Later in the pod cast Graham says to Michael "I take it you've actually been to the pyramids right." Michael responds "no I haven't been there" Graham replies with simply "Oh dear"
@@kyleharris5462 It's not clear to me why people 12000 would necessarily have recognized what we call "Leo" constellation as being a lion. For example, what we call Scorpio (scorpion) is "Maui's fishhook" in Hawaiian tradition.
Yeaaaah pretty much. The full podcast is just three hours of information overload and Shermer desperately trying to seem valid or correct. He was in a room full of people who didn't agree, but he's also such a dismissive asshat through the entire thing I don't think he ever was even invited back despite being a regular guest beforehand
"Well, so?" "Well, maybe?" Typical of the mainstream archaeological community. I wish Joe had brought on an actual Egyptologist or Archaeologist to have this debate. This guy is just a professional skeptic.
You’re exactly right. Shermer was not qualified for this. Whether he is debating religion or pyramids, he isn’t particularly qualified other than being a skeptic for a living who bows at the altar of consensus.
It was that interaction that immediately made me doubt Hancock. Looked into him further, he's a charlatan, looking to get rich of people's love of conspiracy.
@@AN-wd5nu Yeah I know, Hancock made a cheap shot that wasn't pertinent to the debate. Shermer openly stated he's not an expert on ancient Egypt, he's merely providing a critical thinking mindset to Hancock's claims, and Hancock became childish.
it did exist. it's Atlantis. other civilizations existed as well. the other ones look more like what people see as advanced because they were sci Fi looking
***** telling is not proving. A blind man doesn't even know what blue is. You are also so blinded by your beliefs that no matter how much proof exists, you cannot comprehend it.
You are a little too excited my man. You belive they exist , great. But yes, prove it. Just like we had to prove everything else based on knowledge. There is one thing Hancock said in this that stuck out for me '' After reviewing all the date, this was the SIMPLEST solution to answer everything''... Now, You can look throughout history and see how many times the simplest answer to any problem was the right one. It's not so many. And before you throw a rage tantrum at me. I am of the opinion that the Egyptians had prior knowledge before their civilization. I too, theorize that they had known of a group of people who's 'civilization' fell. Now, it wasn't from Hancock's 'evidence'. This is my first in debt look at this with him. And I hadn't heard of 'gobekli tepe' before this. Or the evidence of the sphinx. Now this does seem to indicate some favor of our separate theories (Hancock and my own). BUT... as a person researching this myself. There is still no evidence for past civilizations passing down information. I actually do not understand why he states that, it seems very biizarre and illogical to me. The answer is in the find. We didn't say ''The Egyptians were passed on knowledge from a secret society to build teh pyramids''. Well, some did/do. Ancient alien theorists ( lol ). We acknowledged that we underestimate ourselves throughout history all the time. The Egyptians overcame tremendous obstacles and challenges to do what they did. And so too have the peoples of gobekli tepe. How? Why? we do not know. To state we know when we don't is misguiding and to be aggressive when somebody disagrees with you is silly. If you are actually wanting to know the truth you would not be so emotional when somebody disagrees with your theory. You would want to know why they do not, what information is wrong here. And then both parties would discuss, solve, evolve. This is how science works... how we evolve. We all want to belive this, who wouldn't? But we must prove it. And if teh evidence suggest that it's not the case, then we must accept that and follow the evidence. And most importantly, work together!
13:03 has me pissing myself laughing 😂 Graham: “You’ve been to the step pyramid, I’m sure.” Michael: “No, no, no.” Graham: “Right. …and you’ve been to Giza, though?” Michael: “No, I never have.” Graham: “Oh, dear.” 🧐
@rosettenrudi It does, because you have a better understanding of what you're dealing with. It's easy to imagine workers dragging blocks up the side of the pyramids if you have no idea just how big those blocks are, and just how high they need to be lifted.
13:00 Graham: "You've been to the Step Pyramid I'm sure." Michael: "No, no no." Graham: "...right. You've been to Giza though?" Michael: "No, I've never been to Giza." Graham: "Oh dear." lmao
Except that there are hundreds of actual scholars who have spent far more time there than GH and none supports GH nonsense claims. Remember GH has absolutely no training in ANY related scholarly field.
S G Do you have any background in any related scholarly field? Any at all? GH is not a trained researcher in any related field of study. Do you see just anyone when you need medical advice or do you seek out a medical professional? Do you use treatments that no reputable medical body endorses or do you look to make sure that it’s a treatment that’s been tested and approved. Lastly GH can spend years in Egypt but if he cannot provide evidence for his nonsense claims then they remain nonsense. He has been advocating crazy ideas for some 50 years and still no evidence to support it. This is why credentials matter because without them you are like the guy who cannot count telling the world he believes in a new math. You simply don’t know what you don’t know. It’s why education matters.
S G Yes my MA is in Anthropology and my Doctorate is in Political Science with a focus on epistemology and educational policy. In short I’ve spent years studying how information is utilized by institutions and platforms. This is why we teach epistemology to college freshman. Now tell me about your credentials. My can be confirmed by calling the University of Chicago which is BTW the single most important university in terms of The Study of Ancient Civilization.
@@Runescape99 Sorry but I don’t understand the termed “ schooled” as I hold 2 advanced degrees. Remember this lesson in epistemology. Learn to cite your claims!
@@johnhough4445 you haven’t notice ? His documentary on netflix is all the evidence needed. Notice through out each episode he always end it with ideas what it would have been with zero evidence
It doesn’t matter if you know nothing about Egypt. If you anything about science you know that Hancock is a dick who gets offended when you point out he is saying garbage.
@@dipdip907 overwhelming evidence? It’s obviously not. Water erosion is the only “evidence” he has that the pyramids/Sphinx are older than 4500 years old. Just saying that the Sphinx is an equinoctial marker over and over doesn’t make it so. He has stories, not evidence.
Ummm. No, he’s not. He makes a lot of sense until he doesn’t and goes All the way into pseudo science. Its kinda subtle and if your not paying attention he’ll fool you.
@@anmolsingh6607 someone like Zawi Hawass who is the face of mainstream Egyptology, who’s been known to steal Egyptian relics and sell them refuses to debate with Hancock, you don’t see something wrong in that?
Indeed, especially when there are three other non-specialist guys in the studio that disagree with the academic consensus. Shermer was really put in a horrible situation. Just imagine if the Paleontologist episode would have had two dinosaur deniers interrupting him all the time. We need an episode with an expert in ancient Egypt, who can just explain the historical context of these things without any cringe interruption by guys like Hancock, who lack the very basic conversational skills.
I actually though the geologist the "mainstream" side brought on was a FAR better personality for that. He corralled GH much better and had a more (appropriately) aggressive stance.
@@Usumgallu Schoch and Carlson build on hard sciences in geology and climate history compared to archeology and history... The ones who shouldnt be there are Shermer and Hancock, who mostly are there to defend different stances of postmodernity hypothesis. Shermer wants nothing to be older than the bible allows, while Hancock is exaggerating how advanced ancient cultures were.
@@KibyNykraft Schoch's hypothesis is not supported by a majority of other geologists and that's why it never became or will become mainstream There are several different well-documented processes that can cause the observed erosion. Schoch just cherry picks the one that supports his theory about the older origin. See papers by Punuru et al., 1990; Chowdhury et al., 1990; Guari et al., 1990; and Guari et al., 1995. I also recommend reading Jörn Christiansen's recent article on this topic. Schoch's evidence is far from being conclusive.
@@KibyNykraft I agree with you on Hancock's exaggerating. The thing I think he could be right about is timelines and that maybe there are certain things we have wrong. Like maybe its possible certain structures are older or that our timeline of history is off in some areas. His ideas of how advanced these ancient people were starts to get a little out there with little evidence tho.
Randall is so prepared for his piece, there is zero argument about what he says, no one interrupts him purely because he is so thoroughly prepared from every angle with stats, proof and logic.
@@laszlokiss483 can confirm graham said he does believe in telekinesis, however he didn’t try to make a point out of it and admitted it’s just his opinion
@@laszlokiss483 dude I found this in 3 seconds of looking. You want the truth it’s right in front of you. Just stop the denial.th-cam.com/users/shortsltF6stgrL7g?feature=share
Hell yeah, Hancock coming with specific measurements of these structures and star alignments from 2500 years ago. Come prepared if you don’t want him to make you look like an idiot!
I hate how he just states the Sphinx is an equinoxial marker and that’s the end of the discussion. All he says is “I stood on the back and it lines up with the sun” and then from there makes this the basis for the Sphinx being really old because the sign of Leo was in alignment 12k years ago. Any proof at all for that please? He just states things like they are self evident. He literally gives no other reason to believe the Sphinx is a equinox marker other than “oh it really is, no one would doubt that”. Plenty of people the can run rings around him do and trust me they actually have reasons and evidence.
@@AIenSmithee If you look into it you can see the evidence for it laid out, its pretty startling really. Try a documentary called 'Revelation of the pyramid' I can't say they're 'right' per se but they present alot of amazing facts.
@@AIenSmithee He mentioned the fact that the Sphinx lines up directly with the sun and the lion-shaped constellation on the summer equinox to within 3/100s of a degree?
"The globalists, Michael, are keeping it under wraps so the psychic vampires can do as they wish!" "I like you, Michael Shermer, but now I'm getting pissed!" :)
Really... shocked by the amount of people making this joke.. and even more shocked by the amount of people that think it’s gloriously hilarious. Thought I understood comedy and jokes. But no. See an old guy with a big white beard.. point your finger and shout Santa. I mean I would go with Old Man River but.. other than that. Can’t fault you for trying.
Alexander Marshall i think the joke is more of a comment on how if you are watching the full podcast that this is from you would know he is there, but if you are just watching this clip alone, you are watching a two person debate with JR commenting here and there, but then 7 minutes in this dude just shows up. calling him santa claus is simply a comedic way to show that it was a surprising moment.
@@gootswax I think the point he is trying to make is that man with the beard in Santa claus joke has been overused so many times that it's not funny anymore
Actually a really good point. Civilizations leave archeological evidence. We have plenty of archeological evidence from the paleolithic all over the world. Hunter-gatherers were using stone and bone tools. They had fire pits. They created art out of mammoth ivory and ochre. This evidence is perfectly well-documented on every continent on Earth besides antarctica. No evidence of "advanced sea-faring civilizations" analogous to "16th century Europe" as Hancock suggests in his book. You don't need an open mind to believe in the roman coliseum. It's just there, undeniably. If Hancock's claims were true, there'd be no denying it
Dillon Walker would that still be the case if they were 12k years old instead of 2k? Would it be the case if they had been eroded by glaciers and flooding? Not saying they absolutely exist by any means but I don’t feel comfortable saying they absolutely didn’t. When we are lucky to find fossils and evidence from less than 2k years ago imagine how scarce the evidence for something much older would be?
@@Hreodrich yes. it would. firstly they wouldn't be eroded by glaciers, as the glaciers of earth have been receding since 12k years ago, not advancing. Secondly, something could be underwater, yes, given that sea levels have risen... but it's unreasonable to claim an entire advanced civilization left absolutely no evidence further inland. Furthermore, underwater archaeology exists. They find ancient shipwrecks all the time. No Atlantis
@@Hreodrich evidence from the pleistocene is not scarce at all. People find arrowheads all the damn time, many of them that old. There's a museum right in my area with literally THOUSANDS of mammoth remains. I've seen their back rooms -- if they mounted all the skeletons, they'd have an enormous skeletal herd that would take up way too much space. Would not fit in the building. An advanced civilization with cities and sea-faring capabilities (two of Hancock's claims) would have left MORE behind, not less, than hunter-gatherers.
