Hello, I didn't expect this to get quite the varied attention that it has received, which comes with both perks and downsides. Though it is nice that several thousand people made the decision to click on this video, I hadn't intended for this to become as divisive as it is, nonetheless I am glad for any well meaning discussions that have taken place below. I do ask however that people refrain from posting anything vindictive or personally hateful as it has no place here, nor does it do wonders for ones' blood pressure lol.
@@Bodaciousc1234 She has a nice face and I appreciate the absence of makeup, but she is dressed like an american tourist like come on bro this is TH-cam you're not digging up bones in the Sahara.
I was watching thinking up a million arguments for Hancock he wasn’t making himself. Hancock wasn’t his usual fluent self in this argument. But Dibbles dogmatic nonsense could have been easily dismantled on a number of fronts. Mainstream archeology of very ancient times is laughable. You have 3000 sites but never tell anyone how small they are compared to the area of the country. You have a mere pinprick look into the ancient past and claim to know everything.
How many times does Graham Hancock have to say "I'm not a scientist or archeologist, I'm a man with questions wondering why people are completely dismissing even searching for the answers to". He showed a plethora of articles showing where various actual archeologists and geologists were discredited, shamed, and thrown out of the community for bringing answers forward that others within academia claim were impossible things. All Graham does is present questions.
No he doesnt lol . Thats like saying why isn't the moon cheese. I'm just asking questions. Bc everything he claims is easily proven to be nonsense and he has zeroproof other then it LOOKS like. Which is how you now he's wrong. He's a sociologist who has a son working at Netflix who fools the uneducated and whines like a fuckin girl about how nobody likes him. He's a snake oil salesmen makin money of your gullibility. The exact same as DR MONTYS MIRACLE ELIXER type of dudes
Also he blatently lies. Alot. Either flat out or thru admission. Example. His favorite map he holds sideways. So that South america look like antarctica on the bottom. Also he was never banned from serpants mound. He was told he can't shut down a active religious site to film for 4 days. I'm in Ohio and know someone who works close to the site. Leaves that detail out.
I posted this on the actual debate but since this video is on the topic... Dibble failed mathematically to "debunk" the proportions of the Pyramid with an example which was not analogous; a simple statistical analysis reveals this. The significance is the fact that (with the Pyramid) the two events scale in proportion to one constant. Whereas the Parthenon & the 420 example consists of just one event scaling to a constant (which is statistically shown to be ad hoc and can be done with the scaling of random objects in one's backyard as oppose to the Pyramid situation, which cannot just be ruled out.) Step 1: -Pyramid: two linked events: (A) The base perimeter scales to Earth's circumference, and (B) The height scales to Earth's polar radius, BOTH using the constant. -Parthenon: there is just one event: (C) The number of columns scales to Earth's circumference with a constant. (A: The probability that the base perimeter of the Pyramid of Giza aligns with Earth’s circumference when multiplied by a specific constant. B: The probability that the height of the Pyramid of Giza aligns with Earth’s polar radius when multiplied by the same constant. C: The probability that the number of columns at the Parthenon aligns with Earth's circumference when multiplied by a different constant.) Statistical Analysis: Null Hypothesis : The alignment of Pyramid measurements with Earth dimensions using a single multiplier is due to chance. OR Alternative Hypothesis : The alignment is not due to chance and indicates a non-random relationship. Pyramid: The joint probability of two independent events (A and B for the Pyramid) both happening by chance would be calculated as P(A∩B)=P(A)×P(B), assuming independence. Parthenon: The probability of event C happening by chance is simply P(C) If P(A)=P(B)=P(C)=1/10,000 (just as a rough example to illustrate), which is about 10,000 reasonable scale factors might yield a match, then: P(A∩B)=(1/10,000)×(1/10,000)=1/100,000,000. Conclusion: It is much less likely (one in a hundred million versus one in ten thousand) for the two perpendicular measurements of the Pyramid to coincidentally align with Earth's dimensions using the same multiplier compared to the Parthenon's single alignment. (These results stay the same and are just as drastic regardless of whether the scaling factor is 1,000 or 100million...)
I instinctively smelled something fishy with Dibbles introduction of this little trick. But the conversation moved on and my attention with it. So glad you addressed it and that I bumped into your comment. I started reading your comment and the light bulb popped on and "of course, thats it!" Thanks for the work. Now the question is, was it oversight on Dibbles part or obfuscating? I mean, he's unpleasant to listen to but he's not an idiot, and its a fairly obvious math flaw if one spent the time preparing it as evidence.
Dibble did a terrible job and it was disgusting how he tried to smear Graham as a white supremacist and racist. Only a scumbag you can't trust does that. Graham is just asking questions. That's it. Also, I hated Dibble's smug and nervous giggle after he speaks. That's just a personal gripe though.
@Pax.Alotin At the end I CLEARLY stated it was a personal gripe about his immature laughter. If you want to focus on that, so be it. Maybe you are the same. Tiny and whiny. You've brought nothing to the table, just like Dibble. Just crying. You are the pathetic one.
Rewatch the segment. Dibble did not call him a white supremacist, all the examples Graham brings up are from other people's tweets etc. The point Dibble is trying to make is that a fair few of Graham's ideas are directly or indirectly obtained from sources that do in fact use them in morally questionable ways. It could of course be the case that broken clocks are right twice a day, but by not addressing this issue head on and citing people like Ignatius Donnelly without further qualifications, it starts to look like he is legitimizing them as reliable sources in general. One way he could fix this is by releasing updated editions of his work. Otherwise I agree that Dibble's giggling was unfortunate but as you imply it could just be the nerves of debating on such a large platform.
Yeah, Graham gave him a couple of opportunities at the end to apologize for the smears, but Dibble was too small and ungracious and insecure to respond.
Yeah agreed.,, Dibble kind of showed his hand and true agenda with that statement… just another groveling, self hating white guy who goes to the lowest common denominator, and pulls the white supremacy card… now how in the hell is that even remotely connected to graham’s ideas… just absolutely ridiculous and shows just where this clown is coming from
Flint Dibble bases his reasoning on evidence while Graham Hancock bases his reasoning on mythology. After watching this podcast, I can understand the archeologist community's stance on Grahams "theories" and why he is dismissed by them. I can understand why Flint was laughing at him. It's not Flint's fault that Graham says laughable things haha. I came into the podcast with and open mind and without any type of stance on the subject, but it all seems to make more sense now
You have to admit the walls found around South America, Egypt, Italy, turkey, Australia, Easter island, all built with polygonal masonry is eerie. It’s a pretty distinct style of architecture.
I’m quite surprised to see all the negative comments your video, I’d be keen to find out how many of the people commenting negatively actually watched the full podcast. Dibble completely dismantled him the entire four hours! I actually quite like Hancock, and the romantic theory of a lost civilisation is fascinating to listen to and consider. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this whatsoever. Interestingly, in the podcast whatever he gets put in his place he basically goes back to “ all I’m saying is, we just can’t dismiss the idea of a lost civilisation and need to research more!” In reality that’s not what he has been saying or writing about whatsoever! He claims far more but has zero credible evidence.
So your just going to ignore the scientific evidence used to date the sphinx. Scientifically speaking Hancock is correct you can’t rule out a lost civilisation based on 5% of the available data. As a scientist dribble knows this but still maintains there is no lost civilisation instead of saying based on the evidence we have my belief is there is no lost civilisation instead he goes against his scientific principles by declaring there is no lost civilisation. Hancock didn’t represent his evidence very well during the debate he was too emotional and focused on the whole racist scandal but the evidence flint presented was full of miss information, misrepresentation of the data and blatant lies about the data. The only person who got destroyed was flint dibble telling lie after lie
Graham was fully on his cross. his ideas are the same as, "wheres your evidence disproving god? weve only studied .01% of the observable universe." Of course science has problems with groupthink and ostracization, but acting the histronic martyr when you're a gagillionaire with countless adherents is ridiculous. i feel for actual scientists who soldier against criticism to prove the quality of their evidence.
Exactly.......i also thought of Hancock 's arguments are similar to God of the gaps arguments........i mean if we had to visit every corner of the universe to conduct the same experiments to see if it passes everywhere in the universe....i mean this is ridiculous and completely impossible.....but to this Graham would say that you cannot rule that out....bet graham believes in Goblins too cause we can't unprove anything what lacks evidence to exist
@Pax.Alotin Or worse that science is decided by a "lived experience". I.e. if you haven't physically been to the area in question then you have nothing of value to say on the matter.
For every square meter of earth turned over by archaeologists there are several square miles turned over by construction, dredging, mining, agriculture etc. All over the world. Every day. Many archaeological sites have been found when they were located in these ways initially. So Hancock proposes a lost civilization with global reach and technology on par with early 19th century Europe. Yet no evidence turned up in the small portions of the world explored by archaeologist, but also no evidence turned up by millions of people digging all over the world.
Preface: I am not saying academia or Hancock are correct re: lost civilization. However, there exists NON-physical evidence of a commonality across SOME geographic areas,cultures. Points to anyone who can guess what TYPE of non-physical evidence might be.
