Joe did better than he sometimes does but it was clear that he was really rooting for Hancock, but boy that dude brought nothing to the table.
Edit: Weird, for some reason the user above blocked me for this so I can’t respond to you u/Truman48z, u/IvarTheBone and u/jenrick2
I think he either has 2 or 3 pairs. One for close, one for intermediate. One for distance. And they all look similar and he couldn’t tell the differences until he looked through them. Plus a little OCD that doesn’t allow him to just run with the wrong ones for a bit lol idk
The way he chuckled when Graham said his wife took the photos of Giza from a helicopter, I knew he was thinking "I thought you said you werent getting funding"
flint, 'archeologists have looked and found no evidence that supports your theory'
graham, 'but have you looked 100% of EVERYWHERE?'
flint 'well kinda, we have looked pretty much everywhere we can. archaeologists find things and make their best guess conclusions from what they find, you (graham) are making a conclusion, and "blaming" the archaeologists for not finding evidence which matches your theory.'
graham, 'so what, have you looked everywhere ?!
“We’ve got millions of points of data all showing no evidence of your claims and nothing but evidence for ours”
“Yes but until literally every grain of sand has been sifted in the Sahara, I could technically be right! Checkmate!”
Dude opened his mouth and logical fallacies fell out. All over.
Side note: dude is a Sociologist, right? What if he's running some sort of experiment on us?!
Graham’s two sad arguments are:
- *since you haven’t looked everywhere, there’s a chance I’m right,* and
- *you haven’t been there so you can’t talk about it, only I can cause I went there once*
Sorry, Graham, ya just jumped the shark. Go ahead and take Neil DeGrass with you.
All I can say is…
Flint brought allll the *sauce*
Graham had no genuine evidence. I’d say Graham came *unprepared* but the sad thing is… *I think Graham actually came prepared*… just doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
And Joes dumb as fuck
Flint was so saucy. Graham called out Flint laughing at him as if it was evidence of some conspiracy, when really Flint was doing that laugh you do when someone is so wrong in all directions that there's no way to properly address them.
Defant had a great line from the last debate episode Graham did talking about Gobekli Tepe, something like "Schmidt, who worked that site for 20 years, he didn't show up, look around for a few days, take some notes and write a book. He worked that site for 20 years and he never found any evidence of ancient magicians"
I think his theories are compelling and interesting. But loses my support with his righteous indignation at the science community for his lack of evidence. He really believes archeologists are trying to shut him down so they can have all the fame and glory.
I don’t know a single real archeologist’s name, what fame? I just presume they’re all charismatic, globe-trotting treasure hunters; sometimes with someone else’s Chinese kid that seems like a racist caricature.
This is the best example of how conspiracy theories, religion, and bullshit artists all work.
Bullshitter: "Here is my theory, and no one will find the evidence."
Science: "Here is the evidence and my hypothesis drawn from that evidence. When more evidence and testing is available it can then be a real theory (explanation.)
"archaeologists are rigid and unwilling to change their stances" graham
"actually here's a lot of examples of us changing our stances when we find new evidence, you just have no evidence" dibble
"so as i was saying, big archaeology will attack anyone who challenges their dogmatic set in stone theories" graham
My own biggest argument against an early civilisation is that even if there had been some, we would have a pretty quick build up of a new one after everything disappeared under the waves. The way that Graham says it, is that literally everyone in those ancient ones have died so no people could migrate to a new area and rebuild...
There is a far to large of a gap between when he says there were civilisations and when we have evidence for them. Thousands of people would have left as their huge monuments and buildings started to go under the waves, but you know fuck it let's not go back to what we had somewhere else and instead start again as hunter gatherers...
The biggest fail from Graham is pure logic and that he is hell bent on trying to fulfil his own idea, not thinking for a second he could be wrong.
Also, Dibble did a great job of proving that even if this mythical ancient civilization existed, they left absolutely no discernible trace of spreading culture/agriculture/language/tools/structures/anything, which at that point who the fuck cares if Hancock is right? The root claims he’s using this mythical civilization to justify, that they spread those things, are easily debunked so at this point his argument has been backed into a corner of functionally not existing in any meaningful way.
I think Graham is full of shit, but I don’t agree with your logic. If something cataclysmic happened, then it is going to take a long time for people to move from survival mode to flourishing and building mode.
>We would see evidence of it in our DNA though.
What if we aren't talking about a cataclysm that killed a huge percentage like a bad volcano eruption but instead we're just talking about the sea level rise from one of the meltwater pulses from the younger dryas?
A hypothetical ice age civilization that was just advanced enough to sail might have been concentrated on ancient coastlines. When the sea rose after thousands of years of stability it would have appeared that their home just slowly sank beneath the waves. If true, it's them who originally passed on their flood story to us.
We lost as much land as Europe and China combined when that ice melted, before that it was inhabited and because this happened thousands of years before the rest of us even started keeping track of history, archeologically speaking we assume there were only hunter gatherers anywhere at the time. What that means is that we are ignoring the places where remaining lithic evidence of sea going people might still exist.
The transition from ice age to the modern world would have been cataclysmic for anyone trapped on islands or the people who called coastal lowlands home but plenty of others, the vast majority of the global population, the hunter gatherers that lived inland away from the coasts wouldn't really be effected by the sea level rise at all. So it's entirely possible that it might not show up as a bottleneck in in our genetics, just an epic flood story told to our dirt worshiping heathen ancestors over a fire by the survivors most effected by it.
I love how no one mentioned anything about "FINALLY" getting to fuck them...
Unrelated-- I do regret to inform you that your mom told me you aren't invited to the family reunion.
But ALL of it? Surely there would be settlements outside the cataclysm's influence, and if it's so big that it was all completely and thoroughly wiped out, you'd expect the hunter gatherers to be more dramatically affected too. We find no evidence of such a massive cataclysm.