You mean an author with no background or idea what he is talking about? I bet you would be really worried if the engineer who designed a plane you are on did not study at Uni. There is a careful thought process in archeology and all the dude does in this episode is say we should not jump to conclusions while Joe and the brit fella cut him off to explain psuedoscience
@@justingraff5024 Check your claimed facts (Numb Scull). There is an ancient Chinese proverb that applies directly to you... "It is better to be thought ignorant (Brain Dead in your case), than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". In laymen terms, I'll dumb it down so you might comprehend (fingers crossed). "Don't speak unless you actually have a clue. So in your case, DON'T SPEAK. Just a friendly word of advice.
Anectodal nonsense. Let me see him write a legitimate scientific paper presenting his theories and go through expiremental validation and peer review and get published in a journal. Thats how real science works. Rest everything else is pseudoscience.
@@justingraff5024 okay come on now. Shermer did nothing but pull fallacies. And to be perfectly honest I trust the guy who's devoted his life's work to proving something over the guy who actually had to do a live retraction during this show because his magazine was wrong in its reporting.
@@Le-rh1fi speaks down to man insulting his intelligence in childlike fashion, misspelled the simplest word in the English language, also in childlike fashion, fan of Bro Rogan, proceeds to argue in a youtube comments section... yup it all checks out..💩
@@Iarlen to be fair compare the number of bridges a year constructed by the developed world at that time vs the current developed world. we have substituted quality for quantity.
@@alekseydrotenko3289 compare the earth's population. No excuse. We live in a throw away time. The only reason the discussion is happening, is that these things were made of stone.
@@Iarlen because only the good quality Roman structures survived, the basic cheaply made ones have all gone. In 2000 years ppl will look at our best surviving structures and think the same…
Did the Ancient Egyptians describe the constellations in terms of lions and bulls? How do we know this civilization that predates the Ancient Egyptians looked at groups of stars and believed them to look like the same animals that Hesiod describes?
@@HladniSjeverniVjetar Our zodiac comes to us from the romans, which got it from the greeks, who got it from the ancient babylonians. Egypt got the zodiac from the greeks in the Ptolemaic period, which was the period just after the death of Alexander the great. There is no evidence that the ancient egyptians viewed the constellations the same way as us. Graham Hancock would probably speculate that the babylonians got the zodiac from his lost civilization.
@@WildBCFly Understandable but is a lost civilization who left no trace that insane. Think of modern structures in 10,000 years none of them will be around no trace. The only thing that will survive that long is plastic or things that get buried maybe certain nuclear isotopes left from nuclear plants and labs.
If sand covered THAT much of the Sphinx in the first place just imagine what we have no freaking clue of just because it’s covered by some sand. I’m willing to bet there’s a lot to be uncovered, but I’m sure nobody disagrees with that.
It wa since covered by a lot more sand, which came from the thousands of miles of sands and desert that reachers west to the Atlantic and east to the Persian Gulf. That is now know to have been much like East Africa. Great changes did occur before the Egypt of the Old Testament came into being.
@@TangoNevada what do u mean? graham is very well prepared for arguments and he has a very logical aspect to it, and real life experience as he said with his son, that got his career harder for not going with the dogma, are u even listening to the podcast or just trashing on yt comments?
@@4everpku Both really. Just do a search and watch a few videos of actual archeologist debunking his theory and you won't be as amazed. He loves to make a lot of statements that aren't true about the scientific community and bases many theories on them. But he is starting with a false premise. Like him saying "All archeologists agree on certain time lines, or refuse to admit their are other explanations, or they deny facts that are right in front of them" That's all bullshit, that's just the stuff that sounds good and makes people think there is some conspiracy that the elites' are involved in. Which is fun right? But look up Debunking Graham Hancock and Ancient Apocalypse and you will find many capable, people explaining all the massive gaps in his theories that will never show up on Joe Rogan.
Jeeeeesus! This establishment guy, he is seriously unbelievable! Excluding Zahi Hawass, he is literally the single most closed-minded person I've ever heard as it pertains to this topic, with an excuse for and/or denial of *everything* Mr. Hancock says. Unreal.
Why is Shermer debating this he already admitted he is not an expert on the topic (in the slightest). He's just cheerleading for the accepted theories.
lmao, *there are no experts present* Including Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock. If Joe had brought on an actual archaeologist, we'd hear better points against Hancock
Except that no legitimate scholarly sources are debating this ridiculous claim as there is next to no evidence for it. Secondly actual archaeologists don’t generally spend their time debating such issues on a YT channel just as Geographers don’t spend much time debating flat earth theory.
Absolutely love Randall and graham on the show would love to see more of them . I could listen to them all day. These guys have changed my view on the passed and I do believe we don’t get the full story from mainstream studies. I loved this podcast 🙌
I know that Joe has become a “political figure” but I honestly think that’s by accident. He’s the only guy who ever gave these types of guys a podium. This stuff is honestly fascinating. Praying he gets back to “weird” science in the near future
Shermer is TFG, so close-minded and doesn't even have the intellectual curiosity to even visit these sights. He is a professional skeptic, that's all. Graham's arguments combined with Carlson's data are rock-solid and younger Dryas megafauna extinction could have never happened with "over-hunting" xD. Believe
What I think should also be pointed out here, is that there are megalithic structures on the Giza site which are among the oldest in Egypt, in which the construction and use of huge stone blocks are repeated in similar structures elsewhere in Egypt. These structures are undoubtedly some of the oldest stone architectures in Africa, are old-Kingdom structures, and are therefore according to archaeological theory, older than the pyramids themselves. And yet, they are built with stone blocks the size and weight of which would pose enormous logistical problems to move around with the same precision even today. So it's not a far cry to consider that vastly ancient cultures would be capable of what to us seem utterly astonishing feats of constructional engineering, and huge artwork or sculptures dedicated to something or someone.
The Romans literally moved 40+ ton obelisks to Rome when they ruled over Egypt and they did that without advanced technology. If they can do it for hundreds of miles, why can't Egyptians?
@@OmegaF77 Romans did in fact start using iron tools and their vessels were much more advanced compared to really shit boats of egyptians. That said, there is a difference of transporting single obelisk over mostly flat ground and hauling blocks of granite, hundred of tons for 500 miles, over desert and then, lifting it to 50 feet and aligning it perfectly. Crypt inside the pyramids are exactly that.
I think the Sphinx was originally a Lion, was covered with sand except the highest point, the head. Sand erosion wore the lion head down, then later on was uncovered and recarved into the Pharaoh’s head. Just look at the scale of the head compared to the body, then would never have screwed up the scale unless they didn’t have the material to carve the new head, they were super precise with all of their carvings.
I’m more of Randell fan. Every time I hear Graham I think he’s selling his book. He finds things no one can explain perfectly and puts a spin on it for an audience. Not saying he’s wrong on everything but I think he is in media I’m always suspicious of their motives. It’s usually not facts it’s money……
The quality in communication and open mindset and willing to understand instead of being right is maybe gonna be a bigger challenge than finding useful evidence.
Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson are so incredibly articulate. Their clarity of thought and vast spance of knowledge continue to amaze me. They both have no doubts spent countless hours in their study going over all the data before they speak. Which is more than what I can say about some other participants in this debate...ahem ahem. And I dont mean Joe Rogan by that, he's doing his job really well as a moderator .
The idea is worth exploring. That said, that one guy never finished a sentence without being interrupted. while I believe he is too dismissive, he should be allowed to talk.
streaklines Watch the episode. It’s painful. He doesn’t have a clue. How can he defend the water erosion theory without having ever been there. You can’t work from photographs and the mainstream academics theories... cos they are still fairly clueless as to lots of Egypt’s Mysteries. The water erosion theory is a young theory. This guy is clued up on old theories. I feel sorry for him in this episode as he is as out of his depth as one can be. The “expert” he pulls up at one point aswell :) Seriously that should tell you everything you need to know about this guys perception of reality. Fuck I forgot how odd a guy he is.. gotta go find it. He’s that bad it wouldn’t surprise me if Hancock revealed him to be a plant... cos as someone coming into this with my ears wide open... he does nothing for the defence.
I have no idea who these guys are... but yeah the one dude not being able to finish a sentence without being interrupted was freaking annoying. And Glasses man kinda seems like an ass, and it does seem like he's reaching..he wants to throw out EVERYONE elses work, based on a few erosion lines in the Sphinx.. seems like he's reaching. "oh but I've climbed in 5 times"...who cares?
@@lassesandagerhansen2244 that's what is wonderful about science, you dont need to have knowledge of a subject to point out the fallacies. His point stood, all of the other Egyptian experts know everything this guy is saying, and they believe he is wrong.
Graham Hancock is a beast. We need people in the academic world that are not chained to one avenue of thinking. Egyptology, Archeology, Sociology, or Geology. We need people who take the work of those people and make an educated guess. When you let historians and scholars come up with all the thought processes, you are cutting out some of the most obvious answers... like pragmatism. Example... The Theologist says, "Look they built this hole in the rock to cast down sacrifices to their gods" the Geologist says "No that probably occurred naturally through rain water" The Egyptologist says "No that was built by Lord Khufu because he wrote his name on it right there" and finally the pragmatist says "I dont know about ya'll but this is a perfect place to take a shit" And then they all realized they were at an ancient outhouse. We need pragmatists my friends. Realists. People outside of the normal thought process.
As someone who works in academia, trust me when I say that anybody who thinks academia won't do anything to "protect their fold" knows absolutely nothing about the politics of academia.
@@professorlabs And if archeology and our known history is in fact handled in such a controlled fashion, it's not that much of a leap to see it in other, more impactful fields of science.
@@kingdomcome1617 Checks out. Certainly and sadly one of the many major factors why people see less and less value in academic institutions and college degrees.
Pretty much a debate that 2 super advanced college professors had that typically only a few people get to see. But now we're all seeing it. Blows my mind to see men like these debating.
Hancock: 'I assume you've been to the Step Pyramid?' Schermer: 'No' Hancock: 'Right, have you been to Giza?' Schemer: 'No I haven't' Hancock: 'Oh dear'
Michael Shermer really shouldn't have been on here, they needed another genuine traditional archaeologist to debate these guys and sometimes he was out of his depth even if he had good points to make.
That's the problem, they had NO archaeologists. NONE. Hancock is so fucking easy to debunk that it's borderline silly. Joe stills claims he's not a conspiracy guy but still allows there clowns to say anything they want unchecked. The last time I watched Rogan was a Hancock talk and couldn't get through it. The day before he questioned everything, as soon as Hancock got on he let him steamroll through everything.
Definitely. Hancock makes mountains out of molehills. He “proposes” things and scientists tell him, “there is no evidence for this and we can’t fund an excavation based on your hunch.” Then he turns around and says “SCIENTISTS ARE DENYING THE TRUTH” and writes books and books on his hunches. They’re awesome, interesting books which is why Joe likes them but they’re totally unsubstantiated. Schermer isn’t an Archeologist either, he’s just saying “no evidence for that.” Would’ve loved to see a top shelf Egyptologist in that room.
@@Atom.Storm. could u point to places/ sources that critique Hancock... not an insider to the field... cant tell how authentic or conspiratorial he is in actuality
there are so many star signs, if you search long enough, youll find some form that aligns to something within a certain degree its basically the texan sharpshooter, who shoots first and then draws the target around the bullet holes
I'm listening to fingerprints of the gods rn and I'm kinda realizing this as well he keeps mentioning the position of structures compared to the stars and of course there gonna be facing a certain constellation or star there fucking everywhere
I think the survivors buried the site because they felt to preserve it due to all the natural disasters. Perhaps it was a pilgrimage where they carried stones from home, burying and preserving something they revered. (Perchance this is why no ancient trash is buried there!)
@@MrB1923 He might be out on a limb with the sphynx in some ways but it's easy to see that so are the egyptologists. There's good arguments on both sides, zero conclusive evidence.
