I thought that the biggest win of the whole show was Flint getting Hancock to basically walk back all of his more extraordinary claims, because there was so little evidence for them.
@mrmojo-risin basically: Hancock claims that his ancient civilization was at something like "18th-19th century advancement" Which, after Flint's questioning, he basically walks back this point to say that he meant they were only as advanced as this when it comes to astronomy. This is a huge concession compared to what we imagine from this level of "advancement." He realized he could not defend a POV that claimed they had all the technology associated with that advancement, because we would see carriages littered around the ocean floor. Hancock claims that his civilization brought agriculture to the ancient hunter-gatherers. After Flint's presentation on the development of agriculture, Hancock had to correct his point to say, "they introduced the IDEA of agriculture" but no specific crops, no cross cultural specific techniques. To me, this is a huge concession, because you can imagine that ancient humans probably had the idea for agriculture long before thinking it would work! You'd expect if another civilization taught them, they'd go from 0-100 pretty fast, whereas the existing evidence shows that it still took thousands if years to get it right. With these two major points walked back, what exactly was the contribution of this ancient culture that couldn't be contributed by the existing cultures? The last point was not a concession directly, but when Flint pointed out that there are thousands of shipwreck sites recorded, Hancock balked at the idea that his civilization could be understood via shipwrecks alone, which would be a fair point if ANY ship wrecks supported his hypothesis.
@@newonlinetheatren.o.t1339I agree. However: to non-academics, the " *idea* of agriculture" still sounds like "agriculture", and gives Hancock an easy way out for his next book, where he certainly won't use the weasel word "idea", and just start with "agriculture". Perhaps Dibble should have pressed even harder on that.
@@mrmojo-risin well I went and he lied he claimed he has the evidence but on the podcast he said he doesn't that tell's me everything I need to know about him
I loved Graham Hancock for a long time, his talk of Atlantis and a new frontier in human understanding inspired me to go into History/Archaeology. Now, with my Undergraduate degree and a Graduate Assistantship, on my way to a PHD with 0$ debt, I can't but thank him for inspiring a deep curiosity and sparking my need to know. Seeing Flint Dibble cooly deal with an offensive, frankly rude Hancock in the cool, professional and prepared way that he did - it was like watching two sides of my heart fight for authority. Hancock had virtually nothing, Flint forced him to admit as much. This debate is so important in ways we can't even realize today. Milo Rossi says we are in the renaissance of scientific communication, and the Hancocks of the world are winning because the real information of experts has not caught up to their level of mass outreach. Joe Rogan did the world a favor by publicly setting the record straight in long-form debate where the manipulation of history could not withstand a thoughtful barrage of truth. It is sad to see your hero fall. Flint Dibble is a worthy usurper.
Well this was well written , i dont know why people are so offended by graham hancocks statements , yea he could have handle that whole debate with more finesse, but he is no saint, after 30 years of character attacks and being dismissed for his books and point of view , anyone would have been very much jadeed. I have read some of his books and i never got the feeling that he made strong statements, its more of a vombination of multiple things and vonjectures from mythology stories and cultures having a lot of things in common without any interaction is crazy to say that ita just a coincidince but he only said that there is a missing chapter even in the 90es he speculatet the catastrophy of the early ice age and today people are providing scientific proof of such a conjecture being truth. Graham is not a scientist by any means and he is not parading as one, he is a journalist, and he is only defending the possibility of there being a lost abvanced human civilization,. The whole thing of labeling him as a science fiction writter is very funny imo, because just look at the sci fi movies and tv shows from the 70-90s and how much of it is still svience fiction or just plain sciance today.
@@mrmojo-risindid you even watch the debate? Graham starting the debate by telling Flint he wouldn’t know the archeology of a place because he’s never visited it in person, what an embarrassing rebuttal.
Dibble REALLY attacked Graham's character saying his questioning and theorizing was related to "white supremecy". I don't think Graham won the debate, but it's terrible to be called white supremacist because you have an opposing opinion against the majority view. Science is about debating the facts.
Graham has written things most anthropologists would classify as white supremacist, such as in the Fingerprints of the Gods when he called the Maya only "semi-civilized" (whatever that means) and states that therefore they could not have invented thier own calendar. Graham's theory at its core is an infantalizing one, which is the reason people say that. No one's ancestors could have figured things out on their own; not the Egyptians, or the Maya, or anyone.
@@vincestapels2022 No, he questioned the sources as should we all. If anyone made personal attacks, it was Graham whenever he noticed he was being trounced intellectually, with facts and evidence, which Graham never provided other than his holiday snaps.
The accusation of graham being a white supremacist really hurt flint's character a lot. It puts flint into this political dogma bucket which absolutely destroys his credibility.
That was not the accusation made, but that many of his claims were created by actual white supremacists (which is true), and that he put no effort in bringing this nuance when, in Flint's perspective, it is just reasonable and necessary to understand why these lies were being created in the first place.
Looking back he shouldve probably admitted that knowing todays media writing a sentence like that would 95% be used to generate clicks. But his argument is also valid even if the claim wasnt really that important.
I find this entire alt-historian vs archeologist fanboys dispute annoying. When I got my chemistry degree archeology was considered a pseudo-science. Since there is so much imaginative interpretation involved in archeology it lacks the determinism that true science requires. And archeologists have historically been prone to find exactly what they decided to search for. For example, Soloman's Gates (eyes roll). So, reflexively does this make alt-historians pseudo-pseudo-scientists? Enough already.
Im sure you get this all the time but what is your advice for someone going back to school for Archeology? Im thinking of studying Archeology and getting a minor in Geology, or would you recommend the reverse of that? Any other advice would be much appreciated.
"if there was a comet, it was probably no big deal..." At this point I'd say you're done. That single, ignorant comment, should disqualify you from any serious consideration going forwards. My guess is that youll never consider what you said and simply double down on that statement. I'll never know.
Google how many asteroid/meteors fall to Earth in a given year. Unless it was equivalent to the Chicxulub in size and mass, it wouldn't affect any but regional climate.
@@russellmillar7132 interesting. I don't see my original reply here. Which basically said, "Google comet" and then revisit the "probably no big deal" quote.