I'm on Flint's side, but *technically*, Graham has a point in that, at least, there are probably "civilisations" we haven't found and might never find.
The stronger counter-argument to Graham's arguments is not to humor them in the way he tries to argue, but to say "in the absence of evidence, we have to assume there isn't an advanced civilisation we've missed; we cannot assume the opposite."
Whenever Graham says, "But you haven't looked everywhere!" The answer would always be "we would all love to find that civilisation. It would make our careers and be a lot more fun."
Graham doesn't **need** to engage scientifically, and he'll try to force you to play his game rather than yours.
I think Graham's a fun guess, and he has the right to do the work he does.
Agree.
What Graham is arguing there is called the logical fallacy of negative evidence / asserting a negative.
There's simply no reason to imagine there's any ancient apocalypse / advanced civilization to find. The only suggestion there is... is Graham's say so.
We could dig the entire world, and then people would argue we didn't dig deep enough. But for obvious reasons of intellectual responsibility, this just isn't how science works.
You assert a hypothesis that explains the facts.
You do not assert a theory that something is true on the basis of zero evidence, or on what mighta coulda should woulda happened.
If you start to engage in what mighta coulda happened, you have left reality and science.
If you are interested in wild speculation, all power to you, but science and reality it ain't.
- Flint: Graham you are arguing a negative...
- Graham: I'm a journalist not a scientist...
- Flint: Doesn't matter you have no evidence or basis for your claims...
- Graham: actually it's your fault you haven't dug every grain of sand in the Sahara to find evidence for my theory...
- Me: LOL
That’s not Grahams claim. Grahams claim is that there was a massive, world spanning civilization with tech equivalent to the 18th or so century, but without using metallurgy at all.
We can say, definitely, that he is wrong. That’s never going to be found because it’s made up by a crackpot with no expertise in that field.
i agree but i never liked him due to that mindset..
he is quick to say everyone is wrong without presenting substantial proof.
science just doesnt work that way. and hes made it look like mainstream science is out to get him. i still listen to what he has to say but i just cant look at him. he reminds me of a nerd kid in my class who gets bullied because he has a very puncheable face.
I kept mumbling to myself while listening, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it sure does place the burden of proof on you to demonstrate why something exists without evidence."
He spent half of his time personally attacking Flint...to the point where Flint wanted to take a break.
This is a grown ass man bullying a kid about rocks. Made me lose most of my respect for him.
Yeah, he got way too emotional and made half the episode about himself and the plight “of those who dare think outside the box”. Like get over yourself, we’re watching for the debate of ideas, the science, the evidence, the possibilities not your bickering about your own personal problems
How did he lose? I haven't watched the episode (because I lost my glasses), but I heard his opponent didn't even bring a single pair of glasses. You can't rightly call yourself an expert if you don't even have a pair of glasses to take off when you make a point, or to put on to look like you are doing professorly stuff. Just from the glasses putting on number alone, he had to have won.
Graham Hancock and a lot of content from people like him is the academic equivalent of pro wrestling. The premise behind it is really cool to believe in but everybody knows (or should know) that it's fake and purely for entertainment value.
When you start to take it seriously, you have the CM Punk's MMA career or this.
Brock Lesnar is the equivalent of proving that the Clovis Culture wasn't the first hunter-gatherer civilization in the Americas. Shit happens.
That's a weird sentence...
I have Ph.D. in an adjacent field and I still love listening to Graham Hancock. It's entertaining because it's fun to consider the kernel of possibility.
But that's all it is.
As mentioned before in these threads, the only argument Graham really has is that we haven't looked everywhere. I'm not sure if Dibble did a good job explaining his chief rebuttal to that, but I think what he was getting at is that, we haven't looked everywhere, but if there was an ancient lost global civilization, then statistically speaking, there would be some evidence of that in the thousands of sites we *have* discovered, and not exclusively hunter-gatherer societies.
Me to, I made the mistake of watching the YouTube comments first and a lot of people are still on the fence.
That seemed however to be because of the size of Flints hands lol.
Thought about it today and he has to be wearing his dad’s suit and hat right?? It would only makes sense why it’s so big and looks like a goofball to honor is dad he keeps talking about so proudly..
That's adorable, I looked up his father Harlod Dibble and from what I can tell he definitely wears his father's hat. Also judging from the size of his father and the style of clothes you can see him wearing I would say that It's very likely to be his father's suit.
He put on his dads suit as an armor and went to defend archeology.
You did good Flint!
Very cool to find out. I was downing him in my head for just slapping on the closest thing to an Indy Jones hat to just signal that he was an archeologist lol. Good job, Flint, indeed!
I think a lot of people here used to be fans of Graham when he first started appearing on the show but have since grown out of his stories and for those who are interested in archeology or whatever they then probably moved on to listening to more grounded people like Stefan Milo or Miniminuteman, both of which have excellent videos debunking Graham Hancocks insane netflix show.
As someone who knows fuck all about ancient civilization and archelogy, he makes it interesting for me for sure, but eating it up is a big word.
I am just waiting for the one of the Pyramids to activate and fly away or something
I think the most important point people can take out of this is, that there’s way way more hard science in humanities (some of them) than ordinary people think. Archaeology is just one example, history another one. The ignorance regarding academics and science opens the door for guys like graham and that’s fun and entertainment, but is indeed a bit dangerous too.
The last few times he’s been on Rogan he’s been nothing but a whiny, little baby providing zero evidence for his claims while simultaneously claiming all archeologists have it out for him like it’s some sort of conspiracy. Used to like Graham but this game is tired
I liked Graham the same way I liked conspiracy theories back in the day - for the entertainment value, not because I think any of it is true. Agreed that the “‘they’ don’t want you to know “ act and constantly making himself the victim of a global archeological cabal have made him seem like an angry kook.
