hey man liked the video, hate to see u get this much hate for stating a valid opinion on what is weird about Hancocks argument. I find it weird that there were a lot of archeologists willing to talk with Hancock about the sites and only feel that they were in some cases cut out of context. Why would they talk to him in his show if he considered this "dangerous" to them.
Thanks for the kind words. Speaking to your point, and I can't speak for archaeologist because it is not my area, but I imagine it has to do with the fact that he is referencing archaeological sites. I think that they feel the need to engage on that level in order to combat the misinformation regarding those sites and to adequately represent their field. Also, to clarify, I wouldn't say that Hancock himself is dangerous. I do not think that he, personally, is promoting dangerous ideas. I think this is also what the SAA letter is pointing out. Rather, similar ideas to the one that he is saying has been used in pretty horrific/ dangerous ways. Don't know if that makes sense? Let me know.
@@MichaelGranado1 why do you chose to respond to this comment instead of the other one where I expose your fallacies? You take the joke seriously and the serious argument ignored. I did this deliberately to judge you character, in a lack of better argumentation you are trying to argue with me to antagonize me, that way you don't have to deal with reality. Weak move. You think you're analytical but remember there is always someone smarter and more analytical out there.
@@kite9096 I do my best to respond to all comments, however I am unable to respond to more than one comment at a time. This was the first comment that came up, and as a result was the first that I responded to. If you check the other comment, however, you will notice that I have responded to it. I was not trying to antagonize you, I was simply responding to the comment that you made.
Crazy how much time people spend to attack you for pointing out some dodgy logic in Grahams Arguments. 1. Even though Hancock is right, when he thinks that the size of his audience plays a role in why he is being called out, it is the content of his statements that are the reason for him being called out and he just ignores that. 2. He feels personally attacked and claims the reason for that is the territoral nature of archeology and ignores the factual objection to his claims. His methodology is very unscientific and how he jumps to conclusions as well. He is constantly trying to prove his theory and is therefore biased per definition. If you want your theory to be true, you will fall victim to confirmation bias. Clearly the case with him. Instead of accepting the fact that what he does is very unscientific and guesswork at best, he claims that big bad science is out for him, because he is threatening their very existence with his revelations. Also he cannot come to terms with the idea that his „theory“ has been used by racist thinkers, which doesn’t invalidate the ideas per se, but it is information which should be important context to include when he mentions those ideas. He should also explain why his „theory“ is different and in which ways if he is wants to make sure there is no wiggle room.
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a positive comment! You articulated both of those points really well. Said the second point better than I could have. I couldn't agree more with that last sentence.
Graham Hancocks biggest mistake was trying to win an argument against someone who was willing to twist the facts and lie to win the argument. Maybe you should make a video about that and do your research about it all first
Like saying that there are 3 Million known shipwrecks that were found so far and stating it as a fact. Turns out it's not even close to a million. But who cares right?
oh god, why do I get keep getting these recommendations. Another so called "expert" or "educator" trying to throw mud at Hancock with some half assed arguments, bias and not so subtle elitism. The guy is asking valid questions in the field, proposing new theories and entertaining much needed new ideas for what we know, let the man live for god's sake.
In what sense are his questions valid? The questions that he asked about existing archaeological sites we already have answers for. I would not call what he's doing a theory, because within an academic context theories explain evidence. What evidence is Hancock explaining? All of his examples of evidence already have explanations, in theories which explain them.