While Shermer is getting a lot of hate in the comments, he's doing a very good job of doubting everything that is said, and it's very important too. Questionning and looking for more evidences is what makes us advance.
That's exactly the opposite of what he's doing here. He's arguing *against* the questioning of the consensus theory, and denying the recognition of new evidence simply because the consensus theory can't offer an explanation for the new evidence.
I rewatch this now and im sitting back at each comeback like dam!! n it just makes you think we might not go far in this age if we kant even have a real genuine whatever you wanna call it argument!! N me being born in this time always thinking this sometimes sucks so let’s try as much as we kan still!! Love to always come back to these gems
Exactly I’m glad you guys can see what I’m talking about I was typing so fast it might not make to much sense but there was also a typo 😂 those type of people will never understand what we mean because there so worried about how I said it or a typo but y’all are dope appreciate you guys 🤘🏾🔥🔥
there is one egyptologist, and amateure at that that did go out against the main stream and was taken very seriously, her name is Cathrine Martinez, and her discoveries have already rewritten parts of Egyptian history.
Perhaps those missing 6,000 years were lost to some kind of great rainfall period, or other major weather/famine event? Some have suggested a period of coronal mass ejecta during this interregnum.
Assuming the power of water erosion we see from the Sphinx, simpler structures would be dust and crumble from the time. At least the sediment blue shirt suggests would have the simpler structures not of stone be buried in sand, silt, and in the riverbed/Mediterranean.
2,000 years ago Italians, the Romans, went to Britain and built two-story homes with underfloor heating. Then people started living in huts, snacks and caves again. It would be another 2000 years, very recently, before people would build two-story homes with underfloor heating.
Anybody else notice that all of Shermer's arguments are entirely social - based on some vague legacy of Egyptology, and Hancock's are based on physical evidence on the plateau? Remind me who the quack is?
Also, Sherm's never acknowledges the HUGE assumptions in Victorian Egyptology. EX: the sphinx is next to the pyramids so it must have been built at the same time. That assumption doesn't stand up to even the slightest skeptical approach.
Right, but one is just a couple of people in a cave bored one night and the other is sustained and organized activity involving thousands of people and probably an economy around them to support it. AKA Civilization. Also, I'd just like to point out that GH never said that GT is evidence of people more advanced than what the evidence shows, he is saying that GT required a civilization more advanced than previously thought to exist at that time. Two very different thing.
I don't think I misrepresented. Several times he said that GT isn't exceptional because we already have cave paintings. That implies that he thinks they are comparable. I said right, because you did quote him correctly, but the context of this discussion implies he thinks GT is not more compelling than cave paintings. The only person truly wedded to one fixed idea is Shermer. He never even admits (as you just did above) that GT might indicate an earlier civilization. That is dogmatic stubbornness not objective skepticism.
Further, you might rewatch this video or in fact the whole conversation with my first comment in mind. MS hardly introduces any evidence and fails to poke holes in the evidence of GH. His major thesis is that scientists have not accepted this or that theory therefore it's not scientific. Circular reasoning par excellence. With that, I'm out.
Why would someone pay him for his arguments? There is no harm in their being an ancient society. Graham just has an attitude that the more people attack him for his ideas, the more they must be true. You know who else does this? Alex Jones. Sometimes people attacking your ideas and calling them wrong is just because they are wrong and nothing else. That being said, I want to be in this Ancient Civilization, Atlantis etc. I always have. But I'm also very critical of these kinds of arguments. There is a lot of, just because we can't currently explain this or that, it must mean x, y or z. Who knows, it could mean something neither side has considered yet. But in general, if 99% of experts agree on something, those are the ones I am going with. If I need brain surgery and 99% of Doctors agree with how it should be done, I'm not going with anyone from the 1% that thinks it should be done differently.
This is not difficult to explain. The Sphinx was built before the cataclysm. After that happened the population was greatly diminished. Technology was lost. So when he asks about the time gap between of 5 - 6k years... well of course there was. Humans had to rebuild their population, culture. Their entire environment had changed and been destroyed. They very likely left and came back. Rediscovered the Sphinx and started building near it.
Shermer's argument was why do all the Egyptologists did not accept Hancock's theory that Sphinx was built way before the Great Pyramid. He implied that they have more credibility because they all sang the same tune. So there is no need to explain the 6000 to 7000 years of missing human history if you just buy into the mainstream narratives. He is so wrong ...
To me it seems as if Shermer wants to be a skeptic for the sake of being a skeptic. I mean, what are his core beliefs? why is he providing arguments when his expertise isn't even in ancient egypt.
To prevent bias his arguments should also be considered. I'm not saying he is correct or whatever but there always has to be a devil's advocate to have fair debate
@@SpokoR3 Shermer's schtick annoys me at times, but I think you're absolutely correct. Plus, he isn't making any arguments that Hancock isn't going to have to address at some point from dozens of other people.
I thought the theory that the sphinx was in-fact a water reservoir for the Egypt plaza was incredibly compelling? It makes sense, the architecture matches that theory and all the tubes and pipes that run from the sphinx to the pyramid match that too
Awesome discussion. I simply wonder if Graham Hancock, when using the alignment of the Sfinx to the specific constellations and sunrise as an argument, takes into account the precession of the Earth's axis. The tilt of Earth's axis "rotates" with a period of around 25,000 years, and that means that the suggested 12,000 years ago, a half of the precession period, the planet's axis would be pointed into a different direction, which would obviously distort all the alignments.
Or that their deity for the horizon was aker, depicted as a twin lions. He was also the guardian of the underworld who welcomed pharaohs to the underworld. His statues were placed at the entrances of palaces and tombs as protection.
The problem with talking about the constellation of Leo is that at the time Hancock is talking about the astronomical zodiac had not yet been invented. They may have faced in east to west but naming a constellation Leo make little sense.
As an archeologist and a strong cynic, I have to admit that the opposition here was extremely feeble and that the hypothesis are sound enough to warrant some studies, the only problem is the point "20 theories on a side, a single anomaly on the other". It's an accademica risk to fall in, to warp facts to support theories
Given that breakthroughs like the airmapping of the Mayan civilization AND what lies beneath the ands of the Sahara, everyone should suspend their disbelief. There are more things under heavens and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Wisdom for the ages.
Graham was actually going well until that point right there. At that point he just came of like a child, and the fact this is how he carries on his discussions is supporting evidence as to his standing in his professional community.
@@fredsmith-kingofthelunatic7810 I get your point, but theres an old saying that goes “I can’t tell you how to fly a plane if I’ve never been in the cockpit” This guy is speaking from personal opinion with no experience of the thing he’s speaking of, just regurgitated information. What Graham said made perfect sense “Have you been there?” Then how the hell are you going to tell me what’s going on with them?
@@apollosankofa87 ok… you said he killed the man with 2 questions and only wrote 1 but whatever. How did this “kill” him? I don’t need to go to Egypt to know it wasn’t built by psychic shamans that can levitate Blocks with telekinesis. Sorry
16:40 As anyone who has read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" knows, that's actually a fair comparison. We can also make comparisons with Lavoisier and the discovery of oxidation. The mainstream is challenged. The challenger must overturn the mainstream. There is resistance, as the mainstream has the initial weight of evidence with them. But if the challenger presents a more coherent model with fewer anomalies, the mainstream is eventually overturned.
Golbeki Tepli is confirmed to be at least 11,000 years old and Michael himself says there’s no pottery of evidence of civilization and that “ I guess hunter/gatherers were capable of more than we thought.” Now his argument in regards to the sphinx being around the same age is that it’s not possible because there’s no evidence of civilization.
Very true, I do think joe can speak up a bit too much. Now since I’m on Graham’s side, and I think the other guy is being way too closed minded, not open to any speculation, I thought it was actually cool for joe to speak up and side with graham, kind of a cool moment you would never see happen in an actual debate, since the guy can’t give any evidence he only dismisses it all. But yea at the end of the day they should definitely let him speak more. Backing up your friend when he clearly is making good points is great, but to talk over the guy and never give him a chance to talk only gives him the chance to claim he didn’t get to bring up his counter arguments
I've been there. The Sphinx is tiny. It's about the size of a three story house. Its impressive but nothing compared to the Pyramids. Its entirely plausible it predates by the figure they are saying. A disappointing fun fact...it's also about 200 metres from a pizza hut.
Clearly you've never framed a house if 3 stories is "tiny" to you. How about you get up that latter and nail the plywood to the studs and we will see how "tiny" 3 stories is.
@@MrLukedanger 66 feet from base to top but it looks about 50 feet (a story is 15 feet). Honestly I've been there, it looks about 3 to 4 stories. Challenge to all of you, go to Egypt, travel to the edge of Cairo (have a pizza in the pizza hut across the road), and tell me that the Sphinx is impressive in size. It is not. The impression I always got from photos and descriptions in text book was it was pretty large . It isn't
Jesse Charity Maybe you should look a little into Michael Shermer before trying to analyze his arguments. He is the founder of the Skeptics Society. His default position is to question any idea that is presented without evidence. One of the biggest problems with what’s being discussed here is the combination of evidence (the rain erosion, the alignment with the equinox, the relation to the star signs), the casually assumed psychology of the people at the time (the ancient Egyptians would never make a lion if the star sign should be Taurus), and then the ultimate conclusion that therefore there must have been a lost civilization. Michael Shermer knows that the first of these three steps is entirely fair: we can’t explain something. But he rejects the conclusion, especially if it uses the psychological argument which is just completely made up (could be true, make no mistake! but no one alive today has ever spoken with an ancient Egyptian, so we can’t know their psyche). And that’s the only scientifically accepted approach. Anyone not taking that approach, does not understand, or ignores the core principles of science. And the reason this is important, is because this kind of reasoning allows for ridiculous biases, which we all know the human brain is all too happy to be comforted with - religion being exhibit A. Just to be clear as to why I use the word “idea” instead of “hypothesis” or “theory”: a hypothesis is a scientifically testable idea, and most of what’s being presented here is not testable. A theory explains the “why” of a whole range of scientific facts (why does the earth revolve around the sun - this is explained by gravity, general relativity, etc.), but is, like a scientific law, a scientific fact. So those words don’t apply here.
@@KryzMasta how are we casually assuming the psychology of one ancient people and their astronomy/astrology when every civilization was obsessed with the stars and their movement. Maybe the average egyptian didn't care about religion as it was just a means for the ruling class to control people(no poor people were buried with the book of the dead), but for damn sure that religion is going to be reflected in their buildings and monuments. There doesn't necessarily have to have been a 'lost civilization' but there've definitely been collapses other than the bronze age collapse which explains the decline from the giza pyramids to the lesser ones built after(graham mentions this and Schermer just writes him off).