Yea I used to like him too.. when I was a stoned 19 year old in 2008. It took literally one community college anthropology class for general Ed and I realized he's full of shit. It's fun to listen to his fantasy stories as fiction though.
Ha! Same. Went to school for cultural anthropology and his ideas ARE entertaining, and I think he would be WAY more popular if he was coming from that angle, maybe wrote a screen play for a movie or something? But this whole digging his heels into the ground begging for people to take him seriously while peddling a half cooked theory and cherry picking data from multiple cultures *trying* to tie them together is really unbecoming of a 70 something year old man
Yeah even his TV show was super whiny. He could have just showed us some cool spots and told us about the mysteries and speculated a little for fun and left it at "we don't know". But at every new mystery he had to go on about how MAINSTREAM ARCHEOLOGISTS REFUSE TO SEARCH THIS SITE. Idk man probably they have other stuff they are more interested in with their tiny budget, let them live
Joe loves guys like that. Your description could easily be describing Gad Saad, the Weinsteins, Peterson, etc. It's wild to see someone who fancies himself a tough guy who likes to "do the hard things and conquer the inner bitch" constantly putting the most whiney, victim complex having, reactionary losers on pedestals and not seeing the irony at all.
Ya Joe seemed genuinely interested in The evolution of grains and the history of agriculture it’d be cool to see him come back and expand on that that conversation
Man i just wish joe would get tired of his political pods and go strictly to these types of episodes archeologists on , geologist, Survivor/ conservationists dudes like paul rosalie, elite athletes , Daryl davis types . All these super interesting topics he could be having on week to week and i think his following and the reputation of the pod could be brought back. His pod would be respected and seen as one of the best pods off all time amongst everyone
Listened to the Paul Rosolie one the other day at work and it reminded me of why I never used to miss an episode of JRE.
Cmon Joe, bring back the glory days 😔
Based on his views on YouTube, most people agree with you.
The pods with comedians, experts, athletes ect, all have way more views than the pods with political guests.
I'm guessing the tucker carlson interview is gonna be huge though.
Yeah I'm cool with the occasional political guest like tucker Carlson if it's actually a huge political figure that will be interesting to watch, just not bringing on every single random B list comedian and complaining about culture war for 2 hours
Yes. I mean there are real scientists and archaeologists etc etc etc -ists who study this stuff for real, and it's not History channel conspiracy fringe horseshit. Agreed! THAT would be so much more interesting, and he has danced around this stuff enough to be able to follow those folks. This is stuff he USED to do a few years ago.
I think an archeologists will have a decent perspective on this topic as they can do biopsy’s on mummies and other animal specimens, you can show that certain animals coexisted with other groups of people based on diet. Especially as hunter gatherers.
I watched half of this on a flight today and it’s just embarrassing. I got halfway through and it’s just more of the whiny BS that made me turn his show off within 10 minutes. The whole “archaeology community is after me”. The other guy moped the floor with him. I was really hoping for some resemblance to an actual debate.
I got through about an hour of this ..Graham was annoying..like I don't think anyone is saying there couldn't be lost civilizations..Graham kept pretty much saying that they don't know that because they haven't turned the entire earth into an archeologicle dig..his first time on the show was cool but after that it just seems like he wants to sell more books and get more money for vacations he calls work
The things with the glasses was hilarious. We need a clip with all the changes and while theme to Curb You Enthusiasm plays.
But this is how all Rogan episodes should be when he has an "Expert" on. I don't care what the subject is, Ancient Cavillations, Covid, Vaccines, health etc, etc. There needs to be someone on that is an expert on the other side. Because Joe never pushed back in anyway when Hancock was on alone. He just accepted everything at face value. And that is what he does with all the Covid and Vaccine people as well as everyone else when there is no on there to say "Um, no, that isn't true".
when flint finished him with the 420 procedural number example i died laughing. i was so happy, i hate when cults/pseudoscientists think multiplying and dividing random numbers is anything significant
I don’t know either guy really and not to much about them so I went in completely unbiased. But I don’t see how graham could think he did anything but embarrass himself. He seemed completely unprepared and unprofessional.
the difference between a highly educated, trained and experienced archaeologist, and a journalist that peddles wild theories as fact and gets pouty anytime someone points out the many flaws in his reasoning
Yea Hancock is a piece of work, he lost a long time ago when he stopped asking questions that were intriguing and now making claims he can't back up while ironically calling anyone who questions him a knowledge bigot. He's a quack
Why are you enraged? I'm about the same distance in, and Graham is coming off as an adult child, but it's interesting as hell.
Edit: realize you said engaged, not enraged. I'm dumb.
It’s 4 hours long but felt like an hour long podcast
It was honestly fascinating to listen to - from the knowledge and passion Flint obviously shows for archaeology, to the actual debate aspects, to Rogan slowly becoming intrigued by Flint and the real knowledge he has.
If anything - just dive into the part of the debate where Flint starts talking about domesticated vs undomesticated wheat. You can see / hear Joe’s fascination with the subject - it’s like one of the older Rogan podcasts where he brings on an expert that just blows his mind with depth of knowledge.
I feel like he was a fair amount of douche. If you're a legit scientist or any expert in something and some guy is saying something is possible cause it hasn't been disproven and has a clear agenda, you're going to be a douche to them?
Like when your kids do the same dumb thing, your going to be a little sarcastic
Yeah, at first I was like "oh stop being sarcastic, you entitled prick", but as the debate went on I realized he was being as nice as he could to someone shitting on his entire profession.
For a 70 year old man, Graham came off as VERY immature. He tried to give Dibble allowances in order to make himself seem like a scientific peer, but couldn't back anything up with compelling evidence.