@@MichaelGranado1point 1: hilarious that you named this video “Hancocks Strawman” and then proceed to strawman 😂 Point 2: I’m sorry when exactly have we excavated the Sahara? Or the Sunda shelf? Or Bimini? Or 70 percent of the Amazon? This is exactly why academics like yourself get correctly called out. The idea that all the sites or areas graham are talking about have been heavily researched and excavated already is flatly false. You’re either going out of your way to make “Logically Dubious” claims. Point 3: the valid questions he is asking are the same valid questions that archeologists and historians ask all the time. Namely Given that we definitely do not have all the information, records, artifacts going past call it 5000 years of human history, what can we glean from the information we do have in order to learn more about our collective past. Point 4: we do not even have substantial enough records or have not done enough archeological work to know exactly where battles that we KNOW happened took place 500 years ago. The idea that archeologists and historians have gathered enough data to absolutely refute the idea that human civilization goes back farther than what is currently accepted, is ridiculous. Historians and archeologists REGULARLY make the point that archeology is not an exact science, it takes a lot of theory crafting based on the small amount of artifacts or structures or quite frankly trash that are found in order to come up with a PLAUSIBLE idea of what any specific artifact or structure was even intended for. You cannot with any amount of credibility or credulity make the claim that we have gathered enough data to completely rule out the theory. Point 5: what are you counting as evidence? Geological records do not count? The fact that there are geologists, not one but multiple, who have actually gone to see the sphinx and agree that there are water erosion markers that do not match up with the currently accepted dating of the sphinx also I guess does not in any way count as evidence? Again this is just you being pedantic about what does and doesn’t qualify as evidence and by the way what has historically qualified as evidence within the field. You spent half the video explaining what a straw man is, then proceeded to strawman graham. Nasty work, at some point you guys are going to have to realize this whole “oh no we have degrees so we just know better than everyone” is not going to help the field. What would actually be helpful for all parties involved, would be to get the archeological work done in order to prove or disprove the claim. This is simply using wordplay to obfuscate the argument graham and a growing number of scientists in a number of different fields. Your style in the video, simply laughing off graham and continuously not using “evidence” or dealing with the theory being put forward, is quite literally you doing exactly what it says on the title. Bonus Point: you didn’t read the whole letter 😂😂😂 you cherry picked parts of it that don’t sound so terrible. Anyone who gets this far down please go watch dedunking’s video on the entire letter. The letter flatly states that graham himself promotes racial violence against minorities. Which is hilarious coming from a field, Archeology, which has a very long and well documented history of “discrediting the accomplishments of indigenous people” and “white washing their history”. I noticed, just like within the letter, you do not at any point actually explain what about grahams ideas specifically, not some amorphous idea of what has in the past has been done by people who are not graham, would make anyone who has followed his work believe that indigenous people are inferior. And you can’t, because NOWHERE in grahams work has he EVER proclaimed any belief in any kind of white supremacy. I’m black and Puerto Rican, are you really going to tell me that I can’t speak for myself, or that I need a field of science which has for longer than it hasn’t supported white supremacy, to tell me what racism is? I can promise you I don’t. Does flint dibble need to make sure that he explains that his thesis cites an open white supremacist? Apply the rules equally or stop with that nonsense, it’s beyond disrespect for the archeological community to weaponize racism in order to further a narrative. That is in it of itself racist, using native peoples to further narratives that they themselves have not espoused any belief in. Do better.
@MichaelGranado1 oh well, if we already have explainations about things that happened 5000 years ago we better stop asking questions. Solid point. 10/10 combat an argument of ignorance with an argument from authority. Big brain stuff. We're all very impressed.