So, yes, GH does use some weak arguments, but I think it is important to understand there is very strong evidence FOR a Pleistocene civilization. Specifically, The Debunking TH-cam channel did a video on the Oronce Fine map of 1531 that strongly supports the hypothesis that there was an ice age culture that did, in fact, map Antarctica. It's a long, complicated argument that needs to be seen, rather than explained, but if there was somebody mapping Antarctica 10-12k BP, then it implies whoever THEY were, they were fairly advanced back then.
I find Grahams theories very interesting. Especially from perspective of a builder. For example I think great pyramids of the Giza are the evidence that there was great technologically mature civilization, because you can’t move such a heave stones with a basic rope. And another evidence that is ignored is almost all megalithic structures looks basically same with some alterations of individual cultures. There are so many theories and evidence like drill holes in these megalithic stones…The point Graham is making is. Evidence archaeologists are connecting is not effective and very simple.
I've been following Hancock for decades and want his ideas to be true, I find them interesting and entertaining, but I care about the truth, and this interview has shown me a side of Hancock that makes me suspect he puts himself in the victim category.
@occultislux I know it wasn't an argument, It was a statement. You must believe in God, it's the same sort of thing. You deny basic scientific reasoning, you cling to beliefs with zero evidence. Faith.
@Ryan-eu3kp So, you don't have faith in anything? And you're correct, I do believe in God. After being an atheist for years I've come to the conclusion that God exists. And why do you care if I " deny basic scientific reasoning". We're just meat bags floating in space. Why should we care what's true or not?
@@Ryan-eu3kp What an absolutely ludicrous rant based by you Ryan, based upon @occultislux saying *6* words in total? You look like child having a tantrum there Ryan. Let me guess, you believe that Graham Hancock is a white supremacist and racist (based on no science), you believe in Social Justice, and Feminism, and Progressivism and the utopian ideals of Marxism, and of course you believe that men can become women and you will always respect people's pronouns (based on no science; your comments here *scream* that you worship that anti-science "non-binary" religion). hmm, so much for your """science""" credentials Ryan, huh... 🙄
Isn’t the elephant in the room the prevention of discovery? Lots of people talking about debating technique and mannerisms but the actual topic could be discussed properly if these sites were not shut off
Flint lost that debate because he used lies in that debate and Graham’s quote “no evidence for a lost civilisation” you obviously haven’t noticed an important part of the quote that’s been cut out by those who don’t like Graham and that is “in what they have studied” and it’s true that in what Flint and his colleagues have studied there’s no evidence whereas the people Graham is reporting the work there is evidence for a lost civilisation. One place they didn’t discuss that came to challenge Flint and others like him and has enabled people to keep on debating and proposing ancient enigmas to be about 12k years old and only found by those we know is Gobekli Tepe and over the years I’ve been seeing people like Flint who don’t want history books in the bin get more frustrated that they can’t shut these people up like they could before Gebekli Tepe.
This video will blow up. Critiquing graham hancock is likely to garner much attention. The thing with the people who support him is that they take it personally. They feel that he’s the underdog. For me he’s a bit of a grifter and has cornered the market of ancient weird stuff for ages. The problem is the dismissiveness of mainstream archeology. They give Graham and others in his field the “enemy” to fight against. And they shouldn’t. In my opinion, it doesn’t do archaeology any favors, at least with most common folk. I have seen other videos here, and have subscribed. Good job!
I have the same impression. The debate between Hancock and Dibble reminded me of that between Ken Ham (young earth creationist) and Bill Nye (mechanical engineer and science communicator) on "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?" which, from a scientific point of view, Nye won for 100% and from a marketeer's point of view it was the complete opposite.
For me, a long time ago, it was the longing for a graspable mystery. An adventure. A secret world behind the world that I found and others did not see. At that time, I did not feel much of a connection to the world. I did not feel seen. And this was a place that was full of magic. Later on, I discovered that it was a lot of mirage and smoke. And that there were many mysteries, but they are not all in the past, and I do not know what they were like and are definitely not what I expect or what society has as a shared myth. Becoming curious beyond my beliefs saved me from them.
Such a great comment to read :) I guess it's also a question of nerdyness but exploring past cultures and jumping into rabbit holes where our state of understanding becomes frail fascinates the fuck outta me. I think if one just opens their imagination to the kind of lives all those past people may have lived, there's plenty of adventures to relive, and it's a real treasure.
Both of them were pretty crappy at arguing. I dont think anyone 'won'. Lots of poor reasoning on both sides. Im only halfway through but anyone who thinks either side looks particularly good here doesnt reason well themselves. These guys are talking past each other and not handling the others points.
Perhaps a case study detailing the journey to a scientific fact, in historical terms, could show the difference between Hancock's argumentation and that of the status quo.
@Pax.Alotin you clearly have zero understanding of how the Archaeology academia world works. The status quo is up held by the refusal to give grant money to anybody that is not working on a theory that does not support the status quo. I have a Masters degree in archaeology and I can assure you that unless you are independently wealthy you will not be working to prove any ideas that do not support the university narrative.
@@Supercalafragulistic30 I completely agree, therefor I don't agree with the authouritive argument "the scientists say this, so it must be true". Surely making sources as easily digestable as possible would strengthen arguments imensely, and thus, solve polarisation.
" journey to a scientific fact, in historical terms, " Science doesn't use the word 'facts', the word 'theory' is the appropriate word. History is his - story, and is written by winners. There is no such thing as history without political bias, and all history is subjective as a result.
There is no way that any “debate” can be engaged because this isn’t about debating. This system of control imposed by the university system is the issue. These universities choke out even the appearance of a fair discussion, as long as they are the ones who operate their systems. They refuse to even engage in the possibility that they might be wrong.
I think Hancock is out to lunch with his theories but he makes a great living with them…maybe why he stays on this path? My only question is who built the walls all over the planet with seemingly random shaped non square stones with the odd nub here and there. There’s examples of them in South America ollantaytambo, sacsayhuaman. Egypt, ghiza. Italy, turkey, Australia…It’s almost like someone was traveling around building walls in the hardest way possible because they’re all over the place this distinct style…
Neil D Tyson said it best, and I am paraphrasing “ it’s like walking to a beach with a glass, and filling it up with water from the shore, and saying there’s no whales here”. If you get my drift.
There is a lot I would like to say and I hope I can say it without rambling. I don't think I can find the words to express to you my appreciation for your videos on Neanderthal and venus figurines. My inability is most likely because I am a dunce but I watch them still. Very informative and helpful. But in all sincerity I have to ask. Who is your audience in this video? I don't mean to single you out and I'm not saying you are wrong for anything you have said or have done. But again I appreciate your view on very important topics to me and I can actually ask you. I ask that question because in the end...are you really wanting a discussion about this? It just seems like everyone is going to take sides and there really isn't ever going to be a discussion. I am not satisfied with the outcome of that video....nobody "won" I will have to watch the Rogan video again to get a more precise view of the outcome of each discussion, but overall it felt as if each discussion eventually devolved into snarky comments back and forth. In the end, I think that made it difficult to get a grasp on some of the actual facts. I will say I was surprised to see Graham make several unnecessary statements that did nothing to contribute. And no I don't side with his view. I just think the current view is somewhat limited and limiting. What stuck out to me and probably divided my attention for the remainder of the video was the comment made by Flint at around 1 hour 51 minutes regarding the artifact found at Padang. That it is not an artifact and there are no artifacts like it in the world. The thing is....a lot of the paleo artifacts that they do have they don't completely understand. And I can show you an artifact just like it....I have to acknowledge that I am just looking at photos, but the padang piece seems to be a much nicer representation. Flint was so adamant that it was natural it actually got Joe and Graham to both back off regarding its validity. Regarding its relevance to the site overall, I can't say. Again, I'll rewatch it. Point being that there are elements of history that get lost because of a dismissal like this. And no I don't think it's an electric iron...or some nonsense like that...but I do think it points to something we are currently unaware of. The problem I know for myself from what I have looked at..there is a disconnect in understanding the approach by both sides. Maybe after 30 years he is still unable to say what he's trying to say but he did not do a good job in this conversation. To me he catches glimpses of a framework but is still unable to define it and struggles to break it down and demonstrate it. I'm not saying he's right about everything. He only has pieces and it's natural to try to fill in the gaps. I just think he does have some good points that need to be addressed or scrutinized more closely. The important thing is that he tries to initiate a discussion to get people to think outside of the box. To me that is how we make progress so I'm not going to shame him. Maybe some of his ideas are ludicrous. But that happens with both sides...He does, however, whine too much about the responses he gets..he spent an entire segment confronting flint which i found to be pointless. but then again....maybe people should stop making jokes, making attacks, and start answering questions...
You can cut your own hair, and get the librarian glasses, but if you wish to give the illusion of intelligence, it's best not to announce to the world your opinions on an argument you failed to understand.