This guy is a bad skeptic, but there are some valid criticisms of the erosion hypothesis that I'm currently trying to check out : 1. There's no way to determine that the Sphinx is intended to be a representation of the zodiac sign of Leo. Nor is there any evidence to support the idea that the Egyptians even recognized Leo as a constellation, nor the zodiac sysmbols themselves at the time. The first recorded evidence we have of Zodiac signs being used come from ancient Babylon, between 1000-2000BC. There are sources saying this is an extension or an oral tradition of an astronomical method of determining 'omens', and some folks will extrapolate that this means an orally passed down method of astrology from say the Sumerians (and ultimately they got it from some other earlier source to accomodate the ~10,000BC timeline), but there's no way to prove it's originally from the Sumerians, nor give any details on what those methods would be describing. Then, you'd have to make the assumption that the Egyptian astrology is based around the same system, and there's no evidence for that either. The zodiac in Egypt as we know it, was introduced by the Greeks during the Ptolemaic dynasty after the time of Alexander the Great. 2. Randall Carlson's claim that these floods would have wiped out, or seriously disrupted the settlements of the Nile during those late quaternery floods seems to neglect the conditions in the area BEFORE the flood. If the Nile were a river which dried up for parts of the year, and or had inconsistent flow paths, then living settled lifestyles in that region becomes much more difficult. Why build a permenant structure on the banks of a river when the next year the river could shift course and wipe it all away? Or why even make an attempt at agriculture if you're not sure the river is gonna water your crops to harvest? Remember, the claim being made here is that the major changes which brought the consistent water flow of the Nile caused the 'gap' in evidence of the people who built the Sphinx, not brought them stable water supply allowing larger populations and thus making the construction of the monuments possible. Sure, there might be evidence that a Younger Dryas catastrophe caused a massive release of freshwater down the Nile and into the Mediterranean, but it fails to explain how populations large enough and organized enough would have been able to sustain themselves in the period leading up to it. 3. If you're ONLY trying to redate the Sphinx (big IF I guess), there's a layout problem at Giza. The Sphinx Temple, as well as the Valley Temple to the east of the Sphinx itself were created from stones removed from the Sphinx enclosure (remember, the Sphinx is below the natural level of the ground). This would indicate they were built around the same time. The causeway, which links the valley temple to Khafre's pyramid, is at an odd angle, seemingly to bend around the sphinx. The Sphinx southern wall, also has this same odd angle, making it run parallel to the causeway. It would be an odd choice to build the southern wall of the enclosure at that angle when the rest of the site would appear to be rectangular. If the southern wall was a later excavation of the enclosure at the time of Khafre, then it should not have the erosion patterns we see on it. So, for point #3, if this is all to work out, you need the Pyramid of Khafre to also be 10,500 years old too. And that's a burden of proof Hancock cannot address. I'm not arguing that mainstream Egyptologists don't face similar holes in their theories of the how's and why's of Giza, but Hancock & crew have their problems too. -------- Another criticism I'm still looking at here : --------- Water erosion by precipitation is not the only explanation for the patterns of degradation on the Sphinx wall. It could have been groundwater or atomspheric water being pulled through the porous rock, dissolving some of it away over thousands of years. This one seems weaker to me. The first and most obvious questions I'd ask would be: Does groundwater leave vertical fissures in the rock? Would atmospheric erosion happen at a fast enough rate?
I agree with everything you said. The haloclasty explanation is far from perfect. But there are other explanations for the weathering, which range from simple wind/sand erosion to simply a result of the method the ancient Egyptians used to quarry the stone. The most compelling evidence is actually the lack thereof. I agree that the skeptic guy argued badly, but the fact that not even a single fragment of pottery (or literally anything "advanced" civilizations make) can be found in or before that gap is pretty bad for the hypothesis. As soon as we find a way to explain the weathering, you can pretty much throw this hypothesis in the garbage.
he is not a skeptic. he is a denier of alternative ideas no matter how valid they seem to be. There is a lot of money perching for the choir regardless of witch side you are on. And a lot of people feel comfort in someone that crusade for the mainstream. Does not mean mainstream is bad but it does not help progressive thought process either.
I think the fact that the sphinx was chosen to be the equinoxial marker rather than a bull of some kind is not necessarily purely due to the constellation of taurus or leo. That line of thinking fully ignores the symbolic significance of a sphinx in Egyptian culture which, as I understand it, was that of a protector. To imply that the shape of a lion was chosen purely based on the constellations seems a bit disingenuous as it fully ignores the cultural importance of a sphinx
Wasn't the Sahara Desert a lake at one point in time? It's entirely possible that this lake overflowed its banks due to constant rainfall and created the watermarks that we see on the Sphynx.
That's the problem with egyptologists. They're all in denile.
They're all senile*
The nile
@@louissidebottom1635 unless I'm mistaken you completely missed the joke
Hehe
Too subtle for most.
I love that JRE has become a public forum for these kinds of debates that would normally never ever happen
Funkyboodah so true well said buddy
@D.T. Baker True, but he also was bringing subjects somewhat into the "mainstream" that people weren't discussing in traditional media.
...would normally never ever happen because they’re crazy unscientific dreamers. The world’s archeologists vs. two guys without degrees?
Art Bell did it first... just saying😒
...that would normally never ever *be broadcast on mainstream media*
"I've stood at the back of the Sphynx at Dawn on the Spring Equinox" is a hell of a line tho 😂
Later in the pod cast Graham says to Michael "I take it you've actually been to the pyramids right."
Michael responds "no I haven't been there"
Graham replies with simply
"Oh dear"
I've had a Thai transsexual stood on my back winter 2013. I don't like to brag.
@@kyleharris5462 It's not clear to me why people 12000 would necessarily have recognized what we call "Leo" constellation as being a lion. For example, what we call Scorpio (scorpion) is "Maui's fishhook" in Hawaiian tradition.
@@saguaroh9407 that is an excellent point. Maybe the Egyptians also referred to it as a lion somewhere else.
@@austinkooienga7589 and maybe WE call it leo after people who called it that 🤔
It's funny how Joe, Graham, and Michael constantly interrupt each other, but no one ever interrupts Randall Carson.
That voice is too masculine. He would've been an emperor in ancient times
cause hes been initiated... don't fuck with those initiated in the mystery schools
Because he doesn’t sound like a whiney angsty stoner charlatan book salesman like Hancock. He sounds like a scientist.
@@AIenSmithee The only angry charlatan here is you. Can you give us an example of Hancock being dishonest?
@@CristiNeagu yes plenty. I will post them shortly. I hope you will read it.
Hidden bearded man breaks up the fight
Prefer Egyptologist beard man to ufo beard man
Every bearded man needs to start shaving, just so there's no chance they get even remotely mixed up with "bearded guy"!
Out of nowhere😂
Her with her friends: He's probably cheating on me 😭
Him with the Bois:
LMAOOO this is golden!!!😂😂😭
I need friends that know just a little bit more about shit like this so the post-blunt conversations were even better lmao
Deadass that's how it is 🤣🤣
@@apollo1573 I feel you, wish I could talk about this shit extensively with friends lol
@@ZT_Performance I recommend dropping a tab or some shrooms. Hit em with shit like this and it’s a good convo 100% if the time 90% of the time lmao
So his argument is "I don't know any of the evidence, but the other people do and they disagree with you."
Sad little man
Yeaaaah pretty much. The full podcast is just three hours of information overload and Shermer desperately trying to seem valid or correct. He was in a room full of people who didn't agree, but he's also such a dismissive asshat through the entire thing I don't think he ever was even invited back despite being a regular guest beforehand
Great argument. What a complete a$$hole.
Yep, imagine making that your career
@@livingghost683 that's "professional" skeptics for you.
"Well, so?" "Well, maybe?" Typical of the mainstream archaeological community. I wish Joe had brought on an actual Egyptologist or Archaeologist to have this debate. This guy is just a professional skeptic.
The problem is No egyptologist would debate IT
You’re exactly right. Shermer was not qualified for this. Whether he is debating religion or pyramids, he isn’t particularly qualified other than being a skeptic for a living who bows at the altar of consensus.
Flint Dibble who is an archaeologist just destroyed Hancock on Joe Rogan
@@theadventuresofsteve-marco6837 Destroyed? Not remotely.
“Well you’ve been to Giza?”
“No”
“Ooo dear”
Attention to Detail the best part of the video is that exchange! 😂
Attention to Detail Logical fallacies can be smelled from continents away, apparently. :D
It was that interaction that immediately made me doubt Hancock. Looked into him further, he's a charlatan, looking to get rich of people's love of conspiracy.
@@rumayar5 Shermer was the one that didn't go.......
@@AN-wd5nu Yeah I know, Hancock made a cheap shot that wasn't pertinent to the debate. Shermer openly stated he's not an expert on ancient Egypt, he's merely providing a critical thinking mindset to Hancock's claims, and Hancock became childish.
Joe really wants this lost civilization to exist. So do I, to be honest.
it did exist. it's Atlantis. other civilizations existed as well. the other ones look more like what people see as advanced because they were sci Fi looking
Free Alba could you prove to a blind man that the sky is blue?
it's basicly all about acknowledgement that humon history goes back further then is accepted. (I do also want ancient civilization to be true :P)
***** telling is not proving. A blind man doesn't even know what blue is. You are also so blinded by your beliefs that no matter how much proof exists, you cannot comprehend it.
You are a little too excited my man. You belive they exist , great. But yes, prove it. Just like we had to prove everything else based on knowledge. There is one thing Hancock said in this that stuck out for me '' After reviewing all the date, this was the SIMPLEST solution to answer everything''... Now, You can look throughout history and see how many times the simplest answer to any problem was the right one. It's not so many.
And before you throw a rage tantrum at me. I am of the opinion that the Egyptians had prior knowledge before their civilization. I too, theorize that they had known of a group of people who's 'civilization' fell. Now, it wasn't from Hancock's 'evidence'. This is my first in debt look at this with him. And I hadn't heard of 'gobekli tepe' before this. Or the evidence of the sphinx. Now this does seem to indicate some favor of our separate theories (Hancock and my own). BUT... as a person researching this myself. There is still no evidence for past civilizations passing down information. I actually do not understand why he states that, it seems very biizarre and illogical to me. The answer is in the find.
We didn't say ''The Egyptians were passed on knowledge from a secret society to build teh pyramids''. Well, some did/do. Ancient alien theorists ( lol ). We acknowledged that we underestimate ourselves throughout history all the time. The Egyptians overcame tremendous obstacles and challenges to do what they did. And so too have the peoples of gobekli tepe. How? Why? we do not know.
To state we know when we don't is misguiding and to be aggressive when somebody disagrees with you is silly. If you are actually wanting to know the truth you would not be so emotional when somebody disagrees with your theory. You would want to know why they do not, what information is wrong here. And then both parties would discuss, solve, evolve. This is how science works... how we evolve.
We all want to belive this, who wouldn't? But we must prove it. And if teh evidence suggest that it's not the case, then we must accept that and follow the evidence. And most importantly, work together!
13:03 has me pissing myself laughing 😂
Graham: “You’ve been to the step pyramid, I’m sure.”
Michael: “No, no, no.”
Graham: “Right. …and you’ve been to Giza, though?”
Michael: “No, I never have.”
Graham: “Oh, dear.” 🧐
A very British response from Graham. Had he been American, he wouldn't have been as kind.
@rosettenrudi It does, because you have a better understanding of what you're dealing with. It's easy to imagine workers dragging blocks up the side of the pyramids if you have no idea just how big those blocks are, and just how high they need to be lifted.
He consistently responds with “yeah idk this isn’t my field of study.” In an argument against Graham Hancock about why Hancock is wrong lmao
@@rosettenrudi91lol. One of the stupidest comments ever. We are debating evidence. Surely seeing it with your own eyes is important.
@@rosettenrudi91 Shells like you, burn forever. Get a real job, loser.
13:00
Graham: "You've been to the Step Pyramid I'm sure."
Michael: "No, no no."
Graham: "...right. You've been to Giza though?"
Michael: "No, I've never been to Giza."
Graham: "Oh dear."
lmao
Except that there are hundreds of actual scholars who have spent far more time there than GH and none supports GH nonsense claims. Remember GH has absolutely no training in ANY related scholarly field.
S G
Do you have any background in any related scholarly field? Any at all? GH is not a trained researcher in any related field of study. Do you see just anyone when you need medical advice or do you seek out a medical professional? Do you use treatments that no reputable medical body endorses or do you look to make sure that it’s a treatment that’s been tested and approved.
Lastly GH can spend years in Egypt but if he cannot provide evidence for his nonsense claims then they remain nonsense. He has been advocating crazy ideas for some 50 years and still no evidence to support it. This is why credentials matter because without them you are like the guy who cannot count telling the world he believes in a new math. You simply don’t know what you don’t know. It’s why education matters.