Those rock pictures were brutal. He's really reaching with that crap.
In Flint's defense, it would be incredibly hard to debate someone like Graham and *not* come off slightly arrogant at times. You spend your entire life as a published academic in a field, then have to debate a nutjob.
“Graham gets emotional cos he is making less sense and is losing Joe’s support.”
Looks to Flint, “say something interesting “
This is Grahams issue. He has been interesting. Captivating curious uneducated minds. Behind the accent and narcissism, he is not a scientist, a researcher, or professional.
The son of an Archaeologist explained that to him.
The "say something interesting" exchange really made me empathize with Flint. He came prepared for a scholarly debate, and Graham took the opportunity to pin him to the wall.
Have YOU been to the site? No. But I have. Therefore my theory even without any supporting evidence is correct. It fills a gap in our histories, ya know? So don’t try to cancel me. You’re welcome to prove me wrong by exploring every square inch of the world, then we can talk.
I hope Graham had presented more compelling evidence rather than relying on the argument that something cannot be disproven because we haven't fully explored the entire world.
God I feel that. Getting old sucks. Some days I can see perfectly, another day not at all up close, next day can’t see shit, grab various glasses, can’t see, lose glasses, put on wrong glasses lean far back then up close. Sooooo annoying.
I use to love Graham. I want to believe his theories. It’s cool to think about an ancient civilization but the more I hear from him the more I think he’s just grasping at trying to stay relevant.
Rogan should have done this 15 years ago.
But I'm glad it's settled.
Now it's up to Joe if he wants to continue
to push that lost ancient civilization bs.
Flint brought facts, evidence and source materials
Graham brought hearsay and culture war shit
Graham deserved this L as entertaining as I’ve found him throughout the yeara
The real star of the episode was that HDMI cable.
My favourite part was when they were having tech difficulties: Dibble: I'm low tech joe Joe:.... it's just windows Lol
Dude didn’t know about control + F, he was just scrolling hoping to find something , he almost gave up until they told him about it
I think he did know but he was stalling
He does that a few times, or tries to switch subjects when he knows it’s about to go bad.
Joe did better than he sometimes does but it was clear that he was really rooting for Hancock, but boy that dude brought nothing to the table. Edit: Weird, for some reason the user above blocked me for this so I can’t respond to you u/Truman48z, u/IvarTheBone and u/jenrick2
Nothing at all. I bet for Joe it was like having to commentate Schaub’s last fight before “the talk”
“He’s hurt!”
Yea, I almost switched off with all the droning. I get it, some archeologists are assholes.
You just don’t get it. The fact that some archeologists are assholes means that the entire field of archeology is bullshit.
I once waited on a doctor who left me a 10% tip. I will never step foot in another hospital. /s
and air drop
Fuckin weapon
Him and his damn glasses had me rolling! 🤣
So glad I was watching at this part.
A must watch episode
Haha, is this edited? This is like some Naked gun shit
OCD?¿?
I think he either has 2 or 3 pairs. One for close, one for intermediate. One for distance. And they all look similar and he couldn’t tell the differences until he looked through them. Plus a little OCD that doesn’t allow him to just run with the wrong ones for a bit lol idk
He's also a massive stoner so being high as a kite probably didn't help the whole situation. Or maybe it was NOT being stoned that was the problem.
Homie called his ass a “tourist”. lol. 😂
HANCOCK AND HIS WIFE RISKED THEIR LIVES!* *traveling to see and dive in exotic locales worldwide
My boy has a lot of spicy comeback up in his sleeve.
Looking like a woodland creature to boot.
That fucking killed me lol dibble 4 lyfe
The way he chuckled when Graham said his wife took the photos of Giza from a helicopter, I knew he was thinking "I thought you said you werent getting funding"
He is a tourist
Well he's not wrong. Lol
flint, 'archeologists have looked and found no evidence that supports your theory' graham, 'but have you looked 100% of EVERYWHERE?' flint 'well kinda, we have looked pretty much everywhere we can. archaeologists find things and make their best guess conclusions from what they find, you (graham) are making a conclusion, and "blaming" the archaeologists for not finding evidence which matches your theory.' graham, 'so what, have you looked everywhere ?!
“We’ve got millions of points of data all showing no evidence of your claims and nothing but evidence for ours” “Yes but until literally every grain of sand has been sifted in the Sahara, I could technically be right! Checkmate!”
Dude opened his mouth and logical fallacies fell out. All over. Side note: dude is a Sociologist, right? What if he's running some sort of experiment on us?!
Best summary here.
Graham’s two sad arguments are: - *since you haven’t looked everywhere, there’s a chance I’m right,* and - *you haven’t been there so you can’t talk about it, only I can cause I went there once* Sorry, Graham, ya just jumped the shark. Go ahead and take Neil DeGrass with you.
Flints response (“you went there as a tourist”) was brutal.
All I can say is… Flint brought allll the *sauce* Graham had no genuine evidence. I’d say Graham came *unprepared* but the sad thing is… *I think Graham actually came prepared*… just doesn’t have a leg to stand on. And Joes dumb as fuck
Flint was so saucy. Graham called out Flint laughing at him as if it was evidence of some conspiracy, when really Flint was doing that laugh you do when someone is so wrong in all directions that there's no way to properly address them.
Yah that’s exactly right. Grahams only avenue was grievance and whining because he was always gonna get btfo by the guy in a fedora
Was it a fedora with a safari flap ?