@@MichaelGranado1 point 1: you spent the entire video not actually dealing with any of grahams claims, you just used wordplay to obfuscate. You saying we have enough evidence to rule out the idea that human civilization is older than the accepted current date is at the least intellectually dishonest and at the worst you know that’s simply not true which makes it a lie. If archeologists are very happy saying we don’t even have enough evidence to know where the sea peoples came from, then how would it in any way be possible that they have enough evidence to say they know for a fact people were not building cities before a comet hit the planet? Point 2: if you’re going to make a video about strawmaning someone, maybe don’t straw man in that video. If you’re going to say graham is promoting racial violence or that the ideas he espouses promotes racial violence then you’re going to have to put roughly 50 percent of archeology as a whole in that same pot. Archeology is built on white supremacy, built on Europeans and people of European decent pillaging natives all over the world, and sticking native artifacts, up to and including bodies, in museums. I am black and Puerto Rican of Taino descent, I have yet to see anything in grahams work that espouses any level of white supremacy and it fact he makes the point regularly that he does not believe Europeans had anything to do with these lost civilizations. Again that’s just you being lazy and strawmaning. Point 3: it’s honestly pretty obvious you don’t have a direct background in archeology itself because you don’t at any point engage with the substance, you just spend the entire video making amorphous statements that maybe could apply to graham if you ignore anything he’s ever said. And this is exactly your average person do not trust appeals to authority. Because authorities regularly lie and obfuscate. A video like this only does more to prove the point. Notice you didn’t read anywhere near the whole letter, you just cherry picked a few statements from the letter. Anyone who is reading this, please go watch DeDunkings video breaking down the letter in full. Y’all need to do better, and you in particular as someone who talks about critical thinking, need to come up with a more feasible argument than, well we already know everything about that, when we literally do not. That is a lie, or it’s you being ignorant but I have to believe you know better.
It's extremely either disengenuous or ignorant on your part to insinuate that Hancock's initial response was "because he's popular". It's clearly a statement made to explain that the more recognition his ideas get, the more that the mainstream archeology feel that they must take a stance against him. Regardless of who is right or wrong. If you want to nitpick a straw man, at least don't straw man his CLEAR explanation yourself.... The hypocrisy is astounding. Definitely glad to put a do not recommend this channel to me marking early on.
Thanks for watching and responding, I actually do appreciate critical feedback. My response to you would be the following quote by Hancock from the video: "Some archaeologists feel very territorial about their profession, and they do not feel happy about outsiders entering the realm, especially if those outsiders have a large platform. I found that the attacks by archaeologist on me have increased step by step with my exposure. I wasn't very interesting to them when I only had one minor bestseller in 1992." How do you interpret that statement?
That statement is a reasonable observation about the nature of expertise and the academy, and a personal guage of the amount and type of resistance he has encountered as his popularity, and reach, has increased. The "poor me, I'm so popular that archeologists hate me" interpretation you have adopted is a strawman, and only one of many in your video. The only reason you are making this video is his popularity and reach. It speaks to his point, and your tone reinforces it.
@@likwidmoceanI guess I find it hypocritical that Hancock has said in interviews that no archeologist will engage with his work or even debate him, and they ignore him. But then when they do engage with his work he equates the criticism to cancel culture. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t!
I think we know far less than archaeologists would like us all to believe. IT is factual that archaeology curates findings. Most academics do the same, particularly in the humanities. There is something amiss.
@@tomharris5661 I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but here is the wiki. Not sure if that's what your looking for: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman
@@MichaelGranado1 I thought you were a teacher, and you're pointing me to what is known to be one of if not the least reliable source? Wiki? Really? Why not just tell me what a woman is in your own words? Your dodging a simple question as a self-proclaimed teacher in the humanities illustrates the point I'm making precisely. Are there fundamental immutable human traits, and what does that mean for humans? Is that not what the humanities set out to explore?
@@raina4732 wtf are you talking about? On one hand he claims to be a student of the history of science, while at the same time ignoring that the scientific consensus is overturned time and again; that literally is the history of science.
@edbop lmao it's overturned when there is proof that changes our perception and understanding. Your argument is simply that it must be true because it happens every so often. Please try a little harder
@@Lastofthefreenames Yeah and new evidence has been found, clovis first is no longer the consensus, but was just a few years ago; not to mention gobeki teppi. To suggest Dibble's argument has been made into a strawman just isn't true. Diddle misrepresented the science and in some cases outright lied. I haven't suggested anything is true; all i've said is that this guy doesn't seem to understand the history of science.
@@edbop Science works in conjunction with evidence. You can't push forward a new paradigm without evidence first. Even if ALL the archeologists and rogue guys suspect something to be true based on intuition, they can't change the story until they find evidence. Science is flexible because it opens as new evidence enters. Don't forget the the reason we know about Pre clovis and gobekli tepe is because of all the archeological work done by... archeologists.