S G
Yes my MA is in Anthropology and my Doctorate is in Political Science with a focus on epistemology and educational policy. In short I’ve spent years studying how information is utilized by institutions and platforms. This is why we teach epistemology to college freshman. Now tell me about your credentials. My can be confirmed by calling the University of Chicago which is BTW the single most important university in terms of The Study of Ancient Civilization.
@@miketheman4341 you just got schooled on a TH-cam comment section lolol mr degree.
@@Runescape99
Sorry but I don’t understand the termed “ schooled” as I hold 2 advanced degrees. Remember this lesson in epistemology. Learn to cite your claims!
The Sphinx isn't just ancient, it was ancient in the ancient times.
Yes. Time is linear.
Super old
yep... it was covered in sand and discovered by a Pharaoh.
@@flinx649 If it was only discovered by a Pharaoh, then way is it wearing an Egyptian headdress?
@@OmegaF77 It has been remodeled several time.... we don't know what the original head looked like.
Randall came in straight up "Ahktually" and proceeded to make Shermer look stupid
Graham: makes valid point
Shermer: “So??”
@Triff no he represents the mainstream perfectly. Too stubborn to accept the current narrative is false.
@@arturravenbite1693 You are 100% correct
Graham has no points, only unsupported suppositions
@@robotclark neither does Shermer
@@robotclark well GH has gone and tried to debate Egyptologist’s and they refuse to debate him because he’s challenging the mainstream ideology.
Graham constructs his sentences very carefully.
That’s the point, he’s cherry picking facts to fit his story
I meant on an individual level.
@@TH-camdoesntneedhandles give me some counter points
@@TH-camdoesntneedhandles paint the full picture then. What did he leave out that would change the way the story is frames
well he is a writer
"You've been to Giza though, right? ".......no" "oh dear..." 😭😭😭😭😭 Hancock is a savage
@Emilio Alvarez you’re full of shit, fucker
@Emilio Alvarez what he do
@@yourfriendlyintergalactica2452 you are not so friendly after all
@Emilio Alvarez found shermers dummy account
Which has nothing to do with his assertions and is purely to belittle, something that he whines about when it happens to him.
Agree with him or not, Hancock speaks compellingly.
And dogmatically. HIS dogma ... (and mostly, I'm in his camp!)
@@johnhough4445 and he always goes back to "we can't fight mainstream" when he gets cornered.
no he doesn't! Maybe for you who just realized what a book was only two days ago
@@Vaidulis Apologies for my ignorance ... examples please?
@@johnhough4445 you haven’t notice ? His documentary on netflix is all the evidence needed. Notice through out each episode he always end it with ideas what it would have been with zero evidence
Shermer does his best, but next time get a qualified specialist in ancient Egypt to debate Hancock and Carlson.
Yes I would really love to see that, Shermer was useless
It doesn’t matter if you know nothing about Egypt. If you anything about science you know that Hancock is a dick who gets offended when you point out he is saying garbage.
@@AIenSmithee i would be pretty pissed too if I had overwhelming evidence of something and people just called me a nutjob.
@@dipdip907 overwhelming evidence? It’s obviously not. Water erosion is the only “evidence” he has that the pyramids/Sphinx are older than 4500 years old. Just saying that the Sphinx is an equinoctial marker over and over doesn’t make it so. He has stories, not evidence.
@@AIenSmithee the fact you think that's the only evidence he has, shows how uneducated you are about that man's research
Graham is a fuckin G.
Ummm. No, he’s not. He makes a lot of sense until he doesn’t and goes
All the way into pseudo science. Its kinda subtle and if your not paying attention he’ll fool you.
@@anmolsingh6607 lol ok
@@anmolsingh6607 he's still right *was right. Facts
@@anmolsingh6607 someone like Zawi Hawass who is the face of mainstream Egyptology, who’s been known to steal Egyptian relics and sell them refuses to debate with Hancock, you don’t see something wrong in that?
@@MARKEDONE47_ ohhh! i see, a degenerate thief, of your own declaration, refuses to debate him so he must be right? hmmm, do i detect a logic flaw?
I don’t feel like Mike Shermer is the guy to defend all of this.
Indeed, especially when there are three other non-specialist guys in the studio that disagree with the academic consensus. Shermer was really put in a horrible situation. Just imagine if the Paleontologist episode would have had two dinosaur deniers interrupting him all the time. We need an episode with an expert in ancient Egypt, who can just explain the historical context of these things without any cringe interruption by guys like Hancock, who lack the very basic conversational skills.
I actually though the geologist the "mainstream" side brought on was a FAR better personality for that. He corralled GH much better and had a more (appropriately) aggressive stance.
@@Usumgallu Schoch and Carlson build on hard sciences in geology and climate history compared to archeology and history... The ones who shouldnt be there are Shermer and Hancock, who mostly are there to defend different stances of postmodernity hypothesis. Shermer wants nothing to be older than the bible allows, while Hancock is exaggerating how advanced ancient cultures were.
@@KibyNykraft Schoch's hypothesis is not supported by a majority of other geologists and that's why it never became or will become mainstream There are several different well-documented processes that can cause the observed erosion. Schoch just cherry picks the one that supports his theory about the older origin. See papers by Punuru et al., 1990; Chowdhury et al., 1990; Guari et al., 1990; and Guari et al., 1995. I also recommend reading Jörn Christiansen's recent article on this topic. Schoch's evidence is far from being conclusive.
@@KibyNykraft I agree with you on Hancock's exaggerating. The thing I think he could be right about is timelines and that maybe there are certain things we have wrong. Like maybe its possible certain structures are older or that our timeline of history is off in some areas. His ideas of how advanced these ancient people were starts to get a little out there with little evidence tho.
Randall is so prepared for his piece, there is zero argument about what he says, no one interrupts him purely because he is so thoroughly prepared from every angle with stats, proof and logic.
Sure but i also did hear him say that psychedelic shamans might have lifted blocks with telekinesis (something Hancock actually said). 🤣😂
@@AIenSmithee Nobody has ever said telekinesis its always been framed as a lost technology this is a bad faith description and you know it.
@@laszlokiss483 can confirm graham said he does believe in telekinesis, however he didn’t try to make a point out of it and admitted it’s just his opinion
@@Gumston verbatim quote ? Again its always been "lost tech" not actual magic lol.
@@laszlokiss483 dude I found this in 3 seconds of looking. You want the truth it’s right in front of you. Just stop the denial.th-cam.com/users/shortsltF6stgrL7g?feature=share
Hell yeah, Hancock coming with specific measurements of these structures and star alignments from 2500 years ago. Come prepared if you don’t want him to make you look like an idiot!
You don't have to reject his trivia knowledge to question his massive speculations
I hate how he just states the Sphinx is an equinoxial marker and that’s the end of the discussion. All he says is “I stood on the back and it lines up with the sun” and then from there makes this the basis for the Sphinx being really old because the sign of Leo was in alignment 12k years ago. Any proof at all for that please? He just states things like they are self evident. He literally gives no other reason to believe the Sphinx is a equinox marker other than “oh it really is, no one would doubt that”. Plenty of people the can run rings around him do and trust me they actually have reasons and evidence.
@@AIenSmithee If you look into it you can see the evidence for it laid out, its pretty startling really. Try a documentary called 'Revelation of the pyramid' I can't say they're 'right' per se but they present alot of amazing facts.
@@AIenSmithee He mentioned the fact that the Sphinx lines up directly with the sun and the lion-shaped constellation on the summer equinox to within 3/100s of a degree?
Sounds like evidence to me lol
IF only Eddie Bravo and Alex Jones where here and start fighting each other and alll the archaeologists XD
Royal Rumble!
"You think I'm scared! Go ahead choke me out!"
- "sir I'm simply asking for your evidence.."
"That's it I'm coming for you! And I'm animated!"
@@the_original_Bilb_Ono Awesome
"Choke me out, I want you to chocke me out"
"The globalists, Michael, are keeping it under wraps so the psychic vampires can do as they wish!" "I like you, Michael Shermer, but now I'm getting pissed!" :)
I'm just sitting here watching this and BOOM! Santa Claus shows up at 6:40.
Clint... Lol
Really... shocked by the amount of people making this joke.. and even more shocked by the amount of people that think it’s gloriously hilarious.
Thought I understood comedy and jokes. But no. See an old guy with a big white beard.. point your finger and shout Santa.
I mean I would go with Old Man River but.. other than that. Can’t fault you for trying.
Alexander Marshall comedy is subjective Murray
Alexander Marshall i think the joke is more of a comment on how if you are watching the full podcast that this is from you would know he is there, but if you are just watching this clip alone, you are watching a two person debate with JR commenting here and there, but then 7 minutes in this dude just shows up. calling him santa claus is simply a comedic way to show that it was a surprising moment.
@@gootswax I think the point he is trying to make is that man with the beard in Santa claus joke has been overused so many times that it's not funny anymore
Shermer seems like the type of person that'll argue whether it's sunny or not when there's no clouds in sight and you have sunglasses on.
Shermer is the type of guy who couldn't wait for his kids to talk so he could tell them Santa isn't real...
Michael "where's all the trash" Shermer.
"Well boys weve finished another project, you know the drill, drop your tools to never be seen again until a couple more thousand years"
Actually a really good point. Civilizations leave archeological evidence. We have plenty of archeological evidence from the paleolithic all over the world. Hunter-gatherers were using stone and bone tools. They had fire pits. They created art out of mammoth ivory and ochre. This evidence is perfectly well-documented on every continent on Earth besides antarctica.
No evidence of "advanced sea-faring civilizations" analogous to "16th century Europe" as Hancock suggests in his book.
You don't need an open mind to believe in the roman coliseum. It's just there, undeniably. If Hancock's claims were true, there'd be no denying it
Dillon Walker would that still be the case if they were 12k years old instead of 2k? Would it be the case if they had been eroded by glaciers and flooding? Not saying they absolutely exist by any means but I don’t feel comfortable saying they absolutely didn’t. When we are lucky to find fossils and evidence from less than 2k years ago imagine how scarce the evidence for something much older would be?
@@Hreodrich yes. it would. firstly they wouldn't be eroded by glaciers, as the glaciers of earth have been receding since 12k years ago, not advancing. Secondly, something could be underwater, yes, given that sea levels have risen... but it's unreasonable to claim an entire advanced civilization left absolutely no evidence further inland. Furthermore, underwater archaeology exists. They find ancient shipwrecks all the time. No Atlantis
@@Hreodrich evidence from the pleistocene is not scarce at all. People find arrowheads all the damn time, many of them that old. There's a museum right in my area with literally THOUSANDS of mammoth remains. I've seen their back rooms -- if they mounted all the skeletons, they'd have an enormous skeletal herd that would take up way too much space. Would not fit in the building. An advanced civilization with cities and sea-faring capabilities (two of Hancock's claims) would have left MORE behind, not less, than hunter-gatherers.
Randall Carlson should do audiobooks for Western novels
Nah he’s got too many mucus-related speech issues. It’d be an editing nightmare.
😂😂😂
When a guy whos been on the ground and seen it for his own eyes vs a guy who read it at uni.
You mean an author with no background or idea what he is talking about? I bet you would be really worried if the engineer who designed a plane you are on did not study at Uni. There is a careful thought process in archeology and all the dude does in this episode is say we should not jump to conclusions while Joe and the brit fella cut him off to explain psuedoscience
@@justingraff5024 Check your claimed facts (Numb Scull). There is an ancient Chinese proverb that applies directly to you... "It is better to be thought ignorant (Brain Dead in your case), than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". In laymen terms, I'll dumb it down so you might comprehend (fingers crossed). "Don't speak unless you actually have a clue. So in your case, DON'T SPEAK. Just a friendly word of advice.
Anectodal nonsense. Let me see him write a legitimate scientific paper presenting his theories and go through expiremental validation and peer review and get published in a journal. Thats how real science works. Rest everything else is pseudoscience.