@@yazlikes_oldstuff Nailed it. Your argumentation meeds work. How you feel is irrelevant. Condescention while misunderstanding the premise is odious. And a thorough make-over is needed... such a blue-stocking. Librarian was an easy call.
3:02 Gram never said the pre-ice age civilization was more advanced then us , he simply said they were advanced to some degree. And graham always brings geologists , archeologists and non biased researchers to with him on all of his expeditions , what would he get from stroking his own ego? Absolutely nothing! He brings legit scientists and researchers with him on the expedition and never goes in solo.
I'm not sure that there is a site where an "official" winner could be declared. If you go to Hancock fan sites they think he won. If you go to sites critical of Hancock then Dibble won. The closest I have seen to an "official" sort of middle ground is the Joe Rogan reddit page where his fans respond to the content of the podcasts. The trend in the comments section there suggests that the Rogan fanbase is leaning toward Hancock doing poorly. A lot of these comments were made by Hancock fans. Evaluations elsewhere may vary, but given that Rogan fans (and Rogan) lean toward Hancock type stuff, it is an interesting trend.
@@hoptoads Pointing out the cult of Hancock and von Danniken is all upset 'adds nothing to the conversation'? It adds just what it was designed to add..................an observation of how mad the tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists are.................. Is every post supposed to dunk on yall with the actual facts, or some data? Try and not be so butthurt, eh? thnx
Thank you for this reaction! First of all I like the stories Hancock produces and to imagine how the world would change If his theories were true. But I think this 4 hour debate has shown a big point why these are only stories. Hancock after all is a journalist, a storyteller not someone with a scientific degree who follows scientific appeoaches. Flint mentioned it many times: In science the phrase 'you can't rule this or that out' is good to keep things in discussion, however it isn't enough for a proof to land. The un-scientific approach mixed with the usage of questionable sources and constantly playing the victim-role automatically leads to not being taken serious. And still he wonders why he's being called a pseudo. Again, I like Hancock's stories, but the recent debate showed me clearly that it's no more than just stories.
Errr, he's always told people he's a journalist. But the problem with what you're saying is he quotes actual scientists. A la, John Anthony West, Robert Shock
It's a little insane to base the critique of his ideas on the fact that he points out he has been attacked. I don't think you learned anything from this podcast. At the end Graham and Flint agree their ought to be simply more kindness in the world. If someone makes an article claiming Graham is a racist, he ought to point it out. Calling someone that is a horrible evil thing to say. Graham is such a kind and loving guy. My source is dozens of hours of podcats where you can hear him speak from the heart. I also met him in person briefly. Unbelievably warm. C:
There's really a lot to the stuff graham talks about, whether true or false. To only listen to a few hour podcast, or listen to passively other Joe Rogan shows ad background music, doesn't honor and respect the sacred instrument that is your own attentional apparatus. Most people are too busy to study it. A lay person may be wise to be agnostic until looking in to all facts for themselves. Reading about attempts to debunk. And reading about attempts to debunk the debunk.
On that last note you shouldn't take everything in the debate at face value. Look at @HowardHamlin-mv9rq He wrote an essay of a statistics comment on the math that Dibble did. If you want to study statistics maybe you can approach finding out for yourself. Otherwise one thinks it Is wise to remain agnostic
If you don't 'see the need for' or understand an hypothesis, that establishes very little, despite your own limitations, which are irrelevant. Hancock doesn't mention the Sahara or the Amazon because uninhabitable today, but precisely because inhabitable in the past. And the age when archaeology can scan these places from the air is not 'soon to be upon us', it is here, and there are vast cities beneath the foliage in the Amazon which are untouched in the midern era. Read a damn book.
Considering that she makes more sense than a drug-addled 70-something year old who writes about Egyptians using psychic powers to build pyramids it may be just you. Or it may be that a lot of people find drugs and psychic powers less boring and requiring less critical thought than hearing how archaeology actually works. Tough call....
thank you mr jules brunton for exemplifying everything that's wrong with this weird anti-intellectual hate train in this comment section 🙏👆💯 trying to discredit a grown woman who has worked as an archaeologist (which, as you probably don't know, involves approaching archaeological sites) by calling her a 14 year old is only embarassing for you and the man you are trying (poorly) to defend. you are on your hands and knees, prostrate for a man who thinks the mayans needed help from white people to develop a calendar system. learn shame and get a job !
Great video Yaz - but Hancock is right in that so much more excavation needs to be done before we conclude certain dates etc - something Flint agreed with.
Working from the known to the unknown has its drawbacks. How will you know the values and aspirations of the society you are studying- particularly if it’s 12000 years ago? You might find an artifact but can you put it in context? If you find a coke bottle a thousand years from now will archaeologists understand it’s not necessarily a religious artifact?
What I just can't comprehend is why people are this upset with Graham Hancock. If he's completely out of his mind and dead wrong, it doesn't matter. At all. Of all things to devote effort and attention to. Hell Dibble even went with the good old tried and true "white supremacy". Good lord.
Team Hancock forever! Dibble was close-minded, overly skeptical of Grahams claims, and not nearly skeptical enough of his own. Also, he smeared Hancock on Twitter, calling him a racist, something he has no evidence for, simply to get brownie points with a certain crowd. Shame on him.
Well, when you describe a ground of Natives such as the Maya as "semi-civilized," "jungle-dwelling" Indians who needed the help of people with caucasian or anglo-saxon features to help develop a calendar then some folks might be inclined to point out some problems with such statements.
It was Tit for Tat if you asked me, they both had good points but I will say there is no doubt that those are water erosion marks besides that you can figure it out
@@moviesynopsis001 I'm just saying with the other experts said no one asked you to review my comment either, but if you look at pictures of water erosion and then you look at those pictures you can pretty much see they're the same thing expert or not
People are forgetting that Graham's theory (which is one shared by many reputable scientists) is one that stretches beyond just archeology - it's massively multidisciplinary and encompasses religious studies, the classics, anthropology as well as many other "hard sciences". True, Graham's argument may have fallen short in the archeological realms but it's a theory that requires lengthy and well-informed discussion on many other fronts before anything can be ruled out.
Flint came off mean spirited and condescending. What he should have focused on is developing a model for the probability of a lost civilization, instead of just focusing on found evidence. I felt like they just argued in circles: There is no evidence! We haven’t done enough searching! Repetitive!
Wow, Graham has many fanboys on youtube. None of which have any clue what they are talking about and happily, like their idol Graham, misinterprets information when they are not busy pretending to be victims.
I have a degree in Egyptology and have debated with Graham for 20 years. Outside of the little diversion on agriculture and genetics, Flint didn't say anything. He's quite proud though.
Graham Hancock is doing some of the least rigorous research and presenting it to an audience that has demonstrated almost no ability to think critically. Show me a person that formulates their understanding of the last 12,000 years based on what they learn from GH and it relatively simple to predict another dozen [pseudo scientific beliefs. I'm thinking about advertising for sale my schematic to build a free energy device. I think I've found the perfect target demographic.
I’ve listened to you with a non biased perspective and it’s clear to see that you have a bias opinion against Graham and any other that conduct research. Your points to disprove him are inaccurate and are left with holes of misinformation about his work and how he’s establishes his theory on past human life. To say he just “dives in the unknown” and emerges with a theory from his research is very naive and far from the truth. How does one learn anything without exploring the unknown? Closed-minded views are the exact representation of where the problem lies. It’s not a pissing contest. It’s about working together, gaining and sharing knowledge.
What you need to remember is if you spend any time with people that choose to do archeology as a degree is they tend not to be the sharpest tools in the box. Couple this with the influencers desire for self validation and you have an unfortunate mix that seems to lead to intellectual dead ends. The point is we do not know, we have plenty of archaeology from the land but barely any from under the sea. I've only seen a few clips of the discussion but it seems to me both sides are over confident in their positions, we simply don't know and it will be very hard to resolve either way. Geologists generally agree that sea levels have risen and we know that human habitation tends to be coastal so we would expect what evidence there maybe to be underwater and therefore largely inaccessible. Archaeologists much like scientists are just people, they have ideas they pin their careers on and many do not like to change them, this is the history of the expansion of human knowledge. Who's to say who will be proved right in the end.
What a sad, ignorant comment. Arrogantly starting by saying all archeologists are pretty much dumb, and then all you say is "muh sea levels". If there was an continent spanning civilization, then why do we have stone tools from all over the place, even including below sea levels at times, but nothing of this great culture left? Why did it not transfer crops like wheat, corn and potato between the continents? Great claims require great proof or something like that.
But that's just it... there's no evidence from the sea. There MIGHT be, sure, and if we find it we re-evaluate what are conclusions are based on that new evidence. Hancock makes some absolutely extraordinary claims but backs them up with virtually no evidence. The physical evidence he does suggest doesn't fit the criteria he thinks it does. Our understanding of prehistory has changed dramatically over the years so the idea that there's some intellectually stunted archeological conspiracy to shut it down just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There's uncountable theories one can cook up with the things we don't know. Some of the best science fiction does exactly that but without material evidence that's what it remains... fiction.