Ok, the comments here are predictably not great. Immature, emotional. But the way I understand it is like when Christians bombard a book/ video about atheism or historical inaccuracies in the Bible, with terrible spam comments. Not to diss Christians or anything, but they can get emotional when their world view is challenged. Anyone can. When I was a Hancock fan, like many of the fans commenting are, I also felt like a lost advanced ancient civilization was a sort of new paradigm, shifting reality and very spiritual, it was big. The idea that we could have come from super beings, or a civilization that was super human, or even human but “better” was as intoxicating and comforting as I’m sure the idea of a god is for many religious people. And breaking these beliefs was sort of like losing a religion for me. I was defensive at first (though never harassed or spammed anyone), and then I felt a little bit like the ground was coming out from under me. To admit that I had wasted literally years and actual money on these lost ancient conspiracies... I felt very weird about it, kind of in shock for a while. Like, was I that gullible to believe in all that stuff with zero evidence? I didn’t believe in god for the same reason, so how could I have fallen for that? I think people who follow Graham and have invested many years and money like I had, probably have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he is wrong and he also just makes stuff up (like Malta hiding evidence of a hybrid animal, NASA hiding evidence of an Egyptian Sphinx on mars, an archeologist’s career being “ruined” for not believing Clovis first when really that archeologist never lost his job and retired happily in 2002, etc.) It’s hard to hear everything you believed in was a lie. I owned Hancock’s books and had given them out as gifts. And it’s hard to hear people debunk someone you look up to. Either you start to see the truth of the matter and question your own naïveté, or you dig your heels in even further. Anyway, I thank you and other educators like you (World of Antiquity, & Sacred Geometry Decoded included) for pointing out all the flaws in this belief system. And maybe it will turn the light on to critical thinking for someone and save them from falling into other conspiracy traps in the future.
14:05 Your statements: Hancock's ideas are "at odd with archeology" and that he is "labelled a pseudo-archeologist", "at odd with the common consensus of archeologists". So what you're telling me that Lex is making a mistake on considering Graham Hancock's research, evidence and work as invalid in comparison to "archeologists investigations" , because he is "labelled a pseudo-archeologist" by archeologists because his "ideas" are "at odd with the common consensus of archeologists". Observe how none of your statements involve "truth" which is the standard that any fact should be held on, wether true or false at different degrees. Truth or the value of any fact presented is not defined by any group of experts, truth is held by its bearing on reality, scientific method, probability, etc. Not the personal opinion of other human beings on the nature of your character, that is not what makes your presented facts true or false. You're the one supposedly educating us on fallacies, so I will skip the 2 main type of fallacies you're engaging in here.
That is not what I was trying to convey. I am saying that lex has placed both Hancock And archaeologies Methodology on the same epistemological level when in fact they are categorically different. They start from different places and employ different techniques In how they interpret the past. Handcock admits this and both the rogan debate and in this interview. It is because of his methodology and the conclusions that he reaches based on his methodology that he is labeled a pseudo archaeologist.
@@MichaelGranado1 no, that was not what you were conveying. Because if it was there would be no issue on equating both sides. There is not an issue on putting both sides in the same context, hypothesis and scientific method go hand in hand, in fact, most of archeology's narrative is conjecture and is hypothesis. That is because they want to approach the past with the scientific method while at the same time having a narrative. It's like "Sorry guys, you can't have both" you're either scientific or you protect a narrative. In this case, there is no error on putting them both side by side, one side is the conjecture and the other side is the refutations. This is scientific method, one has to put the theory against the evidence and see if it holds ground. Sadly Dr. Dibble approached this debate in bad faith with false claims that don't reflect the nature of the data. And yes, what you were trying to convey is that Hancock's work non-admissible because of "Archeologists consensus". Nobody has authority over truth, truth is authority. What a fallacy.