@@justingraff5024 okay come on now. Shermer did nothing but pull fallacies. And to be perfectly honest I trust the guy who's devoted his life's work to proving something over the guy who actually had to do a live retraction during this show because his magazine was wrong in its reporting.
@@Le-rh1fi speaks down to man insulting his intelligence in childlike fashion, misspelled the simplest word in the English language, also in childlike fashion, fan of Bro Rogan, proceeds to argue in a youtube comments section... yup it all checks out..💩
"Things should get better and better."
*looks around at how quickly and cheaply made the buildings and bridges are today*
Bridges in Italy built 50 years ago falling apart as the roman briges in rome with modern traffic on it still survives.
Funny that...
@@Iarlen to be fair compare the number of bridges a year constructed by the developed world at that time vs the current developed world. we have substituted quality for quantity.
@@alekseydrotenko3289 compare the earth's population. No excuse. We live in a throw away time. The only reason the discussion is happening, is that these things were made of stone.
@@Iarlen because only the good quality Roman structures survived, the basic cheaply made ones have all gone.
In 2000 years ppl will look at our best surviving structures and think the same…
*"If you want to be a good archeologist, you gotta get out of the library!"* - Henry Jones Jr.
Fictional but kinda rings true.
That is one of the greatest quotes I've ever heard
Did the Ancient Egyptians describe the constellations in terms of lions and bulls? How do we know this civilization that predates the Ancient Egyptians looked at groups of stars and believed them to look like the same animals that Hesiod describes?
That's my thought too, I am definitively sure that most ancient civilizations view constellations differently.
Didn't we take those description from those times and what are using now is simply a continuation of the same.
@@HladniSjeverniVjetar Our zodiac comes to us from the romans, which got it from the greeks, who got it from the ancient babylonians. Egypt got the zodiac from the greeks in the Ptolemaic period, which was the period just after the death of Alexander the great. There is no evidence that the ancient egyptians viewed the constellations the same way as us. Graham Hancock would probably speculate that the babylonians got the zodiac from his lost civilization.
They could have been the inheritors of thought and idea as well as technology from a progenitor civilization, and merely adopted what they thought.
@@WildBCFly Understandable but is a lost civilization who left no trace that insane. Think of modern structures in 10,000 years none of them will be around no trace. The only thing that will survive that long is plastic or things that get buried maybe certain nuclear isotopes left from nuclear plants and labs.
If sand covered THAT much of the Sphinx in the first place just imagine what we have no freaking clue of just because it’s covered by some sand. I’m willing to bet there’s a lot to be uncovered, but I’m sure nobody disagrees with that.
the Sahara desert used to be a grassland imagine how much is under those sands
Yes they're finding new sites every so often
Imagine what's been lost to the sea also.
The nomads in the sahara talk plenty about lost cities in the sand
It wa since covered by a lot more sand, which came from the thousands of miles of sands and desert that reachers west to the Atlantic and east to the Persian Gulf. That is now know to have been much like East Africa. Great changes did occur before the Egypt of the Old Testament came into being.
Shermer isn’t ever going to change his mind until everybody else does.
You could say the same about Graham.
@@AntonioGarcia-wn7ut 🙄🙄🙄🙄 Wow!
@@TangoNevada what do u mean? graham is very well prepared for arguments and he has a very logical aspect to it, and real life experience as he said with his son, that got his career harder for not going with the dogma, are u even listening to the podcast or just trashing on yt comments?
@@4everpku Both really. Just do a search and watch a few videos of actual archeologist debunking his theory and you won't be as amazed. He loves to make a lot of statements that aren't true about the scientific community and bases many theories on them. But he is starting with a false premise. Like him saying "All archeologists agree on certain time lines, or refuse to admit their are other explanations, or they deny facts that are right in front of them" That's all bullshit, that's just the stuff that sounds good and makes people think there is some conspiracy that the elites' are involved in. Which is fun right? But look up Debunking Graham Hancock and Ancient Apocalypse and you will find many capable, people explaining all the massive gaps in his theories that will never show up on Joe Rogan.
@@TangoNevada ok sir i will and il come back here
Jeeeeesus! This establishment guy, he is seriously unbelievable! Excluding Zahi Hawass, he is literally the single most closed-minded person I've ever heard as it pertains to this topic, with an excuse for and/or denial of *everything* Mr. Hancock says. Unreal.
The Gatekeepers will never let us peasants know our true history.
The fact that Shermer makes a living out of debunking people, and that he’s just so bad at it is astounding
Exactly. It was like a set list of logical fallacies.
I commend the fact that he is so willing to humiliate himself. Though I do wonder why they put him out there to "debunk" people.
Why is Shermer debating this he already admitted he is not an expert on the topic (in the slightest). He's just cheerleading for the accepted theories.
lmao, *there are no experts present* Including Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock. If Joe had brought on an actual archaeologist, we'd hear better points against Hancock
@@DinoDudeDillon Okay guy in the comments.
@UCjuGBC8OOInNgEXs81M6beg a charlatan, not an expert
Except that no legitimate scholarly sources are debating this ridiculous claim as there is next to no evidence for it. Secondly actual archaeologists don’t generally spend their time debating such issues on a YT channel just as Geographers don’t spend much time debating flat earth theory.
Neither are the other 2 jackasses.
Absolutely love Randall and graham on the show would love to see more of them . I could listen to them all day. These guys have changed my view on the passed and I do believe we don’t get the full story from mainstream studies. I loved this podcast 🙌
Just got ur wish!
Something tells me you don’t read many mainstream studies
dude don't judge him on his passed lmao
I know that Joe has become a “political figure” but I honestly think that’s by accident. He’s the only guy who ever gave these types of guys a podium. This stuff is honestly fascinating. Praying he gets back to “weird” science in the near future
I love this discussion.
I have watched the 3 hour podcast in its entirety TWICE.
What number was it?
I would really like to hear the full thing as well.
@@kamden5797 #961 if the video is to be believed
Shermer is TFG, so close-minded and doesn't even have the intellectual curiosity to even visit these sights. He is a professional skeptic, that's all. Graham's arguments combined with Carlson's data are rock-solid and younger Dryas megafauna extinction could have never happened with "over-hunting" xD. Believe
Type of guy who just plays devil's advocate
What I think should also be pointed out here, is that there are megalithic structures on the Giza site which are among the oldest in Egypt, in which the construction and use of huge stone blocks are repeated in similar structures elsewhere in Egypt. These structures are undoubtedly some of the oldest stone architectures in Africa, are old-Kingdom structures, and are therefore according to archaeological theory, older than the pyramids themselves. And yet, they are built with stone blocks the size and weight of which would pose enormous logistical problems to move around with the same precision even today. So it's not a far cry to consider that vastly ancient cultures would be capable of what to us seem utterly astonishing feats of constructional engineering, and huge artwork or sculptures dedicated to something or someone.
At
The Romans literally moved 40+ ton obelisks to Rome when they ruled over Egypt and they did that without advanced technology. If they can do it for hundreds of miles, why can't Egyptians?
@@OmegaF77 Romans did in fact start using iron tools and their vessels were much more advanced compared to really shit boats of egyptians. That said, there is a difference of transporting single obelisk over mostly flat ground and hauling blocks of granite, hundred of tons for 500 miles, over desert and then, lifting it to 50 feet and aligning it perfectly. Crypt inside the pyramids are exactly that.
@Reuben Sandwich you're talking 40 tons compared to 2000 tons. They aren't even close to eachother.
I think the Sphinx was originally a Lion, was covered with sand except the highest point, the head. Sand erosion wore the lion head down, then later on was uncovered and recarved into the Pharaoh’s head. Just look at the scale of the head compared to the body, then would never have screwed up the scale unless they didn’t have the material to carve the new head, they were super precise with all of their carvings.
Interesting theory.
Would the sand protect if it was covered?
Yes, archaeologists already discussed the re-carving many years ago.
@@Snickerszn Yes when we found it in the late 1800's it was covered up to its head also. You can see pictures of this online
I'm with Graham on this ... but it was good to see Shermer's side ... Randall is always good to hear from - this was a great discussion
I hope no one ever decides to try drilling into the Sphinx to obtain sample cores, they might wake it up again to go on more rampages.
Take your meds
Graham Hancock is an absolute lyrical assassin!
Give this man the respect he deserves. I’ve got your back Mr Hancock and I’m listening closely 😎
He’s a provocateur. Good for him. He opposes the crude materialism of our elites.
Lyrical assassin? Didn’t realize he wrote lyrics?
@@JRobbySh I’ve never heard that word provocateur before. Does it mean sensationalist, hysterical stoner with a thin skin for criticism?
I’m more of Randell fan. Every time I hear Graham I think he’s selling his book. He finds things no one can explain perfectly and puts a spin on it for an audience. Not saying he’s wrong on everything but I think he is in media I’m always suspicious of their motives. It’s usually not facts it’s money……
Graham is tough ya gotta give him that lol
The quality in communication and open mindset and willing to understand instead of being right is maybe gonna be a bigger challenge than finding useful evidence.
Ironically the guy with the least experience in the study and who's never been there was the most stubborn and contrary. As is usually the case.
@@The-Dom ....No he was agreeing with the established theories of thousands of other Egyptologists that have been there and conducted archeology.
Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson are so incredibly articulate. Their clarity of thought and vast spance of knowledge continue to amaze me. They both have no doubts spent countless hours in their study going over all the data before they speak. Which is more than what I can say about some other participants in this debate...ahem ahem. And I dont mean Joe Rogan by that, he's doing his job really well as a moderator .
Yeah they speak well just like every charlatan and con artist
@@Powerhaus88 it's hard to accept that maybe what we've been taught isn't true. Nobody has disproved hancocks claims yet but want to shut him down.
@@Powerhaus88found another archaeologist in denial 😂😂
The idea is worth exploring. That said, that one guy never finished a sentence without being interrupted. while I believe he is too dismissive, he should be allowed to talk.
streaklines
Watch the episode. It’s painful. He doesn’t have a clue. How can he defend the water erosion theory without having ever been there. You can’t work from photographs and the mainstream academics theories... cos they are still fairly clueless as to lots of Egypt’s Mysteries. The water erosion theory is a young theory. This guy is clued up on old theories. I feel sorry for him in this episode as he is as out of his depth as one can be. The “expert” he pulls up at one point aswell :)
Seriously that should tell you everything you need to know about this guys perception of reality.
Fuck I forgot how odd a guy he is.. gotta go find it.
He’s that bad it wouldn’t surprise me if Hancock revealed him to be a plant... cos as someone coming into this with my ears wide open... he does nothing for the defence.
michael shermer should not be allowed to speak at all, he knows nothing about this subject at all
I have no idea who these guys are... but yeah the one dude not being able to finish a sentence without being interrupted was freaking annoying. And Glasses man kinda seems like an ass, and it does seem like he's reaching..he wants to throw out EVERYONE elses work, based on a few erosion lines in the Sphinx.. seems like he's reaching. "oh but I've climbed in 5 times"...who cares?
@@DewmOnline maybe because every time he opened his mouth he basically said nothing
@@lassesandagerhansen2244 that's what is wonderful about science, you dont need to have knowledge of a subject to point out the fallacies. His point stood, all of the other Egyptian experts know everything this guy is saying, and they believe he is wrong.
I just binged ten seasons of Stargate: SG-1 and I am all for this! 😂
Graham Hancock is a beast. We need people in the academic world that are not chained to one avenue of thinking. Egyptology, Archeology, Sociology, or Geology. We need people who take the work of those people and make an educated guess. When you let historians and scholars come up with all the thought processes, you are cutting out some of the most obvious answers... like pragmatism. Example... The Theologist says, "Look they built this hole in the rock to cast down sacrifices to their gods" the Geologist says "No that probably occurred naturally through rain water" The Egyptologist says "No that was built by Lord Khufu because he wrote his name on it right there" and finally the pragmatist says "I dont know about ya'll but this is a perfect place to take a shit"
And then they all realized they were at an ancient outhouse.