Graham presented no convincing evidence to back up his claims. Not a single peice. Just more assumptions. What was dibble exactly supposed to do against that?
Flint carried himself like a complete douchebag 😂 he single handedly lost archeologists more respect in that single podcast than anyone in the history of archeology.
4.5 hours, 2.5 million views, dry archaeology discussion...and you're "upset" with Graham? There has never been a time where more people are interested in AND funding these projects...and you still want to complain. Let's hope funding leaves you far, far behind
Graham has much support from a lot of us, the data lacking in his presentation will be brought fourth by others in the field, he has been around a LONG time and has presented much valuable research, you all are literally picking on an old man you know nothing about. We were all in pain when he struggled to find the photos. Dibble is focused on his food, leave the ancient megalithic stonework and obvious similarities in world wide mega ancient structures to those who want to study them further. As there is no viable scientific data to prove the current construction narrative. I hope you understand science needs to be applied to these conversations. Not overlooking the obvious. The data is all around. Flint Dibble failed to answer or even try to be open minded about anything but what he was presenting. I am not discrediting his research on food and he is knowledgeable on that particular part, yet of Egypt he sounds like a child who listened to Zahi Hawass in the 90's. He is a BULLY and deserves no respect for slander name calling such as a white supremacist. Not taking that back signifies his immaturity. Please tell us your not a supporter of such claims. I think you should look further back in the research Graham has done since the 80's and all those who are picking up pieces where he has changed his focus over the years. I also do not agree with Graham on everything. Hoping you have more of an open mind then to back a bully with no context. Those caveman did not produce mega-ton megalithic, precision stone structures that were severely damaged and destroyed, still being found today, and infamously unexcavated. Tool marks are all over. Explain them all please. I am an engineer.
exactly, they didnt even touch the root of of theory, which is based off the world wide fitting of certain megalithic blocks with ultra perfect mating surfaces in an random pattern. the "poured rock culture" if it needs a name.
@blatz66 I understand it looks poured, however, I do have sound arguments against That particular theory in terms of igneous stone. We also see they demonstrated the ability to cut, and cut very oddly but precisely I may say.
Graham Hancock has made money off the stories he's telling while archaeology is literally struggling to fund itself... People like Graham Hancock that's why they so eagerly defend him without ever really understanding what he's saying... The personal attacks are out of order but the evidence is not...
No one has done more to raise awareness of archaeology than Hancock. That awareness has led to more funding of grants. In fact, if you listen to him, he constantly calling for more funding of research. He is not a scientist and doesn’t claim to be. Most archaeology is based on conjecture, so to criticize him for that is hypocritical
@@Ck-zk3we You're actually the type of person that would lie out right to validate a point... As if you actually had evidence... How on Earth would you be able to claim Graham has helped funding more grants? How on Earth do you prove that? In the 7 years of me following him, not once has he ever and I mean ever asked the public to donate or take interest towards archeology... In fact he's literally told people archeologist are pseudo scientists and also told them they've never done enough excavation... He's encouraged people to support him and he's brought awareness to his own ideologies... Please don't equate that to whatever you think he's doing...
@@SapphireKnightofWhiteLotusCity I know because I’m 60 years old, third generation archaeologist, with a masters degree in Archaeology. I lived in a world pre Hancock. Grahams books have inspired millions of people to think about the past that never would have before. This kind of stuff used to be only for geeks. Trust me, there is way more funding now than when I was young. But, it’s stilL mostly only possible to get funding to study things that confirm the paradigm. Archaeology is half hard science and half social science. If you studied it, then you would know that. And you would know that a lot of it is psuedo science and that a lot of imagination goes into formulating ideas about the distant past. We are working with less than 1% of the evidence. Graham is not a threat to archaeology. Lack of funding is .
When I was a child over 60 years ago, archaeologists and anthropologists told us that Egypt and Babylon were the oldest known civilised settlements. Then they discovered more settlements of ancient Sumer and a new 'oldest' civilization timeline was given. Then somebody discovered Gobekli Tepi, and that set the oldest civilization back thousands more years. Then along came Karahan Tepe, believed by archaeologists to be as old or even older than Gobekli Tepe. The evidence in recent years has shown that the archeologists of 60 years ago were WRONG. I have no doubt more evidence will come to light that will require further shifts in the attitudes and accepted knowledge of academia towards our past.
Charismatic science populists won't bite your audience, their task is to motivate younglings. I like your truthblade-meme style, but it usually become boring after 10 min of watch, on the other hand those people with glance of madness in eyes will talk for hours entertaining
Graham didn't get to explain how humans have lived through a couple interglacial periods before the past 15 thousand years. For example, the last interglacial period was between 130-80 thousand years ago. Humans were fully evolved during this 50 thousand year period. The climate then is the same as it is now. So the climate getting warmer cannot be the only reason that agriculture started happening in the past 12 thousand years.
What are you talking about?! Our current civilization being capable of facetiming across the world has NO bearing on giving time and research to this theory. This theory is one which finds many points across many disciplines and is more than worthy of investigation.
Whenever someone claims to be an 'expert', that is, appeals to academic authority, I remember my plumber father's favourite saying : An ex-spurt is just a drip under pressure.
![ไข้ขึ้นเลย! เมื่อแฝดโดนจัดเต็มวัคซีนครบ2เดือน🤒 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.54 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2VHItnyyvY/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello, I didn't expect this to get quite the varied attention that it has received, which comes with both perks and downsides. Though it is nice that several thousand people made the decision to click on this video, I hadn't intended for this to become as divisive as it is, nonetheless I am glad for any well meaning discussions that have taken place below. I do ask however that people refrain from posting anything vindictive or personally hateful as it has no place here, nor does it do wonders for ones' blood pressure lol.
it says
👍198 -vs- 👎214
Slay
@@Bodaciousc1234 She has a nice face and I appreciate the absence of makeup, but she is dressed like an american tourist like come on bro this is TH-cam you're not digging up bones in the Sahara.
There is a remarkable facial similarity to Graham Hancock, has that ever been pointed out?
I was watching thinking up a million arguments for Hancock he wasn’t making himself. Hancock wasn’t his usual fluent self in this argument. But Dibbles dogmatic nonsense could have been easily dismantled on a number of fronts. Mainstream archeology of very ancient times is laughable. You have 3000 sites but never tell anyone how small they are compared to the area of the country. You have a mere pinprick look into the ancient past and claim to know everything.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence.
How many times does Graham Hancock have to say "I'm not a scientist or archeologist, I'm a man with questions wondering why people are completely dismissing even searching for the answers to". He showed a plethora of articles showing where various actual archeologists and geologists were discredited, shamed, and thrown out of the community for bringing answers forward that others within academia claim were impossible things. All Graham does is present questions.
Skepticism without critical thought is worthless
#JustAskingQuestions
No he doesnt lol . Thats like saying why isn't the moon cheese. I'm just asking questions.
Bc everything he claims is easily proven to be nonsense and he has zeroproof other then it LOOKS like. Which is how you now he's wrong.
He's a sociologist who has a son working at Netflix who fools the uneducated and whines like a fuckin girl about how nobody likes him. He's a snake oil salesmen makin money of your gullibility. The exact same as DR MONTYS MIRACLE ELIXER type of dudes
Also he blatently lies. Alot. Either flat out or thru admission. Example. His favorite map he holds sideways. So that South america look like antarctica on the bottom. Also he was never banned from serpants mound. He was told he can't shut down a active religious site to film for 4 days. I'm in Ohio and know someone who works close to the site. Leaves that detail out.
I'm just asking questions X0
th-cam.com/video/elRxbGJuCw8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Ibp6j-U1JomanV4-
I posted this on the actual debate but since this video is on the topic...
Dibble failed mathematically to "debunk" the proportions of the Pyramid with an example which was not analogous; a simple statistical analysis reveals this.
The significance is the fact that (with the Pyramid) the two events scale in proportion to one constant. Whereas the Parthenon & the 420 example consists of just one event scaling to a constant (which is statistically shown to be ad hoc and can be done with the scaling of random objects in one's backyard as oppose to the Pyramid situation, which cannot just be ruled out.)
Step 1:
-Pyramid: two linked events: (A) The base perimeter scales to Earth's circumference, and (B) The height scales to Earth's polar radius, BOTH using the constant.
-Parthenon: there is just one event: (C) The number of columns scales to Earth's circumference with a constant.
(A: The probability that the base perimeter of the Pyramid of Giza aligns with Earth’s circumference when multiplied by a specific constant.
B: The probability that the height of the Pyramid of Giza aligns with Earth’s polar radius when multiplied by the same constant.
C: The probability that the number of columns at the Parthenon aligns with Earth's circumference when multiplied by a different constant.)
Statistical Analysis:
Null Hypothesis : The alignment of Pyramid measurements with Earth dimensions using a single multiplier is due to chance.
OR
Alternative Hypothesis : The alignment is not due to chance and indicates a non-random relationship.