Flint nailed it? You know, other than when it got to the part where it came to defending his character attacks on Graham. Then he tried to weasel out of admitting that he said those things, used his platform to promote those things, and was all too eager to move on from it. You want to attach the work, I'm all here for it, but you call the man every bad name under the sun, expect to defend yourself.
What Flint said is factually accurate, that Graham sources a lot of outdated texts that are couched in the imperialist, racist rhetoric of the time. This is proven by the other fact that those same sources were eventually co-opted by the Eugenics movements of the early 20th century. It is not a commentary on Graham's personal beliefs, but the idea that by citing these sources, he is (intentionally or not) pushing a narrative laced with racism. That said, he also realized that Graham only brought it up so he could drum up easy support from Rogan's primarily right-wing and conspiratorially-minded audience, many of whom share similar persecution complexes. So, instead of engaging on a non-sequitur issue, he attempted to push the focus back onto the actual topic of the debate. Obviously, Graham's ploy worked to a degree because that's all the Graham defenders seem to focus on. Not the entire rest of the debate where Graham was made to look like a child fighting a trained boxer.
Great interview Joe did! I do think it was very slimy of Dibble to characterize Graham as having "white supremecist" ideas just because he has a different opinion, that might not be true.
Flint truly was brilliant. While there may be a very small probablility for Hancok's theories and ideas due to how much we still have to learn and discover snd explore...but based on what we have, there is not even a remote possibllity of a lost civilization existing.
See, this is the problem of the knowledgeable arguing against the unknowledgeable, though. I will give you an example. If you, say, decided you were the best basketball player in the world because on your court in your neighbourhood, you are the best, hands down. So you challenge NBA players to play you and you get SMOKED. It's like a adult playing against a child. He bounces the ball off your head, between your legs, makes you look foolish, due to the higher level of skill and knowledge of the game that he has. From the outside, the NBA player will appear to be the arrogant, dismissive, smug, even rude person. He is making a fool of the guy. But remember, THAT guy lead with "I am the best basketball player in the world!", which itself is the most smug, dismissive, arrogant, even rude thing for someone who clearly does not understand the levels of the game to say. So yes, I don't disagree with you. He probably SOUNDED that way to you. But that does not mean he was wrong, and in fact, if you believe believe someone sounds arrogant or dismissive about a topic they have studied, it is likely due to your own bias creeping in as your argument gets destroyed by someone who knows what they are talking about. There is simply no way to counter someone who is so arrogant as to claim a whole field of science is massively wrong about easy to prove things he refuses to prove without seeming reflexively arrogant to the person who is making the claim. This is a basic logic issue. You should not use issues with basic logic as evidence against someone as the issues of someone debating someone who does not understand the topic they are talking about will lead to this basic logical problem every time.
@@kirkoconnell If you believe that Flint Dibble is an NBA player level Archaeologist then show me his accolades. What books has he written? What groundbreaking discoveries has he made? He seems to be a typical gatekeeper type archaeologist who has probably done a lot of work, but nothing really of note. This is from his own page at Dartmouth... "I'm a Classical archaeologist. My research focuses on the topic of food in ancient Greece. In fact, I mostly study food trash in the form of animal bones. These humble remains tell us of everyday meals, elaborate feasts, and how humans interacted with the environment around them. While I'm usually found in a classroom, laboratory, or library, I'm a dirt archaeologist at heart. I've excavated at a wide range of sites from Paleolithic caves and Neolithic villages to Bronze Age palaces and Greek and Roman cities. Currently, I'm co-Field Director of the Histria Multiscalar Archaeological Project in Romania and collaborating as zooarchaeologist for several ongoing excavation and study projects in Greece (Azoria, Gourimadi, Lechaion, Phaleron). I'm an innovative teacher who challenges students to think outside-of-the-box and write clear, evidence-based, narratives. My goal is always to provide a hands-on experience with the past through primary sources. From the voices of ancient people to their discarded refuse, I think the best instruction situates us directly in relation to this evidence. As a digital native, I challenge students to improve their public writing on blogs and social media. I firmly believe in academic outreach and write popular Twitter threads about archaeology and ancient history alongside other projects." Then his actual website is a blank wordpress website. He sounds like he hasn't even visited any of the ancient world megalithic sites. He studies trash and food waste in ancient Greece, and has excavated some stone/bronze age villages. The debate was garbage on both sides in a lot of ways, didn't get enough into the actual sites in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Peru, Mexico, etc. I'd imagine Graham is tip-toeing around a lot of his views on those ancient sites because he's had a lot of academic/borderline legal backlash, but Flint Dibble doesn't seem to really have any hands on experience and is just spewing the broader academic narrative on the dates of the Pyramids, etc. Overall the debate seemed stifled, and Graham was being arrogant and petty, and was often wrong or didn't make a good case for his view, but Flint did the same thing numerous times. Overall I'd say this. Flint did very little to compel me towards his point of view, and broadly made attacks and dodged/subverted a lot of questions, and did appear arrogant and at a lot of points very unknowledgeable about certain very well excavated public sites like Sacsayhuaman, where there are a lot of examples of work done to the bedrock itself, similar to what Graham speculates is shown at Yana Guni off the coast of Japan. Flint misses Graham's point and goes into a defensive arc about how Graham is gatekeeping Sacsayhuaman because he's been there and Flint hasn't, but Graham is making the point that he's seen the similar work in person, and is noting his personal pattern recognition and is seeing similar fascinating things at Yana Guni. That being said I don't find Yana Guni that convincing, but water might have eroded/degraded the site to it's current state as well so I'm not sure. My broader point is Flint seems to be not an expert in the field of Egyptology, hasn't visited a lot of these key megalithic sites in Peru, Turkey, Jordan, etc. and is just broadly dismissive of any point of view that doesn't tow the line of the Society of American Archaeologists, likely because he's essentially representing them in a debate against someone like Graham. Overall I don't find his out-classing Graham, but I was highly disappointed in how Graham actually handled the debate. At the same time given the attacks leveled against Graham there is probably a lot of emotion involved in the entire situation.
im in school for history/archaeology atm. i didnt think flint did nearly as well as you say. he was very dismissive of some valid points graham made. and i think grahams full of shit, but hes right, if only a small percentage of the world has been explored/examined you cannot definitively say that you know what the undiscovered parts would contain. thats all graham was saying, that the possibility of certain things cannot be ruled out with so much left to examine. but yeah good on Dibs for going on to debate.