We need pragmatists my friends. Realists. People outside of the normal thought process.
Beautifully put.
As someone who works in academia, trust me when I say that anybody who thinks academia won't do anything to "protect their fold" knows absolutely nothing about the politics of academia.
Thats literally what every group does why the fuck don't people get that
@@bigchungus7050 It makes sense. Tons of wealth/prestige to gained as the paradigm overlords within a specific field.
@@professorlabs And if archeology and our known history is in fact handled in such a controlled fashion, it's not that much of a leap to see it in other, more impactful fields of science.
@@kingdomcome1617 Checks out. Certainly and sadly one of the many major factors why people see less and less value in academic institutions and college degrees.
Please make Graham Hancock and Richard Dawkins talk about absolutely anything, as long as they are disagree with each other!
Watching great mind discuss, disagree and explian is a different type of higher learning... Thank you Joe Rogan
Pretty much a debate that 2 super advanced college professors had that typically only a few people get to see. But now we're all seeing it. Blows my mind to see men like these debating.
Hancock: 'I assume you've been to the Step Pyramid?'
Schermer: 'No'
Hancock: 'Right, have you been to Giza?'
Schemer: 'No I haven't'
Hancock: 'Oh dear'
Done purely to belittle. Just what he was whining about when it was done to him.
"OH DEAR" 😂😂😂
Grayson Overholt
That was brilliant.
The quick Joe cam killed me
Michael Shermer really shouldn't have been on here, they needed another genuine traditional archaeologist to debate these guys and sometimes he was out of his depth even if he had good points to make.
That's the problem, they had NO archaeologists. NONE. Hancock is so fucking easy to debunk that it's borderline silly. Joe stills claims he's not a conspiracy guy but still allows there clowns to say anything they want unchecked. The last time I watched Rogan was a Hancock talk and couldn't get through it. The day before he questioned everything, as soon as Hancock got on he let him steamroll through everything.
Definitely. Hancock makes mountains out of molehills. He “proposes” things and scientists tell him, “there is no evidence for this and we can’t fund an excavation based on your hunch.” Then he turns around and says “SCIENTISTS ARE DENYING THE TRUTH” and writes books and books on his hunches. They’re awesome, interesting books which is why Joe likes them but they’re totally unsubstantiated.
Schermer isn’t an Archeologist either, he’s just saying “no evidence for that.” Would’ve loved to see a top shelf Egyptologist in that room.
@@Atom.Storm. could u point to places/ sources that critique Hancock... not an insider to the field... cant tell how authentic or conspiratorial he is in actuality
The points that he made were dogma. He had no evidence points to rest on. Just dogma that he adopted from a community he isn't even a part of.
@Brandon Winters why?
The more I listen to Shermer the more I think he's contracted by someone to just fight everyone on any thought.
Thats the way conspiracy theory boneheads think btw.
He acts democrat
there are so many star signs, if you search long enough, youll find some form that aligns to something within a certain degree
its basically the texan sharpshooter, who shoots first and then draws the target around the bullet holes
I'm listening to fingerprints of the gods rn and I'm kinda realizing this as well he keeps mentioning the position of structures compared to the stars and of course there gonna be facing a certain constellation or star there fucking everywhere
Hancock's sphynx argument is fairly strong, but gobekli tepe being built by hunter gatherers instructed by cataclysm survivors is a stretch imo
I think you misunderstood. He said a civilization survived it and kept going but we havent found evidence of them besides Gobekli Tepe
I think the survivors buried the site because they felt to preserve it due to all the natural disasters. Perhaps it was a pilgrimage where they carried stones from home, burying and preserving something they revered. (Perchance this is why no ancient trash is buried there!)
EVERYTHING Hancock says is a stretch.
@@MrB1923
He might be out on a limb with the sphynx in some ways but it's easy to see that so are the egyptologists. There's good arguments on both sides, zero conclusive evidence.
Gotta see what plunkett says about it
Wanna play a drinking game? Take a shot everytime Graham says "perhaps".
Alcohol poisoning is no joke
@@joecola6415 lol
While Shermer is getting a lot of hate in the comments, he's doing a very good job of doubting everything that is said, and it's very important too. Questionning and looking for more evidences is what makes us advance.
Which is true but he looks dum when you have not did your research to question the shit he saying
That's exactly the opposite of what he's doing here. He's arguing *against* the questioning of the consensus theory, and denying the recognition of new evidence simply because the consensus theory can't offer an explanation for the new evidence.
I rewatch this now and im sitting back at each comeback like dam!! n it just makes you think we might not go far in this age if we kant even have a real genuine whatever you wanna call it argument!! N me being born in this time always thinking this sometimes sucks so let’s try as much as we kan still!! Love to always come back to these gems
Maybe we should try to solve the mystery of why you refuse to spell "can" properly....
@@ZDiddy7777 It’s a free kountry….
@@ZDiddy7777 or maybe we discuss why you have missed the topic of this debate and focused on a typo.
Exactly I’m glad you guys can see what I’m talking about I was typing so fast it might not make to much sense but there was also a typo 😂 those type of people will never understand what we mean because there so worried about how I said it or a typo but y’all are dope appreciate you guys 🤘🏾🔥🔥
If only Eddie Bravo were there so they could unite in revlusion of Flat Earth.
There once was a party...
...then Michael Shermer showed up.
And said "but theres no evidence of this party"
there is one egyptologist, and amateure at that that did go out against the main stream and was taken very seriously, her name is Cathrine Martinez, and her discoveries have already rewritten parts of Egyptian history.
Any links? Or videos?
Perhaps those missing 6,000 years were lost to some kind of great rainfall period, or other major weather/famine event? Some have suggested a period of coronal mass ejecta during this interregnum.
Assuming the power of water erosion we see from the Sphinx, simpler structures would be dust and crumble from the time. At least the sediment blue shirt suggests would have the simpler structures not of stone be buried in sand, silt, and in the riverbed/Mediterranean.
Archeology makes the UFC look like a a civil debate among peers.
I like the guy with the beard best.
His name is Santa
I like the beard with the guy the best.
All that hair is actually connected in a collective, taking human form to share its wisdom with us without scaring us
@@fressfisch I think it's just water erosion
He's a clown who calls himself a 'renegade scholar.' Both him and Hancock are jokes.
2,000 years ago Italians, the Romans, went to Britain and built two-story homes with underfloor heating.
Then people started living in huts, snacks and caves again.
It would be another 2000 years, very recently, before people would build two-story homes with underfloor heating.
Sure if you’ve never read anything about medieval times you could believe this
Randall Carlson looks like what I’d imagine God would look like or some Grecian God like Zeus or Poseidon lol
Lol yeah, I always thought of Moses
@@RodrigoMera lmao!🤣
Anybody else notice that all of Shermer's arguments are entirely social - based on some vague legacy of Egyptology, and Hancock's are based on physical evidence on the plateau? Remind me who the quack is?
Also, Sherm's never acknowledges the HUGE assumptions in Victorian Egyptology. EX: the sphinx is next to the pyramids so it must have been built at the same time. That assumption doesn't stand up to even the slightest skeptical approach.
No evidence? I suppose you agree with Shermer that cave paintings and multi-acre mega-lithic structures are pretty much the same thing?
Right, but one is just a couple of people in a cave bored one night and the other is sustained and organized activity involving thousands of people and probably an economy around them to support it. AKA Civilization. Also, I'd just like to point out that GH never said that GT is evidence of people more advanced than what the evidence shows, he is saying that GT required a civilization more advanced than previously thought to exist at that time. Two very different thing.
I don't think I misrepresented. Several times he said that GT isn't exceptional because we already have cave paintings. That implies that he thinks they are comparable. I said right, because you did quote him correctly, but the context of this discussion implies he thinks GT is not more compelling than cave paintings. The only person truly wedded to one fixed idea is Shermer. He never even admits (as you just did above) that GT might indicate an earlier civilization. That is dogmatic stubbornness not objective skepticism.
Further, you might rewatch this video or in fact the whole conversation with my first comment in mind. MS hardly introduces any evidence and fails to poke holes in the evidence of GH. His major thesis is that scientists have not accepted this or that theory therefore it's not scientific. Circular reasoning par excellence. With that, I'm out.
This is one of your absolute best episodes.
I know some people try to paint Hancock as a crackpot, but when I listen to Shermer speak it makes me wonder who signs his paychecks
yep
Why would someone pay him for his arguments? There is no harm in their being an ancient society. Graham just has an attitude that the more people attack him for his ideas, the more they must be true. You know who else does this? Alex Jones. Sometimes people attacking your ideas and calling them wrong is just because they are wrong and nothing else. That being said, I want to be in this Ancient Civilization, Atlantis etc. I always have. But I'm also very critical of these kinds of arguments. There is a lot of, just because we can't currently explain this or that, it must mean x, y or z. Who knows, it could mean something neither side has considered yet. But in general, if 99% of experts agree on something, those are the ones I am going with. If I need brain surgery and 99% of Doctors agree with how it should be done, I'm not going with anyone from the 1% that thinks it should be done differently.
Bill Gates and Soros
Vanguard
@@kojinmaster Same Argument. Exactly.
This is not difficult to explain. The Sphinx was built before the cataclysm. After that happened the population was greatly diminished. Technology was lost. So when he asks about the time gap between of 5 - 6k years... well of course there was. Humans had to rebuild their population, culture. Their entire environment had changed and been destroyed. They very likely left and came back. Rediscovered the Sphinx and started building near it.
Shermer's argument was why do all the Egyptologists did not accept Hancock's theory that Sphinx was built way before the Great Pyramid. He implied that they have more credibility because they all sang the same tune. So there is no need to explain the 6000 to 7000 years of missing human history if you just buy into the mainstream narratives. He is so wrong ...
"Thats a valid comparison? Einstein and archeology..." Lmao. Good one Joe!!!
To me it seems as if Shermer wants to be a skeptic for the sake of being a skeptic. I mean, what are his core beliefs? why is he providing arguments when his expertise isn't even in ancient egypt.
Dot Lam Preach!
To prevent bias his arguments should also be considered. I'm not saying he is correct or whatever but there always has to be a devil's advocate to have fair debate
@@SpokoR3 Shermer's schtick annoys me at times, but I think you're absolutely correct. Plus, he isn't making any arguments that Hancock isn't going to have to address at some point from dozens of other people.
He acts as a contrarian, for sure.
boris boris Get a life.
I thought the theory that the sphinx was in-fact a water reservoir for the Egypt plaza was incredibly compelling? It makes sense, the architecture matches that theory and all the tubes and pipes that run from the sphinx to the pyramid match that too
Why does he keep mentioning trash? It was a clearly a civizilation that knew polluting is not a good idea
Did they burn their waste then? Waste is a byproduct of any civilization, where did it go?
Awesome discussion. I simply wonder if Graham Hancock, when using the alignment of the Sfinx to the specific constellations and sunrise as an argument, takes into account the precession of the Earth's axis. The tilt of Earth's axis "rotates" with a period of around 25,000 years, and that means that the suggested 12,000 years ago, a half of the precession period, the planet's axis would be pointed into a different direction, which would obviously distort all the alignments.
Or that their deity for the horizon was aker, depicted as a twin lions. He was also the guardian of the underworld who welcomed pharaohs to the underworld. His statues were placed at the entrances of palaces and tombs as protection.
He does that in another video I've watched.
I’m so glad I find these clips. Expands my thinking. Especially since I have never thought about this.
Guys, was the name of the constellations of Torus and Lion the same 12 thousand years ago or I misunderstood something?