Pyramid: The joint probability of two independent events (A and B for the Pyramid) both happening by chance would be calculated as
P(A∩B)=P(A)×P(B), assuming independence.
Parthenon: The probability of event C happening by chance is simply
P(C)
If P(A)=P(B)=P(C)=1/10,000 (just as a rough example to illustrate), which is about 10,000 reasonable scale factors might yield a match, then:
P(A∩B)=(1/10,000)×(1/10,000)=1/100,000,000.
Conclusion:
It is much less likely (one in a hundred million versus one in ten thousand) for the two perpendicular measurements of the Pyramid to coincidentally align with Earth's dimensions using the same multiplier compared to the Parthenon's single alignment.
(These results stay the same and are just as drastic regardless of whether the scaling factor is 1,000 or 100million...)
You put in some work on this one! Bravo.
@jamesconnor5923 would you ask the same question of someone lifting weights or running?
I instinctively smelled something fishy with Dibbles introduction of this little trick. But the conversation moved on and my attention with it.
So glad you addressed it and that I bumped into your comment. I started reading your comment and the light bulb popped on and "of course, thats it!"
Thanks for the work.
Now the question is, was it oversight on Dibbles part or obfuscating? I mean, he's unpleasant to listen to but he's not an idiot, and its a fairly obvious math flaw if one spent the time preparing it as evidence.
You're a good man
TLDR. I know a schizo-post when I see one. Nice try though!
Dibble did a terrible job and it was disgusting how he tried to smear Graham as a white supremacist and racist. Only a scumbag you can't trust does that. Graham is just asking questions. That's it. Also, I hated Dibble's smug and nervous giggle after he speaks. That's just a personal gripe though.
@Pax.Alotin Made a whole video and I can't make a comment? Mhm...
@Pax.Alotin At the end I CLEARLY stated it was a personal gripe about his immature laughter. If you want to focus on that, so be it. Maybe you are the same. Tiny and whiny.
You've brought nothing to the table, just like Dibble. Just crying. You are the pathetic one.
@Pax.Alotinyeah okay
Rewatch the segment. Dibble did not call him a white supremacist, all the examples Graham brings up are from other people's tweets etc. The point Dibble is trying to make is that a fair few of Graham's ideas are directly or indirectly obtained from sources that do in fact use them in morally questionable ways.
It could of course be the case that broken clocks are right twice a day, but by not addressing this issue head on and citing people like Ignatius Donnelly without further qualifications, it starts to look like he is legitimizing them as reliable sources in general. One way he could fix this is by releasing updated editions of his work. Otherwise I agree that Dibble's giggling was unfortunate but as you imply it could just be the nerves of debating on such a large platform.
Except he didn't. He said the IDEAS he was telling have their roots in white supremacy. Specifically about the white, bearded Mexican God.
I thought Dibble did a fairly bad job
I agree with you Ivorypoacherplays.
Yeah, there is no excuse for of the stuff in that Netflix letter and him defending it made it even worse
He unarguably did a good job
Every good point Graham had Flint said "I can't speak on that."
Flint got bodied 😂 asking for breaks and shit
Dibble lost a long time ago when he accused Hancock of perpetuating white supremacy.
Yeah, Graham gave him a couple of opportunities at the end to apologize for the smears, but Dibble was too small and ungracious and insecure to respond.
Yeah agreed.,, Dibble kind of showed his hand and true agenda with that statement… just another groveling, self hating white guy who goes to the lowest common denominator, and pulls the white supremacy card… now how in the hell is that even remotely connected to graham’s ideas… just absolutely ridiculous and shows just where this clown is coming from
@@rawleydavis8881 wtf are you talking about… bub
Why does Hancock believe that Egyptians were incapable of building pyramids, but Celts were capable of building Stonehenge.
If Hancock didn’t want to be accused of that, he should have ripped off a different Blavatsky book lol
Flint Dibble bases his reasoning on evidence while Graham Hancock bases his reasoning on mythology. After watching this podcast, I can understand the archeologist community's stance on Grahams "theories" and why he is dismissed by them. I can understand why Flint was laughing at him. It's not Flint's fault that Graham says laughable things haha. I came into the podcast with and open mind and without any type of stance on the subject, but it all seems to make more sense now
Does anyone take this person seriously? -Pretentious and shallow.
Crismans is a prikk bot. . .
What do you not take seriously regarding what she said in this video?
To whom are you referring?
@Crismans843 Surely, though keep in mind, the red pill is not available for some peoples frequencies. I do not take this person seriously at all
She's been scrubbing comments that call her out aswell!
Don't take any of the comments on this thread personally, it's clear that scientific literacy here is minimal to non-existent.
Trust the science😂😂😂😂
@@jimmyfaulkner5746 Well you clearly did when posting on this thread.
Exactly what I thought.
You have to admit the walls found around South America, Egypt, Italy, turkey, Australia, Easter island, all built with polygonal masonry is eerie. It’s a pretty distinct style of architecture.
I’m quite surprised to see all the negative comments your video, I’d be keen to find out how many of the people commenting negatively actually watched the full podcast. Dibble completely dismantled him the entire four hours! I actually quite like Hancock, and the romantic theory of a lost civilisation is fascinating to listen to and consider. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this whatsoever. Interestingly, in the podcast whatever he gets put in his place he basically goes back to “ all I’m saying is, we just can’t dismiss the idea of a lost civilisation and need to research more!” In reality that’s not what he has been saying or writing about whatsoever! He claims far more but has zero credible evidence.
So your just going to ignore the scientific evidence used to date the sphinx. Scientifically speaking Hancock is correct you can’t rule out a lost civilisation based on 5% of the available data. As a scientist dribble knows this but still maintains there is no lost civilisation instead of saying based on the evidence we have my belief is there is no lost civilisation instead he goes against his scientific principles by declaring there is no lost civilisation. Hancock didn’t represent his evidence very well during the debate he was too emotional and focused on the whole racist scandal but the evidence flint presented was full of miss information, misrepresentation of the data and blatant lies about the data. The only person who got destroyed was flint dibble telling lie after lie
" Dibble completely dismantled him the entire four hours " LOL He did no such thing.
Graham was fully on his cross. his ideas are the same as, "wheres your evidence disproving god? weve only studied .01% of the observable universe."
Of course science has problems with groupthink and ostracization, but acting the histronic martyr when you're a gagillionaire with countless adherents is ridiculous. i feel for actual scientists who soldier against criticism to prove the quality of their evidence.
Exactly.......i also thought of Hancock 's arguments are similar to God of the gaps arguments........i mean if we had to visit every corner of the universe to conduct the same experiments to see if it passes everywhere in the universe....i mean this is ridiculous and completely impossible.....but to this Graham would say that you cannot rule that out....bet graham believes in Goblins too cause we can't unprove anything what lacks evidence to exist
@Pax.Alotin Or worse that science is decided by a "lived experience". I.e. if you haven't physically been to the area in question then you have nothing of value to say on the matter.
For every square meter of earth turned over by archaeologists there are several square miles turned over by construction, dredging, mining, agriculture etc. All over the world. Every day. Many archaeological sites have been found when they were located in these ways initially.
So Hancock proposes a lost civilization with global reach and technology on par with early 19th century Europe. Yet no evidence turned up in the small portions of the world explored by archaeologist, but also no evidence turned up by millions of people digging all over the world.
I like the example someone gave on a Stefan Milo video. Essentially Graham's 'evidence' of Naria is we haven't searched every wardrobe yet. Lol
How dense are all of you that you’d push back against his call for more archeology in these areas?
Preface: I am not saying academia or Hancock are correct re: lost civilization. However, there exists NON-physical evidence of a commonality across SOME geographic areas,cultures. Points to anyone who can guess what TYPE of non-physical evidence might be.
The manlet didn’t convince me.
Dibble me timbers
🤣🤣🤣
+1 to your point acknowledging the miraculous civilization we have built.
So, yes, GH does use some weak arguments, but I think it is important to understand there is very strong evidence FOR a Pleistocene civilization. Specifically, The Debunking TH-cam channel did a video on the Oronce Fine map of 1531 that strongly supports the hypothesis that there was an ice age culture that did, in fact, map Antarctica. It's a long, complicated argument that needs to be seen, rather than explained, but if there was somebody mapping Antarctica 10-12k BP, then it implies whoever THEY were, they were fairly advanced back then.
I find Grahams theories very interesting. Especially from perspective of a builder. For example I think great pyramids of the Giza are the evidence that there was great technologically mature civilization, because you can’t move such a heave stones with a basic rope. And another evidence that is ignored is almost all megalithic structures looks basically same with some alterations of individual cultures. There are so many theories and evidence like drill holes in these megalithic stones…The point Graham is making is. Evidence archaeologists are connecting is not effective and very simple.
I've been following Hancock for decades and want his ideas to be true, I find them interesting and entertaining, but I care about the truth, and this interview has shown me a side of Hancock that makes me suspect he puts himself in the victim category.
Is this satire?