It is not a "good point" by Hancock per se. As a student of archaeology, you should be aware that if you are examining an area of, let's say, 1 square kilometer of brush, and you're doing the typical survey methods, you may spot a small area with any sign of human settlement, and then dig a test pit there. Graham Hancock would say that since you didn't dig over the whole site, it was unexplored area. Well, what Flint's counterpoint is, is that from the areas that have been explored in the way I mentioned, nothing comes close to hinting at a world-spanning culture with agriculture. Hancock cannot just say his claims with no evidence and then say, "well, you didn't look hard enough." I can assert, "Aliens landed and did XYZ, but you haven't explored enough pyramids to find the evidence," and I am no more correct than Hancock on the matter. As a student, you should also know that we explore areas from the more well known to the less known. We should be able to find evidence of this massive culture overlapping with the hunter gatherers that we actually find. Instead, there is no evidence at all.
@@newonlinetheatren.o.t1339 i do know all of that, you are missing the point. i understand the reasons why only small percentages of areas are examined/surveyed. grahams only saying that there is still mystery/possibility due to the nature of their studies. i mean just a couple years ago using new tech, LIDAR, we found new cities in dense amazon jungle that were previously unknown. I am not saying anything about lost advanced societies, lost high technology, or aliens. what i am saying is that you cannot dismiss grahams point that there could be things currently undiscovered in the vast unexamined areas of the world.
That is not a good point but a logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is certainly not evidence, you can’t use “we haven’t looked” as evidence for your claims.
If you can't rule something out due to lack of evidence that doesn't mean you get to rule something in with the lack of evidence either. Hancock makes positive claims and when they are examined they fall flat.
Graham going on about Clovis first was all you need to know about him, I'm a non archeologist and seeing him cling to that point after Dibble said quite clearly that wasn't taught for at least 20years was just weird...And then Hancock references a bigthink article about it, just hilarious. Like dude, if that's your level of research you may as well just be a redditor.
Flint made some good points but when Graham brought Sphinx and pyramid orientation and their connection to constellations which, if true, confirm that Sphinx is much older, Flint just dismissed all as coincidence. He also dismissed Robert Schock's theory on Sphinx water erosion without real evidence to disprove it.
So just looking at what it says on Wikipedia, there seem to be numerous counter arguments to this. So while there may not be anything that disproves the water erosion hypothesis there is plenty that makes it extremely unlikely.
Really I feel like Flint was terrible. The seed argument was his only highlight. The rest of the time he was just getting exposed for being narrow minded
Using two of the most common logical fallacies right out of the gate, does not create the impression that you are objective. . More specifically -- Your very first sentence in the video description is an ad hominem, via a strawman. Hancock isn't a "pseudoarchaeologist", because he doesn't *claim* to be an archaeologist at all. Instead, he has said that he's a journalist, *hundreds* of times over the last 20+ years. . And archaeologists keep wondering why their credibility is questioned all the time, and they lament why people don't "trust the experts" and "trust the science". . (As an analogy, I would never call a medical journalist a "pseudo-doctor").
If he isn't doing archaeology, then why is he making interpretations of the past based on material culture, that is archaeology, that is what he is doing. He is doing archaeology, just really badly which is why it rubs academic archaeologists the wrong way as there are lots of standard procedure that has been in pkace since the 80's which he doesn't follow, yet he wants his work to be seen as equal when he doesn't have acceptable histiographic and archaeological methods.
@@kavanagharchie .... Really? .... do you mean the "standard procedure that has been in place since the 80s", that falsely defended Clovis First until its last dying breath? .... (eye roll)
@@recipeguy8344 you really aren't that bright are you, it was the new procedures, theory and method that ended the dominance of clovis first, in the 80's, so thanks for that demonstration of exactly what I'm talking about. What is it with Hancock fans having absolutely zero clue that the Archaeology practised by the clovis first lot has very little to do with how archaeology is practised today. Do you not realise Hancock alwayd bangs on about Clovis first because thats how far back he has to go to find a dpgmatic position that wasn't backed up by the evidence. Please read Archaeological theory and method by Matthew Johnson that should give you some idea as to how Archaeology actually works. So you don't sound so foolish next time you try and speak on something you sre completely ignorant of.
So? What has that got to do with the comment above? Why is everything mutually exclusive with u people. Hancock can be wrong at the same time the archeological community can be guilty of fatekeeping and intilectual dishonesty, you add nothing but what-about-isms .
wow this is why true scientist, say that archaeologist are not scientist. thanks for you putting a known liar on a petal stool. I am tired of seeing these kinda videos, where you all think a liar won a debate!!! Wow you all are so educated!!!
It's really hard to take you seriously as a "professional", or even as an adult, with that intro. You missed the entire point of Graham Hancock's presentation- the optimist in me says you did this purposefully, the pessimist in me says it's because you are an "intellectual, yet idiot". Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence. Academia has answers for everything, but a lot of the times the answers are just "we don't have any evidence of x or y happening, so it was likely z". There is no evidence that the pyramids were built using encircling embankments. Zip, zero, zilch. Yes, that "could have been" how it was done. Yeah, it also "could have been" an advanced technique that was lost in time, kind of like Roman concrete. Academia admittedly takes the most "probable" theory (with zero evidence), and concludes it must be that until an alternative is proven. The academic take doesn't have to be proven, as long as it's a "general consensus", but any outsider theories have been burdened with producing the evidence. Egyptian granite vases- ok you took tools that "might have been" used at the time (with zero evidence they existed), and made a rickety granite vase that wasn't hollowed out inside, and it took you two years. The actual granite vases were exact proportions to within thousandths of an inch with walls (of granite) that were so thin in parts a light could be shone through, a far cry from what the "experts" could make in 2 years with tools that "might have been" around at the time, though none have been found. Something happens when people become "experts" that actually breaks their brain, like their ego swallows them whole and they don't realize how ridiculous they sound and look to normal society. I bet you're triple vahkseenated, too, and have no regrets on that one because you're smarter than the rest of us.