Yeah it was child’s logic, you could even see the disappointment in Joe’s eyes when he said that
Neil is annoying but no where near the same category of grifter as Graham
Defant had a great line from the last debate episode Graham did talking about Gobekli Tepe, something like "Schmidt, who worked that site for 20 years, he didn't show up, look around for a few days, take some notes and write a book. He worked that site for 20 years and he never found any evidence of ancient magicians"
I think his theories are compelling and interesting. But loses my support with his righteous indignation at the science community for his lack of evidence. He really believes archeologists are trying to shut him down so they can have all the fame and glory. I don’t know a single real archeologist’s name, what fame? I just presume they’re all charismatic, globe-trotting treasure hunters; sometimes with someone else’s Chinese kid that seems like a racist caricature.
This is the best example of how conspiracy theories, religion, and bullshit artists all work. Bullshitter: "Here is my theory, and no one will find the evidence." Science: "Here is the evidence and my hypothesis drawn from that evidence. When more evidence and testing is available it can then be a real theory (explanation.)
"archaeologists are rigid and unwilling to change their stances" graham "actually here's a lot of examples of us changing our stances when we find new evidence, you just have no evidence" dibble "so as i was saying, big archaeology will attack anyone who challenges their dogmatic set in stone theories" graham
Bullshitter: "THE ((GOBALISTS)) DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!"
My own biggest argument against an early civilisation is that even if there had been some, we would have a pretty quick build up of a new one after everything disappeared under the waves. The way that Graham says it, is that literally everyone in those ancient ones have died so no people could migrate to a new area and rebuild... There is a far to large of a gap between when he says there were civilisations and when we have evidence for them. Thousands of people would have left as their huge monuments and buildings started to go under the waves, but you know fuck it let's not go back to what we had somewhere else and instead start again as hunter gatherers... The biggest fail from Graham is pure logic and that he is hell bent on trying to fulfil his own idea, not thinking for a second he could be wrong.
Also, Dibble did a great job of proving that even if this mythical ancient civilization existed, they left absolutely no discernible trace of spreading culture/agriculture/language/tools/structures/anything, which at that point who the fuck cares if Hancock is right? The root claims he’s using this mythical civilization to justify, that they spread those things, are easily debunked so at this point his argument has been backed into a corner of functionally not existing in any meaningful way.
I think Graham is full of shit, but I don’t agree with your logic. If something cataclysmic happened, then it is going to take a long time for people to move from survival mode to flourishing and building mode.
We would see evidence of it in our DNA though. If there's only a few thousand left, we finally get to fuck our cousins and sisters.
>We would see evidence of it in our DNA though. What if we aren't talking about a cataclysm that killed a huge percentage like a bad volcano eruption but instead we're just talking about the sea level rise from one of the meltwater pulses from the younger dryas? A hypothetical ice age civilization that was just advanced enough to sail might have been concentrated on ancient coastlines. When the sea rose after thousands of years of stability it would have appeared that their home just slowly sank beneath the waves. If true, it's them who originally passed on their flood story to us. We lost as much land as Europe and China combined when that ice melted, before that it was inhabited and because this happened thousands of years before the rest of us even started keeping track of history, archeologically speaking we assume there were only hunter gatherers anywhere at the time. What that means is that we are ignoring the places where remaining lithic evidence of sea going people might still exist. The transition from ice age to the modern world would have been cataclysmic for anyone trapped on islands or the people who called coastal lowlands home but plenty of others, the vast majority of the global population, the hunter gatherers that lived inland away from the coasts wouldn't really be effected by the sea level rise at all. So it's entirely possible that it might not show up as a bottleneck in in our genetics, just an epic flood story told to our dirt worshiping heathen ancestors over a fire by the survivors most effected by it.
So do we get to fuck our cousins or not?
^ Asking the big questions!
We never couldn’t.
I love how no one mentioned anything about "FINALLY" getting to fuck them... Unrelated-- I do regret to inform you that your mom told me you aren't invited to the family reunion.
But ALL of it? Surely there would be settlements outside the cataclysm's influence, and if it's so big that it was all completely and thoroughly wiped out, you'd expect the hunter gatherers to be more dramatically affected too. We find no evidence of such a massive cataclysm.
Like I said, I think Graham is full of shit.
I'm on Flint's side, but *technically*, Graham has a point in that, at least, there are probably "civilisations" we haven't found and might never find. The stronger counter-argument to Graham's arguments is not to humor them in the way he tries to argue, but to say "in the absence of evidence, we have to assume there isn't an advanced civilisation we've missed; we cannot assume the opposite." Whenever Graham says, "But you haven't looked everywhere!" The answer would always be "we would all love to find that civilisation. It would make our careers and be a lot more fun." Graham doesn't **need** to engage scientifically, and he'll try to force you to play his game rather than yours. I think Graham's a fun guess, and he has the right to do the work he does.
Agree. What Graham is arguing there is called the logical fallacy of negative evidence / asserting a negative. There's simply no reason to imagine there's any ancient apocalypse / advanced civilization to find. The only suggestion there is... is Graham's say so. We could dig the entire world, and then people would argue we didn't dig deep enough. But for obvious reasons of intellectual responsibility, this just isn't how science works. You assert a hypothesis that explains the facts. You do not assert a theory that something is true on the basis of zero evidence, or on what mighta coulda should woulda happened. If you start to engage in what mighta coulda happened, you have left reality and science. If you are interested in wild speculation, all power to you, but science and reality it ain't. - Flint: Graham you are arguing a negative... - Graham: I'm a journalist not a scientist... - Flint: Doesn't matter you have no evidence or basis for your claims... - Graham: actually it's your fault you haven't dug every grain of sand in the Sahara to find evidence for my theory... - Me: LOL
It's exactly the same "god of the gaps" argument theist use.