I like Graham and I think speculation has a primary function in archaeology and science in general, namely pointing the way for making observations. The issue I have with him is his general philosophy based on everlasting life as a source for meaning. Do the right thing simply because it is the right thing. I have the bird feeder cognitive test. If you put seed out must you observe every kernal's consumption or are you content to know some birds are well-fed on your dime? If the latter, then that is evidence that you care about life on Earth beyond yourself.
Especially in archaeology, speculation on the unknowable specifics of ancient artifacts is the payoff for gathering all the empirical evidence. The possibilities are what we are after.
I can certainly see where you are coming from. From an outsider's perspective, with archeology It seems like the artifact comes first, and then the explanation for that artifact. Handcock is taking artifacts that already have explanations, Offering a different explanation for that artifact, And then claiming that the artifact points to something that we don't have any evidence for. It's a really odd methodology.
As an archaeologist, we are upset at the constant notion that ancient people were primitive and not smart enough to do what they did. This the theme with ancient apocalypse and ancient aliens series. No one questions the more white european stuff like they do the peoples of color stuff. That is what we mean by racism and anti-semitism (as if those are 2 different things). His constant notion that people had to have help denigrates the accomplishments of those that came before us and discredits their achievements. The Native Americans here in the U.S. were victims of that. That is why they were called savages, as if it was a classification. They weren't as technologically advanced as Europeans, sure, but they built great civilizations and were quite resourceful in inventing ways to make their lives easier. It is clear hancock does not understand the damage and harm his words has, as he either doesn't know or doesn't care if his words paint these people as stupid or unintelligent. Racist people always believe they are smarter/superior to all the other races, and this is more rhetoric inline with that thinking, whether he knows it or not.
Ah yes, accusing people of being racist in ways that prove you haven't actually reaf their material as to avoid having to deal with their arguments. A total classic.
@@yellowfellow7246 WTF are you even talking about? I don't have to "reaf" anything if I can understand what he talks about. You clearly don't understand the point I made. I apologize for not being able to express it monosyllabically for you to understand. You clearly missed the point of this video too, so really just move on.
Your non-argument (because it doesn't actually deal with any of Hancocks points, and is essentially an attempt at discrediting him through name calling) is that he's racist because he questions that non white civilizations built magnificent works of architecture, but never questions white european stuff. It's an embarrassing argument to make, because had you read anything the dude wrote over the past 20 years you'd know he questions european megalithic structures the same way he does all the others, and your claim has quite literally nothing to do with what he argues. Then again, you saying you don't need to read books to understand his ideas kind of tells me the intelectual level at which you're engaging, right off the bat.
@@yellowfellow7246 his points discredits himself without anyone's help. They're nothing but conjecture, what ifs, maybes, looks like, and so on. There is nothing concrete about any of his stuff. I hate to say it, but even flat earthers have better evidence for their points than he does and they are idiots. His rhetoric is the same. I'm sorry you can't grasp the concept, but anyone defending Hancock and his ideas aren't exactly looking for evidence. I'm sorry, but he's no better than ancient aliens guys, and will be pseudo science until he can produce real evidence. Hypotheses aren't proof.
TLDR: Changing the accreditation of achievements based on facts is the definition of archaeology and can hardly be used as a "being-rasist" argument against Hancock in the first place. (If the AASO does not want to sound hipocritical.) Long version: I get your point that Hancock does not reply directly to the accusation of being "racist" in the sense that he takes away from the achievements of the indigenous people. However I think that this claim is itself a strawman argument by the American Archeology Society at best or mud-throwing at worst. Hancocks hypothesis would be rasist if he would attribute the achievements to a different group of people for the sole sake of the different group being righteous or supreme (in his view). But he is trying to attribute the achievements to the historically rightful group. (Which is exactly the same what archaeologists do.) Especially not if the group of people Hancock is attributing the achievements to is not even a contemporary society but a society that is 6000 years older than the currently attributed society.
