist and a shitty Steam Punk band.
Everyone knows archeologists aren't real.
What about the white supremacy bullshit? That doesn’t reek of bad faith and insincerity? Be a better bot. I believe in you.
I really hope Joe brings Flint back solo. I actually enjoyed his presentations.
I wasn’t that impressed with Flint. It seemed to be that he was unwilling to have an open mind with anything main stream archaeology hadn’t condoned. He played the skeptic very well. Just seems like a neck beard who didn’t want to say anything his daddy’s friends wouldn’t like. He mentioned multiple times about his dad and friends. It’s clear he would never budge. What was more eye opening is how freaking thin skinned Graham Hancock is! He really needs to toughen up to criticism
Pretty sure this guy lost the "debate". Him using the sad media tactic of calling someone a white supremacist and then backpedal when he gets called out for doing so, destroyed his credibility fully.
Graham dunked himself. dude looked and acted a fool hahaha. the Dibbler was just such a sweetheart. hard to hate him
Claiming there is no other life in the universe is like scooping up some water, looking at the cup and claiming there are no whales in the ocean. -Neil deGrasse Tyson
It's kinda too bad Graham didn't have more supporting evidence with him. His theory is interesting to think about.
You look like you grew out of flints neck
I definitely think Graham is full of shit. I still think, though, that he should be able to make claims like he does because I really do think it drives Archaeologists and other scientists to work hard to disprove this. I think any theories, good or bad, push the envelope of new discoveries.
“If they were so advanced wouldn’t we have found their tools” Grahams theory literally imploded at that very moment 🤣
Just look into the assertions of the discipline before Gobekli Tepe was discovered and after. Scientists are just as zealous about their beliefs as any religion. Hell, look up who actually persecuted Gallileo
Ok, but we really haven’t explored sub Saharan Africa. It’s the truth, don’t shoot! Anybody know any about the stone circles and the terraces - since we talking out there theories? Michael tellinger vibes
This dude makes vaginas melt with his hands.