The only thing that is funny is your delusional beliefs. You have faith bro, that's all you've got 😂
@@Ryan-eu3kp not an argument
@occultislux I know it wasn't an argument, It was a statement.
You must believe in God, it's the same sort of thing. You deny basic scientific reasoning, you cling to beliefs with zero evidence.
Faith.
@Ryan-eu3kp So, you don't have faith in anything? And you're correct, I do believe in God. After being an atheist for years I've come to the conclusion that God exists. And why do you care if I " deny basic scientific reasoning". We're just meat bags floating in space. Why should we care what's true or not?
@@Ryan-eu3kp What an absolutely ludicrous rant based by you Ryan, based upon @occultislux saying *6* words in total? You look like child having a tantrum there Ryan. Let me guess, you believe that Graham Hancock is a white supremacist and racist (based on no science), you believe in Social Justice, and Feminism, and Progressivism and the utopian ideals of Marxism, and of course you believe that men can become women and you will always respect people's pronouns (based on no science; your comments here *scream* that you worship that anti-science "non-binary" religion). hmm, so much for your """science""" credentials Ryan, huh... 🙄
Isn’t the elephant in the room the prevention of discovery? Lots of people talking about debating technique and mannerisms but the actual topic could be discussed properly if these sites were not shut off
You want extremely valuable and delicate archaeological sites open for the general public?😮
Shut off or they'd be destroyed be ignorant tourists. Especially American tourists. We have earned a bad name out there in tourist land.
Flint lost that debate because he used lies in that debate and Graham’s quote “no evidence for a lost civilisation” you obviously haven’t noticed an important part of the quote that’s been cut out by those who don’t like Graham and that is “in what they have studied” and it’s true that in what Flint and his colleagues have studied there’s no evidence whereas the people Graham is reporting the work there is evidence for a lost civilisation.
One place they didn’t discuss that came to challenge Flint and others like him and has enabled people to keep on debating and proposing ancient enigmas to be about 12k years old and only found by those we know is Gobekli Tepe and over the years I’ve been seeing people like Flint who don’t want history books in the bin get more frustrated that they can’t shut these people up like they could before Gebekli Tepe.
This video will blow up. Critiquing graham hancock is likely to garner much attention. The thing with the people who support him is that they take it personally. They feel that he’s the underdog. For me he’s a bit of a grifter and has cornered the market of ancient weird stuff for ages. The problem is the dismissiveness of mainstream archeology. They give Graham and others in his field the “enemy” to fight against. And they shouldn’t. In my opinion, it doesn’t do archaeology any favors, at least with most common folk.
I have seen other videos here, and have subscribed. Good job!
@Pax.Alotin give it a rest dude. It's not healthy to respond to EVERY comment
Well said
I have the same impression. The debate between Hancock and Dibble reminded me of that between Ken Ham (young earth creationist) and Bill Nye (mechanical engineer and science communicator) on "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?" which, from a scientific point of view, Nye won for 100% and from a marketeer's point of view it was the complete opposite.
Why is it a "match"??
Ladies & Gentlemen, meet: Mrs. Flint Diddle!! 😂
For me, a long time ago, it was the longing for a graspable mystery. An adventure. A secret world behind the world that I found and others did not see. At that time, I did not feel much of a connection to the world. I did not feel seen. And this was a place that was full of magic. Later on, I discovered that it was a lot of mirage and smoke. And that there were many mysteries, but they are not all in the past, and I do not know what they were like and are definitely not what I expect or what society has as a shared myth. Becoming curious beyond my beliefs saved me from them.
Such a great comment to read :) I guess it's also a question of nerdyness but exploring past cultures and jumping into rabbit holes where our state of understanding becomes frail fascinates the fuck outta me. I think if one just opens their imagination to the kind of lives all those past people may have lived, there's plenty of adventures to relive, and it's a real treasure.
Both of them were pretty crappy at arguing.
I dont think anyone 'won'. Lots of poor reasoning on both sides.
Im only halfway through but anyone who thinks either side looks particularly good here doesnt reason well themselves. These guys are talking past each other and not handling the others points.
Perhaps a case study detailing the journey to a scientific fact, in historical terms, could show the difference between Hancock's argumentation and that of the status quo.
Status quo isn’t always how it is.
@Pax.Alotin you clearly have zero understanding of how the Archaeology academia world works. The status quo is up held by the refusal to give grant money to anybody that is not working on a theory that does not support the status quo. I have a Masters degree in archaeology and I can assure you that unless you are independently wealthy you will not be working to prove any ideas that do not support the university narrative.
@@Supercalafragulistic30 I completely agree, therefor I don't agree with the authouritive argument "the scientists say this, so it must be true". Surely making sources as easily digestable as possible would strengthen arguments imensely, and thus, solve polarisation.
" journey to a scientific fact, in historical terms, "
Science doesn't use the word 'facts', the word 'theory' is the appropriate word.
History is his - story, and is written by winners. There is no such thing as history without political bias, and all history is subjective as a result.
There is no way that any “debate” can be engaged because this isn’t about debating. This system of control imposed by the university system is the issue. These universities choke out even the appearance of a fair discussion, as long as they are the ones who operate their systems. They refuse to even engage in the possibility that they might be wrong.
Did Graham tell you that? Or was it UnchartedX?
I think Hancock is out to lunch with his theories but he makes a great living with them…maybe why he stays on this path? My only question is who built the walls all over the planet with seemingly random shaped non square stones with the odd nub here and there. There’s examples of them in South America ollantaytambo, sacsayhuaman. Egypt, ghiza. Italy, turkey, Australia…It’s almost like someone was traveling around building walls in the hardest way possible because they’re all over the place this distinct style…
I can't tell if that dudes 28 or 58. Just just looks like a dude that found a Indiana Jones hat. Graham wins
Neil D Tyson said it best, and I am paraphrasing “ it’s like walking to a beach with a glass, and filling it up with water from the shore, and saying there’s no whales here”. If you get my drift.
Flint Dibble prattles on like a Neo-Marxist hack
There is a lot I would like to say and I hope I can say it without rambling. I don't think I can find the words to express to you my appreciation for your videos on Neanderthal and venus figurines. My inability is most likely because I am a dunce but I watch them still. Very informative and helpful. But in all sincerity I have to ask. Who is your audience in this video? I don't mean to single you out and I'm not saying you are wrong for anything you have said or have done. But again I appreciate your view on very important topics to me and I can actually ask you. I ask that question because in the end...are you really wanting a discussion about this? It just seems like everyone is going to take sides and there really isn't ever going to be a discussion. I am not satisfied with the outcome of that video....nobody "won"
I will have to watch the Rogan video again to get a more precise view of the outcome of each discussion, but overall it felt as if each discussion eventually devolved into snarky comments back and forth. In the end, I think that made it difficult to get a grasp on some of the actual facts. I will say I was surprised to see Graham make several unnecessary statements that did nothing to contribute. And no I don't side with his view. I just think the current view is somewhat limited and limiting.
What stuck out to me and probably divided my attention for the remainder of the video was the comment made by Flint at around 1 hour 51 minutes regarding the artifact found at Padang. That it is not an artifact and there are no artifacts like it in the world. The thing is....a lot of the paleo artifacts that they do have they don't completely understand. And I can show you an artifact just like it....I have to acknowledge that I am just looking at photos, but the padang piece seems to be a much nicer representation. Flint was so adamant that it was natural it actually got Joe and Graham to both back off regarding its validity. Regarding its relevance to the site overall, I can't say. Again, I'll rewatch it. Point being that there are elements of history that get lost because of a dismissal like this. And no I don't think it's an electric iron...or some nonsense like that...but I do think it points to something we are currently unaware of.
The problem I know for myself from what I have looked at..there is a disconnect in understanding the approach by both sides. Maybe after 30 years he is still unable to say what he's trying to say but he did not do a good job in this conversation. To me he catches glimpses of a framework but is still unable to define it and struggles to break it down and demonstrate it. I'm not saying he's right about everything. He only has pieces and it's natural to try to fill in the gaps. I just think he does have some good points that need to be addressed or scrutinized more closely.
The important thing is that he tries to initiate a discussion to get people to think outside of the box. To me that is how we make progress so I'm not going to shame him. Maybe some of his ideas are ludicrous. But that happens with both sides...He does, however, whine too much about the responses he gets..he spent an entire segment confronting flint which i found to be pointless. but then again....maybe people should stop making jokes, making attacks, and start answering questions...
You can cut your own hair, and get the librarian glasses, but if you wish to give the illusion of intelligence, it's best not to announce to the world your opinions on an argument you failed to understand.
literally am a parody of myself. I don't just have the glasses, I also have the job title 😭😭😭
@@yazlikes_oldstuff Nailed it. Your argumentation meeds work. How you feel is irrelevant. Condescention while misunderstanding the premise is odious. And a thorough make-over is needed... such a blue-stocking. Librarian was an easy call.
3:02 Gram never said the pre-ice age civilization was more advanced then us , he simply said they were advanced to some degree. And graham always brings geologists , archeologists and non biased researchers to with him on all of his expeditions , what would he get from stroking his own ego? Absolutely nothing! He brings legit scientists and researchers with him on the expedition and never goes in solo.