I can see where you're coming from here, especially with the statement of wanting to attribute the sites to the correct group. I think that it is inherently important to get the historical details correct, that I think we could agree on. To clarify, the SAA letter is not saying that Hancock himself is racist, or even that the show itself is racist. It's a slightly different claim, which is that these ideas are very SIMILIAR two arguments in the past which have been used to discredit indigenous people and do dangerous things like take away their land. See for example the policies of Andrew Jackson, and the speech that he gave crediting the works of North American indigenous people to other sources. Hancock does not make Jackson's argument, and I think that he would fundamentally disagree with the sorts of arguments that people in the 19th century made about indigenous people. My primary issue is that Hancock doesn't seem to acknowledge how his ideas are similar, and doesn't spend any time separating himself from those ideas. Don't know if that makes sense, let me know.
@MichaelGranado1 you're getting yourself in to all sorts on bother from what I can tell in these comments. Maybe think ahead in future, just as Dibble should have 🤣
“I’m not trying to undermine Hancocks ideas..” you’re just trying to undermine his arguments. lol okay pal. Go ahead and try to make a quick buck off of graham hancocks ever growing name and reputation. I’m sure it will get you far
I'm responding to what I believe are bad arguments, it's something I do on this channel. To says I'm doing it for a quick buck is funny to me. That would be nice.
@@garrettsandini5358And Hancock is riding the wave of real archeologists. How many archeological digs has Graham volunteered on or donated to or funded in the specific areas he’s demanding people work on? With his millions from books sales and Netflix series, you’d expect him to at least have put some of his money where his mouth is. Nope. Zero. He’s very happy to keep selling books, giving “alternative” tours of sites archeologists have discovered. But actually get his hands dirty? Actually use his vast wealth and resources to fund the search for his lost civilization? No, not Graham. He’s “just asking questions” to make a Netflix series about how he just asks questions. He’s spend decades “just asking questions” and waiting for archeologists to uncover his lost civilization, and do all the hard for work him for free.
This video seems deeply disingenuous. Your description of logic was lackluster, and you strawman many things casually throughout this video while seeming to lack the self awareness to notice the hypocrisy. 1. It's not a strawman to claim that academics are territorial and defend their studies, it's de jure. The acceptance of catastrophism via the refutation of gradualism demonstrates this within the academy between highly credentialed peers. 2. Challengers to accepted paradigms, especially amateurs, meet resistance as their popularity increases, it's de facto. Would you be making this video if his books had sold 50 copies en toto? Doubt it. 3. It's not a strawman to identify the tactics used to repress the views of alternative thinkers. Guilt by association is not a valid basis for criticism. Hancock's theory is contrary to white supremacy, and ignoring that is very telling. This has been gone over at length by Hancock. Should Hancock's perspective have basis in reality it would significantly augment the histories of traditional people. The assumption that only non white populations benefited from the distribution of information is applied to his argument by academics, as presented by the letter. The assumption that the people distributing the information were white is also applied from outside. Having listened to Hancock speak at length, he consistently speaks of a global culture, implying a pan racial makeup of people. The central role of non white populations in this culture, is presented by his attention to phenotypic features of statues he associates with this culture.
1. I clearly listed out the two Strawmen that Hancock made in this interview. 1. Archaeologist reject him because he's popular and 2. Archaeologist reject him essentially because they are virtue signaling (these ideas are dangerous because they're racist). 2. I agree with this point to an extent, however I don't think that Hancock is operating within the context of the paradigm. As I stated in the video, the methodology that he uses is completely different. Einstein challenged the Paradigm of 19th century physics, but he did so using 19th century physics (non-euclidean geometry, the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment, in assumptions about the speed of light). I'm more than happy to change this position if you are able to give me an example from the history of science that supports your claim. I'm more than happy to admit when I'm wrong. 3. It's a straw man on Hancock's part because he's not portraying their criticism as legitimate and acknowledging the historical basis for their claims. From the interview, the suggestion is that they are saying these things simply to get him shut down (virtue signaling), and not because similar arguments have been made with respect to Native American sites since the early 19th century and that these arguments have been used to justify the removal of land from indigenous people (within the context of US history). Thanks for the response, looking forward to your reply.