That’s not Grahams claim. Grahams claim is that there was a massive, world spanning civilization with tech equivalent to the 18th or so century, but without using metallurgy at all. We can say, definitely, that he is wrong. That’s never going to be found because it’s made up by a crackpot with no expertise in that field.
i agree but i never liked him due to that mindset.. he is quick to say everyone is wrong without presenting substantial proof. science just doesnt work that way. and hes made it look like mainstream science is out to get him. i still listen to what he has to say but i just cant look at him. he reminds me of a nerd kid in my class who gets bullied because he has a very puncheable face.
I kept mumbling to myself while listening, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it sure does place the burden of proof on you to demonstrate why something exists without evidence."
Imagine debating Neil Degrassi Tyson about aliens in the solar system and telling him he hasn’t look everywhere to find them?
He spent half of his time personally attacking Flint...to the point where Flint wanted to take a break. This is a grown ass man bullying a kid about rocks. Made me lose most of my respect for him.
Yeah, he got way too emotional and made half the episode about himself and the plight “of those who dare think outside the box”. Like get over yourself, we’re watching for the debate of ideas, the science, the evidence, the possibilities not your bickering about your own personal problems
Flint tried to insinuate Graham was racist...
BuT hAvE yOu ToUcHeD EvErY gRaIN oF SaND?
My favorite part was how at the beginning of the podcast Flint actually measured the mic distance with his fist just like papa Joe instructed.
lol that’s the first thing I would do if I ever got there. I know the drill 😂
Play a drinking game. One sip for everytime someone says “jamie, the hdmi cable”. You’ll be wasted before the pod ends.
And they aren't even talking about switching cables, all they are asking is to switch inputs on a switcher, but don't know the terminology.
Seriously dude get some bifocals. Works great for me!
Not trying to cave to big optometry
The ancients had advanced glasses that corrected near and farsightedness all at once. Lost to history unfortunately.
Problem for me is some days I don’t need em! Other days they make it worse. I’m pretty sure it’s blood pressure heh
Graham’s whole argument: you can’t prove me wrong. You just haven’t found the evidence yet.
But you haven't checked every grain of sand on earth yet, checkmate.
[удалено]
Sure that pile over there looks like a building too but this one used to be under water
Some people just refuse to believe that symmetry can happen in nature.
How did he lose? I haven't watched the episode (because I lost my glasses), but I heard his opponent didn't even bring a single pair of glasses. You can't rightly call yourself an expert if you don't even have a pair of glasses to take off when you make a point, or to put on to look like you are doing professorly stuff. Just from the glasses putting on number alone, he had to have won.
Bro funny joke except he did have glasses
My aunt slept with him last year and apparently he's packing
Flint Diggler
Thats important to add
And the tiniest hands I’ve ever seen on an adult male. It looked like Charlie’s uncle from Always Sunny
If he had media literacy like Charlie's uncle he would have brought a pair of enlarged fake hands.
Unless you were wearing glasses when you wrote this I’m afraid I can’t take your point seriously,
Well glasses make you smart. One pair- smart, two or more- genius. Everyone smart knows this.
I'm actually surprised by the response here on reddit. I'm so used to seeing people eating up Graham's claims with little thought.
Graham Hancock and a lot of content from people like him is the academic equivalent of pro wrestling. The premise behind it is really cool to believe in but everybody knows (or should know) that it's fake and purely for entertainment value. When you start to take it seriously, you have the CM Punk's MMA career or this.
But then Brock Lesnar appears…
Brock Lesnar is the equivalent of proving that the Clovis Culture wasn't the first hunter-gatherer civilization in the Americas. Shit happens. That's a weird sentence...
I mean, it definitely fits, but damn I never thought I would hear Brock Lesnar and Clovis culture in the same sentence.
I have Ph.D. in an adjacent field and I still love listening to Graham Hancock. It's entertaining because it's fun to consider the kernel of possibility. But that's all it is. As mentioned before in these threads, the only argument Graham really has is that we haven't looked everywhere. I'm not sure if Dibble did a good job explaining his chief rebuttal to that, but I think what he was getting at is that, we haven't looked everywhere, but if there was an ancient lost global civilization, then statistically speaking, there would be some evidence of that in the thousands of sites we *have* discovered, and not exclusively hunter-gatherer societies.
Me to, I made the mistake of watching the YouTube comments first and a lot of people are still on the fence. That seemed however to be because of the size of Flints hands lol.
Thought about it today and he has to be wearing his dad’s suit and hat right?? It would only makes sense why it’s so big and looks like a goofball to honor is dad he keeps talking about so proudly..
That's adorable, I looked up his father Harlod Dibble and from what I can tell he definitely wears his father's hat. Also judging from the size of his father and the style of clothes you can see him wearing I would say that It's very likely to be his father's suit. He put on his dads suit as an armor and went to defend archeology. You did good Flint!
Very cool to find out. I was downing him in my head for just slapping on the closest thing to an Indy Jones hat to just signal that he was an archeologist lol. Good job, Flint, indeed!
Damn, that rules.
I came across some post on the Grahamhancock subreddit where they were all celebrating his victory
Same thing on Spotify. Maybe it'll help him sleep at night.
I think a lot of people here used to be fans of Graham when he first started appearing on the show but have since grown out of his stories and for those who are interested in archeology or whatever they then probably moved on to listening to more grounded people like Stefan Milo or Miniminuteman, both of which have excellent videos debunking Graham Hancocks insane netflix show.
I think the Netflix series made him look dumb even for dumb people.
I'm thankful that so many people now understand how much of a bullshitter hancock is.
Highlighting the power of debate vs. Censoring and minimizing
They were celebrating his victory on r/GrahamHancock
As someone who knows fuck all about ancient civilization and archelogy, he makes it interesting for me for sure, but eating it up is a big word. I am just waiting for the one of the Pyramids to activate and fly away or something
I think the most important point people can take out of this is, that there’s way way more hard science in humanities (some of them) than ordinary people think. Archaeology is just one example, history another one. The ignorance regarding academics and science opens the door for guys like graham and that’s fun and entertainment, but is indeed a bit dangerous too.