Dude same I'm so confused rn. Am I dumb? Please someone answer this
The problem with talking about the constellation of Leo is that at the time Hancock is talking about the astronomical zodiac had not yet been invented. They may have faced in east to west but naming a constellation Leo make little sense.
That's what I was thinking but no one is saying anything I'm so confused about this
As an archeologist and a strong cynic, I have to admit that the opposition here was extremely feeble and that the hypothesis are sound enough to warrant some studies, the only problem is the point "20 theories on a side, a single anomaly on the other". It's an accademica risk to fall in, to warp facts to support theories
Given that breakthroughs like the airmapping of the Mayan civilization AND what lies beneath the ands of the Sahara, everyone should suspend their disbelief. There are more things under heavens and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Wisdom for the ages.
Agreed. He may as well be saying "because it's always been that way."
Holy shit i wish I would've watched this years ago. Absolute gold.
Graham killed this man with 2 questions 😂
“You’ve been to Giza correct?”
“No,no, no I haven’t”
“Oh my”
Sure if we lived in high school. Who gives a fuck if he thought the pyramids were beautiful when he went there. Childish
@@AIenSmithee what the fuck are you talking about?
Graham was actually going well until that point right there.
At that point he just came of like a child, and the fact this is how he carries on his discussions is supporting evidence as to his standing in his professional community.
@@fredsmith-kingofthelunatic7810 I get your point, but theres an old saying that goes “I can’t tell you how to fly a plane if I’ve never been in the cockpit” This guy is speaking from personal opinion with no experience of the thing he’s speaking of, just regurgitated information. What Graham said made perfect sense “Have you been there?” Then how the hell are you going to tell me what’s going on with them?
@@apollosankofa87 ok… you said he killed the man with 2 questions and only wrote 1 but whatever. How did this “kill” him? I don’t need to go to Egypt to know it wasn’t built by psychic shamans that can levitate Blocks with telekinesis. Sorry
Q: If people accept new ideas all the time, why do we continue to have the same core problems? A: Money.
The monopoly on money/currency/work force
Not just that. Ego too. Stupid smart people.
Santa Claus knows his 80’s magazines. Respect. 🎅
16:40 As anyone who has read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" knows, that's actually a fair comparison. We can also make comparisons with Lavoisier and the discovery of oxidation. The mainstream is challenged. The challenger must overturn the mainstream. There is resistance, as the mainstream has the initial weight of evidence with them. But if the challenger presents a more coherent model with fewer anomalies, the mainstream is eventually overturned.
The problem with Hancock's model is that in solving one anomaly, he creates a hundred more.
Golbeki Tepli is confirmed to be at least 11,000 years old and Michael himself says there’s no pottery of evidence of civilization and that “ I guess hunter/gatherers were capable of more than we thought.” Now his argument in regards to the sphinx being around the same age is that it’s not possible because there’s no evidence of civilization.
Graham is amazing, he seems so much calmer and honest...
Also Joe Rogan isn't moderating a discussion so much as trying to corner a skeptic
For real. Dude needs to shut up and let the grown ups speak.
Very true, I do think joe can speak up a bit too much. Now since I’m on Graham’s side, and I think the other guy is being way too closed minded, not open to any speculation, I thought it was actually cool for joe to speak up and side with graham, kind of a cool moment you would never see happen in an actual debate, since the guy can’t give any evidence he only dismisses it all. But yea at the end of the day they should definitely let him speak more. Backing up your friend when he clearly is making good points is great, but to talk over the guy and never give him a chance to talk only gives him the chance to claim he didn’t get to bring up his counter arguments
>Michael Shermer
>a skeptic
lol.
@@Fencepost55 Totally agree.
I like turtles.
Aaron Jimerson Tuttles.
I like cheese and roast potato
@Second Sight turtle power
atom dude was waiting two years to get that response 😂
This basically sums up my brainpower compared to these men.
I've been there. The Sphinx is tiny. It's about the size of a three story house. Its impressive but nothing compared to the Pyramids. Its entirely plausible it predates by the figure they are saying. A disappointing fun fact...it's also about 200 metres from a pizza hut.
3 stories is tiny got it 👍
Clearly you've never framed a house if 3 stories is "tiny" to you. How about you get up that latter and nail the plywood to the studs and we will see how "tiny" 3 stories is.
@@jjjihsjsysg1335 perspective folks. You expect it will be massive b compared to the Pyramids it is tiny.
Thanks for being dense folks
70 feet is about 5/6 stories
@@MrLukedanger 66 feet from base to top but it looks about 50 feet (a story is 15 feet). Honestly I've been there, it looks about 3 to 4 stories.
Challenge to all of you, go to Egypt, travel to the edge of Cairo (have a pizza in the pizza hut across the road), and tell me that the Sphinx is impressive in size. It is not. The impression I always got from photos and descriptions in text book was it was pretty large . It isn't
"I've stood on the back of the Phoenix at dawn on the spring equinox"
How do you clap back after somebody says something like that?🤣
I respect the devils advocate position and asking for solid evidence, but this guy is so bad at it. His rebuttals are garbage.
Jesse Charity Maybe you should look a little into Michael Shermer before trying to analyze his arguments. He is the founder of the Skeptics Society. His default position is to question any idea that is presented without evidence. One of the biggest problems with what’s being discussed here is the combination of evidence (the rain erosion, the alignment with the equinox, the relation to the star signs), the casually assumed psychology of the people at the time (the ancient Egyptians would never make a lion if the star sign should be Taurus), and then the ultimate conclusion that therefore there must have been a lost civilization. Michael Shermer knows that the first of these three steps is entirely fair: we can’t explain something. But he rejects the conclusion, especially if it uses the psychological argument which is just completely made up (could be true, make no mistake! but no one alive today has ever spoken with an ancient Egyptian, so we can’t know their psyche). And that’s the only scientifically accepted approach. Anyone not taking that approach, does not understand, or ignores the core principles of science. And the reason this is important, is because this kind of reasoning allows for ridiculous biases, which we all know the human brain is all too happy to be comforted with - religion being exhibit A.
Just to be clear as to why I use the word “idea” instead of “hypothesis” or “theory”: a hypothesis is a scientifically testable idea, and most of what’s being presented here is not testable. A theory explains the “why” of a whole range of scientific facts (why does the earth revolve around the sun - this is explained by gravity, general relativity, etc.), but is, like a scientific law, a scientific fact. So those words don’t apply here.
@@KryzMasta It doesn't change that Shermer didn't make good argument.
norbi1411 Actually he did. You just don’t understand it. But you’re in great company, none of the people in that room got it either.
@@KryzMasta XD
@@KryzMasta how are we casually assuming the psychology of one ancient people and their astronomy/astrology when every civilization was obsessed with the stars and their movement. Maybe the average egyptian didn't care about religion as it was just a means for the ruling class to control people(no poor people were buried with the book of the dead), but for damn sure that religion is going to be reflected in their buildings and monuments. There doesn't necessarily have to have been a 'lost civilization' but there've definitely been collapses other than the bronze age collapse which explains the decline from the giza pyramids to the lesser ones built after(graham mentions this and Schermer just writes him off).
This guy is a bad skeptic, but there are some valid criticisms of the erosion hypothesis that I'm currently trying to check out :
1. There's no way to determine that the Sphinx is intended to be a representation of the zodiac sign of Leo. Nor is there any evidence to support the idea that the Egyptians even recognized Leo as a constellation, nor the zodiac sysmbols themselves at the time. The first recorded evidence we have of Zodiac signs being used come from ancient Babylon, between 1000-2000BC. There are sources saying this is an extension or an oral tradition of an astronomical method of determining 'omens', and some folks will extrapolate that this means an orally passed down method of astrology from say the Sumerians (and ultimately they got it from some other earlier source to accomodate the ~10,000BC timeline), but there's no way to prove it's originally from the Sumerians, nor give any details on what those methods would be describing. Then, you'd have to make the assumption that the Egyptian astrology is based around the same system, and there's no evidence for that either. The zodiac in Egypt as we know it, was introduced by the Greeks during the Ptolemaic dynasty after the time of Alexander the Great.
2. Randall Carlson's claim that these floods would have wiped out, or seriously disrupted the settlements of the Nile during those late quaternery floods seems to neglect the conditions in the area BEFORE the flood. If the Nile were a river which dried up for parts of the year, and or had inconsistent flow paths, then living settled lifestyles in that region becomes much more difficult. Why build a permenant structure on the banks of a river when the next year the river could shift course and wipe it all away? Or why even make an attempt at agriculture if you're not sure the river is gonna water your crops to harvest? Remember, the claim being made here is that the major changes which brought the consistent water flow of the Nile caused the 'gap' in evidence of the people who built the Sphinx, not brought them stable water supply allowing larger populations and thus making the construction of the monuments possible. Sure, there might be evidence that a Younger Dryas catastrophe caused a massive release of freshwater down the Nile and into the Mediterranean, but it fails to explain how populations large enough and organized enough would have been able to sustain themselves in the period leading up to it.
3. If you're ONLY trying to redate the Sphinx (big IF I guess), there's a layout problem at Giza. The Sphinx Temple, as well as the Valley Temple to the east of the Sphinx itself were created from stones removed from the Sphinx enclosure (remember, the Sphinx is below the natural level of the ground). This would indicate they were built around the same time. The causeway, which links the valley temple to Khafre's pyramid, is at an odd angle, seemingly to bend around the sphinx. The Sphinx southern wall, also has this same odd angle, making it run parallel to the causeway. It would be an odd choice to build the southern wall of the enclosure at that angle when the rest of the site would appear to be rectangular. If the southern wall was a later excavation of the enclosure at the time of Khafre, then it should not have the erosion patterns we see on it.
So, for point #3, if this is all to work out, you need the Pyramid of Khafre to also be 10,500 years old too. And that's a burden of proof Hancock cannot address. I'm not arguing that mainstream Egyptologists don't face similar holes in their theories of the how's and why's of Giza, but Hancock & crew have their problems too.
-------- Another criticism I'm still looking at here : ---------
Water erosion by precipitation is not the only explanation for the patterns of degradation on the Sphinx wall. It could have been groundwater or atomspheric water being pulled through the porous rock, dissolving some of it away over thousands of years. This one seems weaker to me. The first and most obvious questions I'd ask would be: Does groundwater leave vertical fissures in the rock? Would atmospheric erosion happen at a fast enough rate?
I agree with everything you said. The haloclasty explanation is far from perfect. But there are other explanations for the weathering, which range from simple wind/sand erosion to simply a result of the method the ancient Egyptians used to quarry the stone. The most compelling evidence is actually the lack thereof. I agree that the skeptic guy argued badly, but the fact that not even a single fragment of pottery (or literally anything "advanced" civilizations make) can be found in or before that gap is pretty bad for the hypothesis. As soon as we find a way to explain the weathering, you can pretty much throw this hypothesis in the garbage.
he is not a skeptic. he is a denier of alternative ideas no matter how valid they seem to be. There is a lot of money perching for the choir regardless of witch side you are on. And a lot of people feel comfort in someone that crusade for the mainstream. Does not mean mainstream is bad but it does not help progressive thought process either.
Foo shut up
Just gonna leave this here...
th-cam.com/video/lK2JM_nlkbM/w-d-xo.html
I think the fact that the sphinx was chosen to be the equinoxial marker rather than a bull of some kind is not necessarily purely due to the constellation of taurus or leo. That line of thinking fully ignores the symbolic significance of a sphinx in Egyptian culture which, as I understand it, was that of a protector. To imply that the shape of a lion was chosen purely based on the constellations seems a bit disingenuous as it fully ignores the cultural importance of a sphinx
Wasn't the Sahara Desert a lake at one point in time? It's entirely possible that this lake overflowed its banks due to constant rainfall and created the watermarks that we see on the Sphynx.
I believe it was a forest and a river or two ran through it..