I cannot take archeologists seriously when they speak of racism. these are the same people who go to ancient sites of other peoples culture and read what those people say about their own culture and say " its just a myth, obviously we know better". when they recently created that recreation of amenhotep III's face and made him white. archeologists all over applauded it. and it looked NOTHING like how the contemporary artists in amenhoteps time portrayed him. ...they made sure to remove his melanin and African features in their "recreation"....hmm but these are the same people who want to tell me graham hancock is a racist? The same guy who cites Cheik Anta Diop in his books..one of the most prestigious african scholars to ever be in the field. The same scholar whom European and American archeologists for decades scorned because his research and knowledge of his own African culture and ancient culture far exceeded theirs and told a very different story than the one they were and STILL ARE proposing. The only strawman I see is Archeologists warning of ethics when they themselves lack it. Archeologists calling Graham a racist is them projecting.
!["ซี - เอมี่ " ย้อนความรัก 19 ปี ที่ต้องทนกันและกัน... | แฉ 22 ต.ค. 67 [2/3] | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ykv9ILzatHM/mqdefault.jpg)
hey man liked the video, hate to see u get this much hate for stating a valid opinion on what is weird about Hancocks argument.
I find it weird that there were a lot of archeologists willing to talk with Hancock about the sites and only feel that they were in some cases cut out of context.
Why would they talk to him in his show if he considered this "dangerous" to them.
Thanks for the kind words. Speaking to your point, and I can't speak for archaeologist because it is not my area, but I imagine it has to do with the fact that he is referencing archaeological sites. I think that they feel the need to engage on that level in order to combat the misinformation regarding those sites and to adequately represent their field.
Also, to clarify, I wouldn't say that Hancock himself is dangerous. I do not think that he, personally, is promoting dangerous ideas. I think this is also what the SAA letter is pointing out. Rather, similar ideas to the one that he is saying has been used in pretty horrific/ dangerous ways.
Don't know if that makes sense? Let me know.
I lost you at "Dr. Dibble"
But like, why?
@@MichaelGranado1 why do you chose to respond to this comment instead of the other one where I expose your fallacies? You take the joke seriously and the serious argument ignored.
I did this deliberately to judge you character, in a lack of better argumentation you are trying to argue with me to antagonize me, that way you don't have to deal with reality.
Weak move. You think you're analytical but remember there is always someone smarter and more analytical out there.
@@kite9096 I do my best to respond to all comments, however I am unable to respond to more than one comment at a time. This was the first comment that came up, and as a result was the first that I responded to. If you check the other comment, however, you will notice that I have responded to it. I was not trying to antagonize you, I was simply responding to the comment that you made.
@@MichaelGranado1because nobody refers to him as Dr. so doing so intentionally presents as an argument from authority.
Crazy how much time people spend to attack you for pointing out some dodgy logic in Grahams Arguments.
1. Even though Hancock is right, when he thinks that the size of his audience plays a role in why he is being called out, it is the content of his statements that are the reason for him being called out and he just ignores that.
2. He feels personally attacked and claims the reason for that is the territoral nature of archeology and ignores the factual objection to his claims. His methodology is very unscientific and how he jumps to conclusions as well. He is constantly trying to prove his theory and is therefore biased per definition. If you want your theory to be true, you will fall victim to confirmation bias. Clearly the case with him. Instead of accepting the fact that what he does is very unscientific and guesswork at best, he claims that big bad science is out for him, because he is threatening their very existence with his revelations. Also he cannot come to terms with the idea that his „theory“ has been used by racist thinkers, which doesn’t invalidate the ideas per se, but it is information which should be important context to include when he mentions those ideas. He should also explain why his „theory“ is different and in which ways if he is wants to make sure there is no wiggle room.