Is this guy a real archaeologist? If so what an unprofessional person. As a laymen I’m not really sure what point your are trying to make. I don’t know what you are trying to promote but it sure isn’t archeology or answers to many questions where Dr. Dibble failed to do. And ignoring other professionals because it doesn’t fit into your story doesn’t fly. I want to have faith in the archeological community but guys like this sure don’t help. The ‘because we said so’ explanations don’t really fly. At least not for me. Flint dibble made good points, but dismissed everything countering with the idea anyone outside the circle is wrong. After looking deeper into what Dr. Dibble said about a few of the topics I found his arguments are weak and in areas he is not accustomed to. I enjoy hearing both sides of the story and with depth to every explanation but videos like this are a sorry illustration of a pathetic excuse for eduction our universities have. Give us layman’s more then bickering like a middle schooler.
The problem is, and this goes for almost all science now-a-days, to understand even the most basic ideas proposed in any field it takes an inordinate amount of specialized knowledge, skill, and time. These specialized areas of knowledge are not something a layman can easily grasp onto, because you'd have to have training in these areas that 95% of the layman population either won't have or can't afford to have for whatever reason. When you're sick, do you go to the grocery store and ask a Cashier to fix you? Or your Auto-mechanic? No, you go to a Doctor because you trust they have the specialized knowledge, follow the current literature and discoveries, and have experience in practicing. There is a new renaissance of people intuitively thinking "They are telling me 'Just cause I say so'." which they aren't. That's not how science works. If an archeologist sat down to try to explain to you what the current theories are and why, they'd be giving you lengthy seminars on the 2000000 data points and subsequent computer simulations of what the world was like 100k years ago, 10 different in depth courses on physical and bio-chemistry, and 4 rounds of a Bachelors in Ecology. It's literally near impossible for an expert in a physical science to adequately and completely communicate the "why and how" because time and energy for both the Explainer and Explainee is finite. *This is why people pay for and go to higher education* Not to mention 99% of people's eyes would just glaze over and a large majority get defensive and make up some ludicrous argument (because this type of strawman-esque bullshit happens all the time) about how the Expert is just using big words to confuse and/or obfuscate, or cover up and pander to a narrative put forth by "Big-Insert-Field-of-Study-Here". Again, *This is not how science works* Quite Simply, you gather data, you make a hypothesis, gather more data, test hypothesis, refine theory...Rinse repeat. There isn't some crazy narrative conspiracy in all these fields of study. The reason this so-called "Narrative" exists, is because it's the best fit anyone to date has found that fits ALL the data humans have compiled, from ALL areas of study. The reason Psuedo-scientific theories, are just that, is because they fit less of the data than the current theories do. Theories that weren't pulled out of someone's ass randomly, but refined over years and years of work by hundreds and hundreds of people. Graham Hancock is not an Archeologist, he's a journalist. He didn't go to school for Physics, Physical Chemistry, Bio-Chemistry, or Ecology. Just like you go to a Doctor when you're sick, wtf would you think he knows a god damn thing about anything archeological. Holy Fuck dude. Wake up.
Well done to Flint for not coming across as a typical arrogant archaeologist when faced with an outsider who has different opinions to those of the mainstream. I watched all four hours plus and really enjoyed the debate. However, another commentator has already shown that Flint did not present the seeds argument correctly. It sounded great on the show, but the reality is somewhat different to what he said, thereby somewhat undermining his position. If mainstream archaeology wants to get more public support, it needs to go out there and talk plain English, which is what Flint did, and which you recognised. Now, if we can stop all those out there doing all the back-stabbing, this debate could get a whole lot more interesting. I thought Rogan was brilliant too.
But he did, I have no dog in this fight cause I don’t know either person other than just listening to them speak on Joe Rogan. Flint sounds like an arrogant academia twat who is very condescending. The fact that we have only studied 5% of different sites and we’re gonna form a basis off of that 5% is very premature. That’s like saying I should get an A on my test for a 5% score cause that other 95% I didn’t study.
Not to mention u r biased..... it would actullybe nice to get your real option on Flint interview. im happy for u being happy to accomplishing your 15 sec of fame on JRE 👍 hope u look in the mirror
Graham Hancock was back on the show and Roagan said had told lies having to do with the seeds and shipwrecks.
I thought that the biggest win of the whole show was Flint getting Hancock to basically walk back all of his more extraordinary claims, because there was so little evidence for them.
@mrmojo-risin basically:
Hancock claims that his ancient civilization was at something like "18th-19th century advancement"
Which, after Flint's questioning, he basically walks back this point to say that he meant they were only as advanced as this when it comes to astronomy. This is a huge concession compared to what we imagine from this level of "advancement." He realized he could not defend a POV that claimed they had all the technology associated with that advancement, because we would see carriages littered around the ocean floor.
Hancock claims that his civilization brought agriculture to the ancient hunter-gatherers.
After Flint's presentation on the development of agriculture, Hancock had to correct his point to say, "they introduced the IDEA of agriculture" but no specific crops, no cross cultural specific techniques. To me, this is a huge concession, because you can imagine that ancient humans probably had the idea for agriculture long before thinking it would work! You'd expect if another civilization taught them, they'd go from 0-100 pretty fast, whereas the existing evidence shows that it still took thousands if years to get it right.
With these two major points walked back, what exactly was the contribution of this ancient culture that couldn't be contributed by the existing cultures?
The last point was not a concession directly, but when Flint pointed out that there are thousands of shipwreck sites recorded, Hancock balked at the idea that his civilization could be understood via shipwrecks alone, which would be a fair point if ANY ship wrecks supported his hypothesis.
@@newonlinetheatren.o.t1339I agree. However: to non-academics, the " *idea* of agriculture" still sounds like "agriculture", and gives Hancock an easy way out for his next book, where he certainly won't use the weasel word "idea", and just start with "agriculture".
Perhaps Dibble should have pressed even harder on that.