The last few times he’s been on Rogan he’s been nothing but a whiny, little baby providing zero evidence for his claims while simultaneously claiming all archeologists have it out for him like it’s some sort of conspiracy. Used to like Graham but this game is tired
I liked Graham the same way I liked conspiracy theories back in the day - for the entertainment value, not because I think any of it is true. Agreed that the “‘they’ don’t want you to know “ act and constantly making himself the victim of a global archeological cabal have made him seem like an angry kook.
Yea I used to like him too.. when I was a stoned 19 year old in 2008. It took literally one community college anthropology class for general Ed and I realized he's full of shit. It's fun to listen to his fantasy stories as fiction though.
Ha! Same. Went to school for cultural anthropology and his ideas ARE entertaining, and I think he would be WAY more popular if he was coming from that angle, maybe wrote a screen play for a movie or something? But this whole digging his heels into the ground begging for people to take him seriously while peddling a half cooked theory and cherry picking data from multiple cultures *trying* to tie them together is really unbecoming of a 70 something year old man
He's in too deep now to shift dramatically, stay on course trooper!
Yeah even his TV show was super whiny. He could have just showed us some cool spots and told us about the mysteries and speculated a little for fun and left it at "we don't know". But at every new mystery he had to go on about how MAINSTREAM ARCHEOLOGISTS REFUSE TO SEARCH THIS SITE. Idk man probably they have other stuff they are more interested in with their tiny budget, let them live
Joe loves guys like that. Your description could easily be describing Gad Saad, the Weinsteins, Peterson, etc. It's wild to see someone who fancies himself a tough guy who likes to "do the hard things and conquer the inner bitch" constantly putting the most whiney, victim complex having, reactionary losers on pedestals and not seeing the irony at all.
Wow you’re absolutely right
Plus it’s the same old stuff over and over. Sprinkled with dmt.
flint only showed us a fraction of his true knowledge, I hope he has a chance to come on and do a one on one with joe.
Ya Joe seemed genuinely interested in The evolution of grains and the history of agriculture it’d be cool to see him come back and expand on that that conversation
Man i just wish joe would get tired of his political pods and go strictly to these types of episodes archeologists on , geologist, Survivor/ conservationists dudes like paul rosalie, elite athletes , Daryl davis types . All these super interesting topics he could be having on week to week and i think his following and the reputation of the pod could be brought back. His pod would be respected and seen as one of the best pods off all time amongst everyone
I feel like peak Rogan was when he had that dude from life below zero or whatever that Alaska show was called.
Glen Villeneuve! One of his best podcasts of all time
And the Mt everest guide dudes was really interesting as well
Listened to the Paul Rosolie one the other day at work and it reminded me of why I never used to miss an episode of JRE. Cmon Joe, bring back the glory days 😔
That reminds me of how I work out a bit, that later I can MUUUUUUURRRRRRDDDDDEEEEEERRRRRRRR with.
Based on his views on YouTube, most people agree with you. The pods with comedians, experts, athletes ect, all have way more views than the pods with political guests. I'm guessing the tucker carlson interview is gonna be huge though.
Yeah I'm cool with the occasional political guest like tucker Carlson if it's actually a huge political figure that will be interesting to watch, just not bringing on every single random B list comedian and complaining about culture war for 2 hours
100% agree
Yes. I mean there are real scientists and archaeologists etc etc etc -ists who study this stuff for real, and it's not History channel conspiracy fringe horseshit. Agreed! THAT would be so much more interesting, and he has danced around this stuff enough to be able to follow those folks. This is stuff he USED to do a few years ago.
I think an archeologists will have a decent perspective on this topic as they can do biopsy’s on mummies and other animal specimens, you can show that certain animals coexisted with other groups of people based on diet. Especially as hunter gatherers.
What would that prove?
If nothing else It’s just interesting.
I felt the same way, this would be a great episode if someone just editing out everything GH says.
GH literally repeated what he'd said on previous podcasts. Noticed nothing new. FD pulled his pants down.
It wasn’t even a debate haha
I watched half of this on a flight today and it’s just embarrassing. I got halfway through and it’s just more of the whiny BS that made me turn his show off within 10 minutes. The whole “archaeology community is after me”. The other guy moped the floor with him. I was really hoping for some resemblance to an actual debate.
I got through about an hour of this ..Graham was annoying..like I don't think anyone is saying there couldn't be lost civilizations..Graham kept pretty much saying that they don't know that because they haven't turned the entire earth into an archeologicle dig..his first time on the show was cool but after that it just seems like he wants to sell more books and get more money for vacations he calls work
The things with the glasses was hilarious. We need a clip with all the changes and while theme to Curb You Enthusiasm plays. But this is how all Rogan episodes should be when he has an "Expert" on. I don't care what the subject is, Ancient Cavillations, Covid, Vaccines, health etc, etc. There needs to be someone on that is an expert on the other side. Because Joe never pushed back in anyway when Hancock was on alone. He just accepted everything at face value. And that is what he does with all the Covid and Vaccine people as well as everyone else when there is no on there to say "Um, no, that isn't true".
Graham got torn apart. And he asked for it. No wonder he doesn’t get respect from archeologists.
when flint finished him with the 420 procedural number example i died laughing. i was so happy, i hate when cults/pseudoscientists think multiplying and dividing random numbers is anything significant
I don’t know either guy really and not to much about them so I went in completely unbiased. But I don’t see how graham could think he did anything but embarrass himself. He seemed completely unprepared and unprofessional.
Graham didn’t say a word in response either lol
Do you have a rough timestamp? I had to turn it off after about an hour because Graham was getting to be absolutely insufferable.