There was advanced civilization, somehow people built huge pyramids around the world without anti depressants and safe spaces
Well if john lennon here said dibble won than i guess dibble won
I'm not sure that there is a site where an "official" winner could be declared. If you go to Hancock fan sites they think he won. If you go to sites critical of Hancock then Dibble won. The closest I have seen to an "official" sort of middle ground is the Joe Rogan reddit page where his fans respond to the content of the podcasts. The trend in the comments section there suggests that the Rogan fanbase is leaning toward Hancock doing poorly. A lot of these comments were made by Hancock fans. Evaluations elsewhere may vary, but given that Rogan fans (and Rogan) lean toward Hancock type stuff, it is an interesting trend.
Dibble definitely did not win 😂😂😂 no matter what this robot says
Eh, id say Dibble had the worse of the exchanges
Y'all ok with giving credence to a rumor that happened between ancient peoples 12k years ago?
wow
the tinfoil hat wearing 'do your own research' crowd sure is big mad
good video
Smearing of others with your smug insults adds nothing to the conversation but does make you look foolish.
@@hoptoads Pointing out the cult of Hancock and von Danniken is all upset 'adds nothing to the conversation'?
It adds just what it was designed to add..................an observation of how mad the tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists are..................
Is every post supposed to dunk on yall with the actual facts, or some data?
Try and not be so butthurt, eh?
thnx
Thank you for this reaction!
First of all I like the stories Hancock produces and to imagine how the world would change If his theories were true. But I think this 4 hour debate has shown a big point why these are only stories. Hancock after all is a journalist, a storyteller not someone with a scientific degree who follows scientific appeoaches. Flint mentioned it many times: In science the phrase 'you can't rule this or that out' is good to keep things in discussion, however it isn't enough for a proof to land. The un-scientific approach mixed with the usage of questionable sources and constantly playing the victim-role automatically leads to not being taken serious. And still he wonders why he's being called a pseudo.
Again, I like Hancock's stories, but the recent debate showed me clearly that it's no more than just stories.
Errr, he's always told people he's a journalist. But the problem with what you're saying is he quotes actual scientists. A la, John Anthony West, Robert Shock
It's a little insane to base the critique of his ideas on the fact that he points out he has been attacked. I don't think you learned anything from this podcast. At the end Graham and Flint agree their ought to be simply more kindness in the world.
If someone makes an article claiming Graham is a racist, he ought to point it out. Calling someone that is a horrible evil thing to say.
Graham is such a kind and loving guy. My source is dozens of hours of podcats where you can hear him speak from the heart. I also met him in person briefly. Unbelievably warm. C:
There's really a lot to the stuff graham talks about, whether true or false. To only listen to a few hour podcast, or listen to passively other Joe Rogan shows ad background music, doesn't honor and respect the sacred instrument that is your own attentional apparatus.
Most people are too busy to study it. A lay person may be wise to be agnostic until looking in to all facts for themselves. Reading about attempts to debunk. And reading about attempts to debunk the debunk.
On that last note you shouldn't take everything in the debate at face value. Look at @HowardHamlin-mv9rq
He wrote an essay of a statistics comment on the math that Dibble did. If you want to study statistics maybe you can approach finding out for yourself. Otherwise one thinks it Is wise to remain agnostic
I grappled with the grasping of the concept.
Flint annihilated graham. Hancock didnt even have arguments or evidence for anything. Just tweets about how he got his feelings hurt.
I read an interesting evolutionary psychology article today on the motivations behind cancel culture and virtue signaling
If you don't 'see the need for' or understand an hypothesis, that establishes very little, despite your own limitations, which are irrelevant. Hancock doesn't mention the Sahara or the Amazon because uninhabitable today, but precisely because inhabitable in the past. And the age when archaeology can scan these places from the air is not 'soon to be upon us', it is here, and there are vast cities beneath the foliage in the Amazon which are untouched in the midern era. Read a damn book.
Don't know if its just me, but hearing a 14 year old tell us how we must approach archeological sites is a bit ...boring?
Considering that she makes more sense than a drug-addled 70-something year old who writes about Egyptians using psychic powers to build pyramids it may be just you. Or it may be that a lot of people find drugs and psychic powers less boring and requiring less critical thought than hearing how archaeology actually works. Tough call....
thank you mr jules brunton for exemplifying everything that's wrong with this weird anti-intellectual hate train in this comment section 🙏👆💯 trying to discredit a grown woman who has worked as an archaeologist (which, as you probably don't know, involves approaching archaeological sites) by calling her a 14 year old is only embarassing for you and the man you are trying (poorly) to defend. you are on your hands and knees, prostrate for a man who thinks the mayans needed help from white people to develop a calendar system. learn shame and get a job !
I couldn't look at the screen too many cuts!
This annoying technique seems to be a trend. It’s incredibly obnoxious and distracting
@@tommym321consider it’s hard to talk non stop without tripping over your own words.
Then just listen - not everyone can talk without tripping over words
@@riversheppherd121 No, it’s not. Not if you’re prepared it’s not.
@@tommym321 Say, where's your TH-cam video? I'd like to see you try.
Great video Yaz - but Hancock is right in that so much more excavation needs to be done before we conclude certain dates etc - something Flint agreed with.
Working from the known to the unknown has its drawbacks. How will you know the values and aspirations of the society you are studying- particularly if it’s 12000 years ago? You might find an artifact but can you put it in context? If you find a coke bottle a thousand years from now will archaeologists understand it’s not necessarily a religious artifact?
I 100% agree with you. I just can't comprehend why Graham Hancock is this popular or why Joe Rogan promotes him
What I just can't comprehend is why people are this upset with Graham Hancock. If he's completely out of his mind and dead wrong, it doesn't matter. At all. Of all things to devote effort and attention to. Hell Dibble even went with the good old tried and true "white supremacy". Good lord.
Team Hancock forever!
Dibble was close-minded, overly skeptical of Grahams claims, and not nearly skeptical enough of his own.
Also, he smeared Hancock on Twitter, calling him a racist, something he has no evidence for, simply to get brownie points with a certain crowd. Shame on him.
Wow you really mentioned that all Graham did was present the claims .......but not proofs
Well, when you describe a ground of Natives such as the Maya as "semi-civilized," "jungle-dwelling" Indians who needed the help of people with caucasian or anglo-saxon features to help develop a calendar then some folks might be inclined to point out some problems with such statements.
This is a psychopath
Hancock is a grifter that targets stoners with rock brains
Hancock presented zero evidence
Finally. A normal response lol just here say.
I noticed this too. He just skips over shit when questioned and moves onto the next point.
I would love to research Yaz if you know what I mean
"I don't get the point of these theories"
Yes your teenage brain that's still developing can't comprehend certain things that adults can
Nice argument
'Man Calls Woman Who Worked As An Archaeologist A Teenage Girl Instead of Engaging With Her Arguments' could be an Onion article
It was Tit for Tat if you asked me, they both had good points but I will say there is no doubt that those are water erosion marks besides that you can figure it out
Oh so your an expert now? No one asked you because you have literally no experience in this field.
@@moviesynopsis001 I'm just saying with the other experts said no one asked you to review my comment either, but if you look at pictures of water erosion and then you look at those pictures you can pretty much see they're the same thing expert or not
@@moviesynopsis001
Ryan Galinat is a geologist, maybe ?
You are a troll, certainly.
Baby cakes. What are you rambling about.
‼alert: pervert located. do not approach‼
People are forgetting that Graham's theory (which is one shared by many reputable scientists) is one that stretches beyond just archeology - it's massively multidisciplinary and encompasses religious studies, the classics, anthropology as well as many other "hard sciences".
True, Graham's argument may have fallen short in the archeological realms but it's a theory that requires lengthy and well-informed discussion on many other fronts before anything can be ruled out.
Flint came off mean spirited and condescending. What he should have focused on is developing a model for the probability of a lost civilization, instead of just focusing on found evidence. I felt like they just argued in circles:
There is no evidence!
We haven’t done enough searching!
Repetitive!
lol where did this get linked? where are the comments coming from?
Hancock used a lot of various fallacious argument techniques and deflections to support his claims…
For being an expert he couldn't really bring any expertise to the table 🤣🤣🤣 Flint is a joke
So there is no possibility of an earlier unknown civilization because you haven't found one yet?
Because Flint is an actual scholar with actual evidence and information and Graham is a con man.
Theres nothing behind this persons eyes
Meaning like no sense or no brain or? Just sir headed? Lol
Nothing says confidence like cutting the video every five seconds
Makes sense that this channels so small prolly gonna stay that way😂
Wow, Graham has many fanboys on youtube. None of which have any clue what they are talking about and happily, like their idol Graham, misinterprets information when they are not busy pretending to be victims.
You're correct.
It’s crazy Grants daughter took other guys aide
Woke channels sure is going on about this.