@@mrmojo-risinhe literally admitted there was no evidence for his civilization wtf is he been doing his entire life then
@@mrmojo-risin well I went and he lied he claimed he has the evidence but on the podcast he said he doesn't that tell's me everything I need to know about him
@@mrmojo-risin he said there is tho the old he basically redate the ancient structure
I loved Graham Hancock for a long time, his talk of Atlantis and a new frontier in human understanding inspired me to go into History/Archaeology. Now, with my Undergraduate degree and a Graduate Assistantship, on my way to a PHD with 0$ debt, I can't but thank him for inspiring a deep curiosity and sparking my need to know. Seeing Flint Dibble cooly deal with an offensive, frankly rude Hancock in the cool, professional and prepared way that he did - it was like watching two sides of my heart fight for authority. Hancock had virtually nothing, Flint forced him to admit as much.
This debate is so important in ways we can't even realize today. Milo Rossi says we are in the renaissance of scientific communication, and the Hancocks of the world are winning because the real information of experts has not caught up to their level of mass outreach. Joe Rogan did the world a favor by publicly setting the record straight in long-form debate where the manipulation of history could not withstand a thoughtful barrage of truth.
It is sad to see your hero fall. Flint Dibble is a worthy usurper.
Based name too. Flint Dibble. Legendary. I'm proud to have him represent the field.
You're wrong
I thought you said that extremely well!
Well this was well written , i dont know why people are so offended by graham hancocks statements , yea he could have handle that whole debate with more finesse, but he is no saint, after 30 years of character attacks and being dismissed for his books and point of view , anyone would have been very much jadeed.
I have read some of his books and i never got the feeling that he made strong statements, its more of a vombination of multiple things and vonjectures from mythology stories and cultures having a lot of things in common without any interaction is crazy to say that ita just a coincidince but he only said that there is a missing chapter even in the 90es he speculatet the catastrophy of the early ice age and today people are providing scientific proof of such a conjecture being truth.
Graham is not a scientist by any means and he is not parading as one, he is a journalist, and he is only defending the possibility of there being a lost abvanced human civilization,.
The whole thing of labeling him as a science fiction writter is very funny imo, because just look at the sci fi movies and tv shows from the 70-90s and how much of it is still svience fiction or just plain sciance today.
Graham finally got exposed in my opinion. He even went to his usual tactic of attacking character when he failed to provide anything intellectual.
@@mrmojo-risindid you even watch the debate? Graham starting the debate by telling Flint he wouldn’t know the archeology of a place because he’s never visited it in person, what an embarrassing rebuttal.
@@mrmojo-risinIf you watched then you would know…
Dibble REALLY attacked Graham's character saying his questioning and theorizing was related to "white supremecy". I don't think Graham won the debate, but it's terrible to be called white supremacist because you have an opposing opinion against the majority view. Science is about debating the facts.
Graham has written things most anthropologists would classify as white supremacist, such as in the Fingerprints of the Gods when he called the Maya only "semi-civilized" (whatever that means) and states that therefore they could not have invented thier own calendar.
Graham's theory at its core is an infantalizing one, which is the reason people say that. No one's ancestors could have figured things out on their own; not the Egyptians, or the Maya, or anyone.
@@vincestapels2022 No, he questioned the sources as should we all. If anyone made personal attacks, it was Graham whenever he noticed he was being trounced intellectually, with facts and evidence, which Graham never provided other than his holiday snaps.
Moves around like a WWF wrestler from the 80s who's gas tank is full of sugar.
You talking about GoldDust, brother?
The accusation of graham being a white supremacist really hurt flint's character a lot. It puts flint into this political dogma bucket which absolutely destroys his credibility.
Absolutely made him look like a little kid lying
That was not the accusation made, but that many of his claims were created by actual white supremacists (which is true), and that he put no effort in bringing this nuance when, in Flint's perspective, it is just reasonable and necessary to understand why these lies were being created in the first place.
Looking back he shouldve probably admitted that knowing todays media writing a sentence like that would 95% be used to generate clicks. But his argument is also valid even if the claim wasnt really that important.
I find this entire alt-historian vs archeologist fanboys dispute annoying. When I got my chemistry degree archeology was considered a pseudo-science. Since there is so much imaginative interpretation involved in archeology it lacks the determinism that true science requires. And archeologists have historically been prone to find exactly what they decided to search for. For example, Soloman's Gates (eyes roll). So, reflexively does this make alt-historians pseudo-pseudo-scientists? Enough already.
Im sure you get this all the time but what is your advice for someone going back to school for Archeology? Im thinking of studying Archeology and getting a minor in Geology, or would you recommend the reverse of that? Any other advice would be much appreciated.
"if there was a comet, it was probably no big deal..."
At this point I'd say you're done.
That single, ignorant comment, should disqualify you from any serious consideration going forwards.
My guess is that youll never consider what you said and simply double down on that statement.
I'll never know.
I will double down on my statement. Now you know.
Google how many asteroid/meteors fall to Earth in a given year. Unless it was equivalent to the Chicxulub in size and mass, it wouldn't affect any but regional climate.
@@russellmillar7132 Google "comet".
Then think of the, "probably no big deal" part.
Do you see the problem with this statement now?
@@russellmillar7132 yep.
@@russellmillar7132 interesting. I don't see my original reply here.
Which basically said, "Google comet"
and then revisit the "probably no big deal" quote.
I love this guy. He just oozes charisma.
I love seeing academia relish in the fact that Dibble absolutely bodies Hancock. It was a masterclass.
If his professors made fun of it did they work to enlighten the rest of the world or continue to let a falsehood proliferate?
Flint nailed it?
You know, other than when it got to the part where it came to defending his character attacks on Graham. Then he tried to weasel out of admitting that he said those things, used his platform to promote those things, and was all too eager to move on from it.
You want to attach the work, I'm all here for it, but you call the man every bad name under the sun, expect to defend yourself.
What Flint said is factually accurate, that Graham sources a lot of outdated texts that are couched in the imperialist, racist rhetoric of the time. This is proven by the other fact that those same sources were eventually co-opted by the Eugenics movements of the early 20th century. It is not a commentary on Graham's personal beliefs, but the idea that by citing these sources, he is (intentionally or not) pushing a narrative laced with racism.