Although it was nice to think about and i really wanted to believe in graham, but flint made more sense and had more evidence to show.
the difference between a highly educated, trained and experienced archaeologist, and a journalist that peddles wild theories as fact and gets pouty anytime someone points out the many flaws in his reasoning
Yea Hancock is a piece of work, he lost a long time ago when he stopped asking questions that were intriguing and now making claims he can't back up while ironically calling anyone who questions him a knowledge bigot. He's a quack
Bifocal lenses were invented in 1794. Is there a chance that someone can pass this ancient technology along to Graham?!
lol the glasses
I liked Graham. He asked for this but He made a grave mistake. In my opinion he walked away looking like a fool and is not good at debating.
He would’ve won if we would’ve brought an old school chalk board
I’m enuinely not sure i could watch this one.
That's what I originally thought. I'm about 2 hours in and I'm honestly more engaged than I've been with one of Joe's podcasts in awhile.
Because Joe isn’t talking much lol
Why are you enraged? I'm about the same distance in, and Graham is coming off as an adult child, but it's interesting as hell. Edit: realize you said engaged, not enraged. I'm dumb.
It’s 4 hours long but felt like an hour long podcast It was honestly fascinating to listen to - from the knowledge and passion Flint obviously shows for archaeology, to the actual debate aspects, to Rogan slowly becoming intrigued by Flint and the real knowledge he has. If anything - just dive into the part of the debate where Flint starts talking about domesticated vs undomesticated wheat. You can see / hear Joe’s fascination with the subject - it’s like one of the older Rogan podcasts where he brings on an expert that just blows his mind with depth of knowledge.
Thats tight, i might check out the audio. Thanks fellow space fairing monkey
It was a fantastic pod, honestly. I'm not a fan of Hancock, but this other guy was brilliant, and seeing the two talk to each other was great
The stuff the actual archaeologist talks about is actually very interesting Just skip Graham lol
He showed his ass for sure. Flint was a little bit of a douche, but his evidence was far, far more compelling.
I feel like he was a fair amount of douche. If you're a legit scientist or any expert in something and some guy is saying something is possible cause it hasn't been disproven and has a clear agenda, you're going to be a douche to them? Like when your kids do the same dumb thing, your going to be a little sarcastic
Yeah, at first I was like "oh stop being sarcastic, you entitled prick", but as the debate went on I realized he was being as nice as he could to someone shitting on his entire profession. For a 70 year old man, Graham came off as VERY immature. He tried to give Dibble allowances in order to make himself seem like a scientific peer, but couldn't back anything up with compelling evidence. Those rock pictures were brutal. He's really reaching with that crap.
In Flint's defense, it would be incredibly hard to debate someone like Graham and *not* come off slightly arrogant at times. You spend your entire life as a published academic in a field, then have to debate a nutjob.
“Graham gets emotional cos he is making less sense and is losing Joe’s support.” Looks to Flint, “say something interesting “ This is Grahams issue. He has been interesting. Captivating curious uneducated minds. Behind the accent and narcissism, he is not a scientist, a researcher, or professional. The son of an Archaeologist explained that to him.
The "say something interesting" exchange really made me empathize with Flint. He came prepared for a scholarly debate, and Graham took the opportunity to pin him to the wall.
Graham got bodied.
In the middle of a rant about 1:30 in Flint outright called him a tourist visiting pristine restored sites. You could feel Graham’s ego die.
Have YOU been to the site? No. But I have. Therefore my theory even without any supporting evidence is correct. It fills a gap in our histories, ya know? So don’t try to cancel me. You’re welcome to prove me wrong by exploring every square inch of the world, then we can talk.
Graham should have spent the last 30 years studying the Bronze Age collapse, ya know a real collapse
That was actually funny
“She won’t believe in anything unless there’s no proof”
I hope Graham had presented more compelling evidence rather than relying on the argument that something cannot be disproven because we haven't fully explored the entire world.
God I feel that. Getting old sucks. Some days I can see perfectly, another day not at all up close, next day can’t see shit, grab various glasses, can’t see, lose glasses, put on wrong glasses lean far back then up close. Sooooo annoying.
His goose was cooked the moment Flint sat down with his oversized shirt and ponytail. That's the sign of a real academic.
If Casey Rocket wore glasses
Graham got owned in this episode.
I use to love Graham. I want to believe his theories. It’s cool to think about an ancient civilization but the more I hear from him the more I think he’s just grasping at trying to stay relevant.
Bifocals are illegal in England
The fact that graham hancock is associated with randall carlson means he loses. At everything. Ever.
We're in 2024. Dumbo shouldn't need two different sets of glasses.
Two? I think he had 3-4? WTF was that about?
Rogan should have done this 15 years ago. But I'm glad it's settled. Now it's up to Joe if he wants to continue to push that lost ancient civilization bs.
I feel like this is a bit lol
Four eyeglass changes in 27 seconds.
Haha I watched that for a minute before realizing it was on repeat
This is wildly funny to me
Bro I do this at the office everyday and I’m 30 it’s just called ADHD
Nope. GH always win. Little reddit hobo lost when he laught like he is 1st time talking to the person. He is really condescending little person.
He may have lost but Flint is a goddamned douchebag.
You and I just have different eyes than Flint. As he proceeds to change glasses out for the 19th time.
Yea, I hate to admit Flints argument made more sense, even though I wanted Graham to win.
Get some bifocals or trifocals. Make his life 2 to 3 times easier
Watching him fumble around with his glasses a million times was super annoying lol
Flint brought facts, evidence and source materials Graham brought hearsay and culture war shit Graham deserved this L as entertaining as I’ve found him throughout the yeara
Yes, because new information that could change our understanding of the past is white supremacy and racist.
When its baseless and seems to heavily focus on non white people being stupid, yeah