I have a degree in Egyptology and have debated with Graham for 20 years. Outside of the little diversion on agriculture and genetics, Flint didn't say anything. He's quite proud though.
Graham Hancock is doing some of the least rigorous research and presenting it to an audience that has demonstrated almost no ability to think critically. Show me a person that formulates their understanding of the last 12,000 years based on what they learn from GH and it relatively simple to predict another dozen [pseudo scientific beliefs. I'm thinking about advertising for sale my schematic to build a free energy device. I think I've found the perfect target demographic.
Honestly we all know graham is a bit of a nut job
Honestly, personal smears do nothing to enlighten anyone.
I’ve listened to you with a non biased perspective and it’s clear to see that you have a bias opinion against Graham and any other that conduct research. Your points to disprove him are inaccurate and are left with holes of misinformation about his work and how he’s establishes his theory on past human life. To say he just “dives in the unknown” and emerges with a theory from his research is very naive and far from the truth. How does one learn anything without exploring the unknown? Closed-minded views are the exact representation of where the problem lies. It’s not a pissing contest. It’s about working together, gaining and sharing knowledge.
What you need to remember is if you spend any time with people that choose to do archeology as a degree is they tend not to be the sharpest tools in the box. Couple this with the influencers desire for self validation and you have an unfortunate mix that seems to lead to intellectual dead ends. The point is we do not know, we have plenty of archaeology from the land but barely any from under the sea. I've only seen a few clips of the discussion but it seems to me both sides are over confident in their positions, we simply don't know and it will be very hard to resolve either way. Geologists generally agree that sea levels have risen and we know that human habitation tends to be coastal so we would expect what evidence there maybe to be underwater and therefore largely inaccessible. Archaeologists much like scientists are just people, they have ideas they pin their careers on and many do not like to change them, this is the history of the expansion of human knowledge. Who's to say who will be proved right in the end.
What a sad, ignorant comment. Arrogantly starting by saying all archeologists are pretty much dumb, and then all you say is "muh sea levels". If there was an continent spanning civilization, then why do we have stone tools from all over the place, even including below sea levels at times, but nothing of this great culture left? Why did it not transfer crops like wheat, corn and potato between the continents? Great claims require great proof or something like that.
But that's just it... there's no evidence from the sea. There MIGHT be, sure, and if we find it we re-evaluate what are conclusions are based on that new evidence. Hancock makes some absolutely extraordinary claims but backs them up with virtually no evidence. The physical evidence he does suggest doesn't fit the criteria he thinks it does.
Our understanding of prehistory has changed dramatically over the years so the idea that there's some intellectually stunted archeological conspiracy to shut it down just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
There's uncountable theories one can cook up with the things we don't know. Some of the best science fiction does exactly that but without material evidence that's what it remains... fiction.
so a summation....there is no evidence so far, so stop looking
Graham presented no convincing evidence to back up his claims. Not a single peice. Just more assumptions. What was dibble exactly supposed to do against that?
Flint carried himself like a complete douchebag 😂 he single handedly lost archeologists more respect in that single podcast than anyone in the history of archeology.
Lol Dibble is no match to Hankock
You're no match for my last shit, but apparently you think you're a real Human.
ARCHAEOLOGY BY COMMITTEE
too many cuts, couldn't get past 25 seconds
4.5 hours, 2.5 million views, dry archaeology discussion...and you're "upset" with Graham? There has never been a time where more people are interested in AND funding these projects...and you still want to complain.
Let's hope funding leaves you far, far behind
Flint dominated the debate. I didn’t expect Joe Rogan to press Hancock for evidence like he did. Rogan was surprisingly neutral.
No
Graham has much support from a lot of us, the data lacking in his presentation will be brought fourth by others in the field, he has been around a LONG time and has presented much valuable research, you all are literally picking on an old man you know nothing about. We were all in pain when he struggled to find the photos. Dibble is focused on his food, leave the ancient megalithic stonework and obvious similarities in world wide mega ancient structures to those who want to study them further. As there is no viable scientific data to prove the current construction narrative. I hope you understand science needs to be applied to these conversations. Not overlooking the obvious. The data is all around. Flint Dibble failed to answer or even try to be open minded about anything but what he was presenting. I am not discrediting his research on food and he is knowledgeable on that particular part, yet of Egypt he sounds like a child who listened to Zahi Hawass in the 90's. He is a BULLY and deserves no respect for slander name calling such as a white supremacist. Not taking that back signifies his immaturity. Please tell us your not a supporter of such claims. I think you should look further back in the research Graham has done since the 80's and all those who are picking up pieces where he has changed his focus over the years. I also do not agree with Graham on everything. Hoping you have more of an open mind then to back a bully with no context.
Those caveman did not produce mega-ton megalithic, precision stone structures that were severely damaged and destroyed, still being found today, and infamously unexcavated. Tool marks are all over. Explain them all please. I am an engineer.
exactly, they didnt even touch the root of of theory, which is based off the world wide fitting of certain megalithic blocks with ultra perfect mating surfaces in an random pattern. the "poured rock culture" if it needs a name.
@blatz66 I understand it looks poured, however, I do have sound arguments against That particular theory in terms of igneous stone. We also see they demonstrated the ability to cut, and cut very oddly but precisely I may say.
Graham did an amazing job. He does such an amazing work. Good job Graham.
For what??? All he did was accusations and baseless claims without evidence
Graham Hancock has made money off the stories he's telling while archaeology is literally struggling to fund itself... People like Graham Hancock that's why they so eagerly defend him without ever really understanding what he's saying... The personal attacks are out of order but the evidence is not...
No one has done more to raise awareness of archaeology than Hancock.
That awareness has led to more funding of grants.
In fact, if you listen to him, he constantly calling for more funding of research.
He is not a scientist and doesn’t claim to be. Most archaeology is based on conjecture, so to criticize him for that is hypocritical
@@Ck-zk3we You're actually the type of person that would lie out right to validate a point... As if you actually had evidence... How on Earth would you be able to claim Graham has helped funding more grants? How on Earth do you prove that? In the 7 years of me following him, not once has he ever and I mean ever asked the public to donate or take interest towards archeology... In fact he's literally told people archeologist are pseudo scientists and also told them they've never done enough excavation... He's encouraged people to support him and he's brought awareness to his own ideologies... Please don't equate that to whatever you think he's doing...
@@SapphireKnightofWhiteLotusCity I know because I’m 60 years old, third generation archaeologist, with a masters degree in Archaeology. I lived in a world pre Hancock. Grahams books have inspired millions of people to think about the past that never would have before. This kind of stuff used to be only for geeks. Trust me, there is way more funding now than when I was young. But, it’s stilL mostly only possible to get funding to study things that confirm the paradigm. Archaeology is half hard science and half social science. If you studied it, then you would know that. And you would know that a lot of it is psuedo science and that a lot of imagination goes into formulating ideas about the distant past. We are working with less than 1% of the evidence. Graham is not a threat to archaeology. Lack of funding is .
When I was a child over 60 years ago, archaeologists and anthropologists told us that Egypt and Babylon were the oldest known civilised settlements. Then they discovered more settlements of ancient Sumer and a new 'oldest' civilization timeline was given. Then somebody discovered Gobekli Tepi, and that set the oldest civilization back thousands more years.
Then along came Karahan Tepe, believed by archaeologists to be as old or even older than Gobekli Tepe.
The evidence in recent years has shown that the archeologists of 60 years ago were WRONG.
I have no doubt more evidence will come to light that will require further shifts in the attitudes and accepted knowledge of academia towards our past.
well this video got fuckin ratio'd quick!
Flint dibble is a meme and so is anyone defending him
Charismatic science populists won't bite your audience, their task is to motivate younglings.
I like your truthblade-meme style, but it usually become boring after 10 min of watch, on the other
hand those people with glance of madness in eyes will talk for hours entertaining
This is the definition of appeal to authority. Disturbing how higher education atrophies the brain.
Here's a little tip...
Makeup, lipstick, rouge, eyeliner...
Why? To make your limited thinking more palpable to you? Personally I like seeing it someone's actual face rather than a paint job.
@@WayneBraack That must give you an instant hard-on.
Yee Haw!! LOL LOL LOL😂🤣
check dedunking on it , dibble wrong , our timeline was set by the bible , when did we find summa , where was it before it was found . Lost
Graham didn't get to explain how humans have lived through a couple interglacial periods before the past 15 thousand years. For example, the last interglacial period was between 130-80 thousand years ago. Humans were fully evolved during this 50 thousand year period. The climate then is the same as it is now. So the climate getting warmer cannot be the only reason that agriculture started happening in the past 12 thousand years.
Dibble came off as a petulant child. Not convincing but condescending.
I have no clue who either of these people are
What are you talking about?!
Our current civilization being capable of facetiming across the world has NO bearing on giving time and research to this theory.
This theory is one which finds many points across many disciplines and is more than worthy of investigation.
Whenever someone claims to be an 'expert', that is, appeals to academic authority, I remember my plumber father's favourite saying : An ex-spurt is just a drip under pressure.