That said, he also realized that Graham only brought it up so he could drum up easy support from Rogan's primarily right-wing and conspiratorially-minded audience, many of whom share similar persecution complexes. So, instead of engaging on a non-sequitur issue, he attempted to push the focus back onto the actual topic of the debate. Obviously, Graham's ploy worked to a degree because that's all the Graham defenders seem to focus on. Not the entire rest of the debate where Graham was made to look like a child fighting a trained boxer.
Great interview Joe did! I do think it was very slimy of Dibble to characterize Graham as having "white supremecist" ideas just because he has a different opinion, that might not be true.
Dribble Dibble pretending to be an adult but still in short pants.
Flint truly was brilliant. While there may be a very small probablility for Hancok's theories and ideas due to how much we still have to learn and discover snd explore...but based on what we have, there is not even a remote possibllity of a lost civilization existing.
Flint did a great job!
No he didn’t had to fact check a bit. The internet is free for everyone…… have an open mind and actually listen.
@@thesoloist2490 okay
@@thesoloist2490 Flint did a fantastic job. The internet is free, but also full of BS from Graham’s side to attempt to cover up Graham’s debate loss!
Dibble is a con artist and it sounds like this guy is the same or maybe just ignorant
You come across exactly the way Flint did, smug, arrogant, and dismissive.
See, this is the problem of the knowledgeable arguing against the unknowledgeable, though.
I will give you an example.
If you, say, decided you were the best basketball player in the world because on your court in your neighbourhood, you are the best, hands down.
So you challenge NBA players to play you and you get SMOKED. It's like a adult playing against a child. He bounces the ball off your head, between your legs, makes you look foolish, due to the higher level of skill and knowledge of the game that he has.
From the outside, the NBA player will appear to be the arrogant, dismissive, smug, even rude person. He is making a fool of the guy.
But remember, THAT guy lead with "I am the best basketball player in the world!", which itself is the most smug, dismissive, arrogant, even rude thing for someone who clearly does not understand the levels of the game to say.
So yes, I don't disagree with you. He probably SOUNDED that way to you.
But that does not mean he was wrong, and in fact, if you believe believe someone sounds arrogant or dismissive about a topic they have studied, it is likely due to your own bias creeping in as your argument gets destroyed by someone who knows what they are talking about.
There is simply no way to counter someone who is so arrogant as to claim a whole field of science is massively wrong about easy to prove things he refuses to prove without seeming reflexively arrogant to the person who is making the claim.
This is a basic logic issue.
You should not use issues with basic logic as evidence against someone as the issues of someone debating someone who does not understand the topic they are talking about will lead to this basic logical problem every time.
@@kirkoconnell If you believe that Flint Dibble is an NBA player level Archaeologist then show me his accolades. What books has he written? What groundbreaking discoveries has he made? He seems to be a typical gatekeeper type archaeologist who has probably done a lot of work, but nothing really of note. This is from his own page at Dartmouth...
"I'm a Classical archaeologist. My research focuses on the topic of food in ancient Greece. In fact, I mostly study food trash in the form of animal bones. These humble remains tell us of everyday meals, elaborate feasts, and how humans interacted with the environment around them. While I'm usually found in a classroom, laboratory, or library, I'm a dirt archaeologist at heart. I've excavated at a wide range of sites from Paleolithic caves and Neolithic villages to Bronze Age palaces and Greek and Roman cities. Currently, I'm co-Field Director of the Histria Multiscalar Archaeological Project in Romania and collaborating as zooarchaeologist for several ongoing excavation and study projects in Greece (Azoria, Gourimadi, Lechaion, Phaleron).
I'm an innovative teacher who challenges students to think outside-of-the-box and write clear, evidence-based, narratives. My goal is always to provide a hands-on experience with the past through primary sources. From the voices of ancient people to their discarded refuse, I think the best instruction situates us directly in relation to this evidence. As a digital native, I challenge students to improve their public writing on blogs and social media.
I firmly believe in academic outreach and write popular Twitter threads about archaeology and ancient history alongside other projects."
Then his actual website is a blank wordpress website. He sounds like he hasn't even visited any of the ancient world megalithic sites. He studies trash and food waste in ancient Greece, and has excavated some stone/bronze age villages. The debate was garbage on both sides in a lot of ways, didn't get enough into the actual sites in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Peru, Mexico, etc. I'd imagine Graham is tip-toeing around a lot of his views on those ancient sites because he's had a lot of academic/borderline legal backlash, but Flint Dibble doesn't seem to really have any hands on experience and is just spewing the broader academic narrative on the dates of the Pyramids, etc. Overall the debate seemed stifled, and Graham was being arrogant and petty, and was often wrong or didn't make a good case for his view, but Flint did the same thing numerous times.
Overall I'd say this. Flint did very little to compel me towards his point of view, and broadly made attacks and dodged/subverted a lot of questions, and did appear arrogant and at a lot of points very unknowledgeable about certain very well excavated public sites like Sacsayhuaman, where there are a lot of examples of work done to the bedrock itself, similar to what Graham speculates is shown at Yana Guni off the coast of Japan. Flint misses Graham's point and goes into a defensive arc about how Graham is gatekeeping Sacsayhuaman because he's been there and Flint hasn't, but Graham is making the point that he's seen the similar work in person, and is noting his personal pattern recognition and is seeing similar fascinating things at Yana Guni. That being said I don't find Yana Guni that convincing, but water might have eroded/degraded the site to it's current state as well so I'm not sure. My broader point is Flint seems to be not an expert in the field of Egyptology, hasn't visited a lot of these key megalithic sites in Peru, Turkey, Jordan, etc. and is just broadly dismissive of any point of view that doesn't tow the line of the Society of American Archaeologists, likely because he's essentially representing them in a debate against someone like Graham. Overall I don't find his out-classing Graham, but I was highly disappointed in how Graham actually handled the debate. At the same time given the attacks leveled against Graham there is probably a lot of emotion involved in the entire situation.
you come across black
Since when are you bothered by arrogance?
@@kirkoconnellThis is a fabulous analogy. Well said!
first time here and the comments are wack, is it always like that?
Whenever I talk about anything remotely related to Pseudoarchaeology, yes.
@@KinkellaTeachesArchaeology well is hard to take you seriously with that mindset...
Hancock/Carlson has been called out many times by Jason of ARCHAIX. He would wipe the floor with the both of them
Yes, but the audience needs to first believe in facts…
@@KinkellaTeachesArchaeology why when you dont?
im in school for history/archaeology atm. i didnt think flint did nearly as well as you say. he was very dismissive of some valid points graham made. and i think grahams full of shit, but hes right, if only a small percentage of the world has been explored/examined you cannot definitively say that you know what the undiscovered parts would contain. thats all graham was saying, that the possibility of certain things cannot be ruled out with so much left to examine. but yeah good on Dibs for going on to debate.
It is not a "good point" by Hancock per se. As a student of archaeology, you should be aware that if you are examining an area of, let's say, 1 square kilometer of brush, and you're doing the typical survey methods, you may spot a small area with any sign of human settlement, and then dig a test pit there. Graham Hancock would say that since you didn't dig over the whole site, it was unexplored area.
Well, what Flint's counterpoint is, is that from the areas that have been explored in the way I mentioned, nothing comes close to hinting at a world-spanning culture with agriculture. Hancock cannot just say his claims with no evidence and then say, "well, you didn't look hard enough." I can assert, "Aliens landed and did XYZ, but you haven't explored enough pyramids to find the evidence," and I am no more correct than Hancock on the matter.
As a student, you should also know that we explore areas from the more well known to the less known. We should be able to find evidence of this massive culture overlapping with the hunter gatherers that we actually find. Instead, there is no evidence at all.
@@newonlinetheatren.o.t1339 i do know all of that, you are missing the point. i understand the reasons why only small percentages of areas are examined/surveyed. grahams only saying that there is still mystery/possibility due to the nature of their studies. i mean just a couple years ago using new tech, LIDAR, we found new cities in dense amazon jungle that were previously unknown.
I am not saying anything about lost advanced societies, lost high technology, or aliens. what i am saying is that you cannot dismiss grahams point that there could be things currently undiscovered in the vast unexamined areas of the world.
That is not a good point but a logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is certainly not evidence, you can’t use “we haven’t looked” as evidence for your claims.
i think you gotta learn a bit more and the two other commenters do a great job at it
If you can't rule something out due to lack of evidence that doesn't mean you get to rule something in with the lack of evidence either. Hancock makes positive claims and when they are examined they fall flat.
This guys definitely seems open minded and able to think outside of his traditional background 😂… oh wait
Graham going on about Clovis first was all you need to know about him, I'm a non archeologist and seeing him cling to that point after Dibble said quite clearly that wasn't taught for at least 20years was just weird...And then Hancock references a bigthink article about it, just hilarious. Like dude, if that's your level of research you may as well just be a redditor.
Yeah, it's tiring. Hancock always refuses to use any recent research because he's just pushing an old, tired, debunked story.
Flint made some good points but when Graham brought Sphinx and pyramid orientation and their connection to constellations which, if true, confirm that Sphinx is much older, Flint just dismissed all as coincidence. He also dismissed Robert Schock's theory on Sphinx water erosion without real evidence to disprove it.
He dismissed it because there was no real evidence to prove it either though, it’s essentially a ‘maybe’
So just looking at what it says on Wikipedia, there seem to be numerous counter arguments to this. So while there may not be anything that disproves the water erosion hypothesis there is plenty that makes it extremely unlikely.
Flint dismissed all that stuff because there are no facts to support it.
@KinkellaTeachesArchaeology
And you would know this how?
This inquiring mind really wants to know.
Really I feel like Flint was terrible. The seed argument was his only highlight. The rest of the time he was just getting exposed for being narrow minded
Did you miss the part where Hancock ended up admitting that he has no solid proof for what he's saying ?
Using two of the most common logical fallacies right out of the gate, does not create the impression that you are objective.
.
More specifically -- Your very first sentence in the video description is an ad hominem, via a strawman. Hancock isn't a "pseudoarchaeologist", because he doesn't *claim* to be an archaeologist at all. Instead, he has said that he's a journalist, *hundreds* of times over the last 20+ years.
.
And archaeologists keep wondering why their credibility is questioned all the time, and they lament why people don't "trust the experts" and "trust the science".
.
(As an analogy, I would never call a medical journalist a "pseudo-doctor").
😹
If he isn't doing archaeology, then why is he making interpretations of the past based on material culture, that is archaeology, that is what he is doing. He is doing archaeology, just really badly which is why it rubs academic archaeologists the wrong way as there are lots of standard procedure that has been in pkace since the 80's which he doesn't follow, yet he wants his work to be seen as equal when he doesn't have acceptable histiographic and archaeological methods.
@@kavanagharchie .... Really? .... do you mean the "standard procedure that has been in place since the 80s", that falsely defended Clovis First until its last dying breath? .... (eye roll)
@@recipeguy8344 you really aren't that bright are you, it was the new procedures, theory and method that ended the dominance of clovis first, in the 80's, so thanks for that demonstration of exactly what I'm talking about. What is it with Hancock fans having absolutely zero clue that the Archaeology practised by the clovis first lot has very little to do with how archaeology is practised today. Do you not realise Hancock alwayd bangs on about Clovis first because thats how far back he has to go to find a dpgmatic position that wasn't backed up by the evidence. Please read Archaeological theory and method by Matthew Johnson that should give you some idea as to how Archaeology actually works. So you don't sound so foolish next time you try and speak on something you sre completely ignorant of.
Clovis first was an example of Archeologists engaging in intellectually dishonesty.
the entire podcast was hancock engaging in intellectual dishonesty
So? What has that got to do with the comment above? Why is everything mutually exclusive with u people. Hancock can be wrong at the same time the archeological community can be guilty of fatekeeping and intilectual dishonesty, you add nothing but what-about-isms .
* gatekeeping*
None of these were taken seriously by archaeologists except for Piltdown Man (because it was a fraud meant to look real).
wow this is why true scientist, say that archaeologist are not scientist. thanks for you putting a known liar on a petal stool. I am tired of seeing these kinda videos, where you all think a liar won a debate!!! Wow you all are so educated!!!
Unbearable video, on an interesting topic
Flint clearly lied; I have doubts about you too now.
Uh oh. Time for me to retire I guess.
Hancock is truly a joke
Unfortunately, yes.
It's really hard to take you seriously as a "professional", or even as an adult, with that intro. You missed the entire point of Graham Hancock's presentation- the optimist in me says you did this purposefully, the pessimist in me says it's because you are an "intellectual, yet idiot". Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence. Academia has answers for everything, but a lot of the times the answers are just "we don't have any evidence of x or y happening, so it was likely z". There is no evidence that the pyramids were built using encircling embankments. Zip, zero, zilch. Yes, that "could have been" how it was done. Yeah, it also "could have been" an advanced technique that was lost in time, kind of like Roman concrete. Academia admittedly takes the most "probable" theory (with zero evidence), and concludes it must be that until an alternative is proven. The academic take doesn't have to be proven, as long as it's a "general consensus", but any outsider theories have been burdened with producing the evidence. Egyptian granite vases- ok you took tools that "might have been" used at the time (with zero evidence they existed), and made a rickety granite vase that wasn't hollowed out inside, and it took you two years. The actual granite vases were exact proportions to within thousandths of an inch with walls (of granite) that were so thin in parts a light could be shone through, a far cry from what the "experts" could make in 2 years with tools that "might have been" around at the time, though none have been found. Something happens when people become "experts" that actually breaks their brain, like their ego swallows them whole and they don't realize how ridiculous they sound and look to normal society. I bet you're triple vahkseenated, too, and have no regrets on that one because you're smarter than the rest of us.
Is this guy a real archaeologist? If so what an unprofessional person. As a laymen I’m not really sure what point your are trying to make. I don’t know what you are trying to promote but it sure isn’t archeology or answers to many questions where Dr. Dibble failed to do. And ignoring other professionals because it doesn’t fit into your story doesn’t fly. I want to have faith in the archeological community but guys like this sure don’t help. The ‘because we said so’ explanations don’t really fly. At least not for me. Flint dibble made good points, but dismissed everything countering with the idea anyone outside the circle is wrong. After looking deeper into what Dr. Dibble said about a few of the topics I found his arguments are weak and in areas he is not accustomed to. I enjoy hearing both sides of the story and with depth to every explanation but videos like this are a sorry illustration of a pathetic excuse for eduction our universities have. Give us layman’s more then bickering like a middle schooler.
The problem is, and this goes for almost all science now-a-days, to understand even the most basic ideas proposed in any field it takes an inordinate amount of specialized knowledge, skill, and time. These specialized areas of knowledge are not something a layman can easily grasp onto, because you'd have to have training in these areas that 95% of the layman population either won't have or can't afford to have for whatever reason.
When you're sick, do you go to the grocery store and ask a Cashier to fix you? Or your Auto-mechanic? No, you go to a Doctor because you trust they have the specialized knowledge, follow the current literature and discoveries, and have experience in practicing.
There is a new renaissance of people intuitively thinking "They are telling me 'Just cause I say so'." which they aren't. That's not how science works. If an archeologist sat down to try to explain to you what the current theories are and why, they'd be giving you lengthy seminars on the 2000000 data points and subsequent computer simulations of what the world was like 100k years ago, 10 different in depth courses on physical and bio-chemistry, and 4 rounds of a Bachelors in Ecology. It's literally near impossible for an expert in a physical science to adequately and completely communicate the "why and how" because time and energy for both the Explainer and Explainee is finite. *This is why people pay for and go to higher education*
Not to mention 99% of people's eyes would just glaze over and a large majority get defensive and make up some ludicrous argument (because this type of strawman-esque bullshit happens all the time) about how the Expert is just using big words to confuse and/or obfuscate, or cover up and pander to a narrative put forth by "Big-Insert-Field-of-Study-Here". Again, *This is not how science works*
Quite Simply, you gather data, you make a hypothesis, gather more data, test hypothesis, refine theory...Rinse repeat. There isn't some crazy narrative conspiracy in all these fields of study. The reason this so-called "Narrative" exists, is because it's the best fit anyone to date has found that fits ALL the data humans have compiled, from ALL areas of study. The reason Psuedo-scientific theories, are just that, is because they fit less of the data than the current theories do. Theories that weren't pulled out of someone's ass randomly, but refined over years and years of work by hundreds and hundreds of people.
Graham Hancock is not an Archeologist, he's a journalist. He didn't go to school for Physics, Physical Chemistry, Bio-Chemistry, or Ecology. Just like you go to a Doctor when you're sick, wtf would you think he knows a god damn thing about anything archeological. Holy Fuck dude. Wake up.
Well done to Flint for not coming across as a typical arrogant archaeologist when faced with an outsider who has different opinions to those of the mainstream. I watched all four hours plus and really enjoyed the debate. However, another commentator has already shown that Flint did not present the seeds argument correctly. It sounded great on the show, but the reality is somewhat different to what he said, thereby somewhat undermining his position. If mainstream archaeology wants to get more public support, it needs to go out there and talk plain English, which is what Flint did, and which you recognised. Now, if we can stop all those out there doing all the back-stabbing, this debate could get a whole lot more interesting. I thought Rogan was brilliant too.
But he did, I have no dog in this fight cause I don’t know either person other than just listening to them speak on Joe Rogan. Flint sounds like an arrogant academia twat who is very condescending. The fact that we have only studied 5% of different sites and we’re gonna form a basis off of that 5% is very premature. That’s like saying I should get an A on my test for a 5% score cause that other 95% I didn’t study.
That other commentator is someone with zero education in archeology, the dude is an electrician ffs.
@@mrmojo-risin And actual evidence as opposed to Hancock who was corned and had to admit to Joe that there is zero evidence for any of his ideas
@@LesterBrunt 3 million shipwrecks we know about? lol
I was looking to be swayed by this video but was not
1:29 your Christopher Walken impression is outstanding.
You mean the part where I say that Graham Hancock needs more cowbell?
Groan.....
and then archialogist expect us to belive them..... SAA good job
I understand you probably have to start your education again, especially at your age it must be heartbreaking. Time to wake up?
Not to mention u r biased..... it would actullybe nice to get your real option on Flint interview. im happy for u being happy to accomplishing your 15 sec of fame on JRE 👍 hope u look in the mirror
Lol u funny