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a positive comment! You articulated both of those points really well. Said the second point better than I could have. I couldn't agree more with that last sentence.
Graham Hancocks biggest mistake was trying to win an argument against someone who was willing to twist the facts and lie to win the argument. Maybe you should make a video about that and do your research about it all first
Literally all Graham does is twist the facts.
What facts did he twist?
Like saying that there are 3 Million known shipwrecks that were found so far and stating it as a fact. Turns out it's not even close to a million. But who cares right?
@@philanthropy244 your an idiot 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@hirdx it's not even close to 100 thousand 🤣 that's just one of his lies
Edit: I was meant to say 500 thousand
Looks like you stired up a hornets nest here, the comment section seems full of rising emotions.
Yeah, I tend to get that a lot when I make a video on Hancock!
I think he got stung in the lip
thanks for your video, these comments here are horrible. just graham hancock zombies without any desire to research themselves
Thanks for stoping by!
oh god, why do I get keep getting these recommendations. Another so called "expert" or "educator" trying to throw mud at Hancock with some half assed arguments, bias and not so subtle elitism. The guy is asking valid questions in the field, proposing new theories and entertaining much needed new ideas for what we know, let the man live for god's sake.
In what sense are his questions valid? The questions that he asked about existing archaeological sites we already have answers for. I would not call what he's doing a theory, because within an academic context theories explain evidence. What evidence is Hancock explaining? All of his examples of evidence already have explanations, in theories which explain them.
Stop asking stupid questions then
@@MichaelGranado1point 1: hilarious that you named this video “Hancocks Strawman” and then proceed to strawman 😂
Point 2: I’m sorry when exactly have we excavated the Sahara? Or the Sunda shelf? Or Bimini? Or 70 percent of the Amazon? This is exactly why academics like yourself get correctly called out. The idea that all the sites or areas graham are talking about have been heavily researched and excavated already is flatly false. You’re either going out of your way to make “Logically Dubious” claims.
Point 3: the valid questions he is asking are the same valid questions that archeologists and historians ask all the time. Namely Given that we definitely do not have all the information, records, artifacts going past call it 5000 years of human history, what can we glean from the information we do have in order to learn more about our collective past.
Point 4: we do not even have substantial enough records or have not done enough archeological work to know exactly where battles that we KNOW happened took place 500 years ago. The idea that archeologists and historians have gathered enough data to absolutely refute the idea that human civilization goes back farther than what is currently accepted, is ridiculous. Historians and archeologists REGULARLY make the point that archeology is not an exact science, it takes a lot of theory crafting based on the small amount of artifacts or structures or quite frankly trash that are found in order to come up with a PLAUSIBLE idea of what any specific artifact or structure was even intended for. You cannot with any amount of credibility or credulity make the claim that we have gathered enough data to completely rule out the theory.
Point 5: what are you counting as evidence? Geological records do not count? The fact that there are geologists, not one but multiple, who have actually gone to see the sphinx and agree that there are water erosion markers that do not match up with the currently accepted dating of the sphinx also I guess does not in any way count as evidence? Again this is just you being pedantic about what does and doesn’t qualify as evidence and by the way what has historically qualified as evidence within the field.
You spent half the video explaining what a straw man is, then proceeded to strawman graham. Nasty work, at some point you guys are going to have to realize this whole “oh no we have degrees so we just know better than everyone” is not going to help the field. What would actually be helpful for all parties involved, would be to get the archeological work done in order to prove or disprove the claim. This is simply using wordplay to obfuscate the argument graham and a growing number of scientists in a number of different fields.
Your style in the video, simply laughing off graham and continuously not using “evidence” or dealing with the theory being put forward, is quite literally you doing exactly what it says on the title.
Bonus Point: you didn’t read the whole letter 😂😂😂 you cherry picked parts of it that don’t sound so terrible. Anyone who gets this far down please go watch dedunking’s video on the entire letter. The letter flatly states that graham himself promotes racial violence against minorities. Which is hilarious coming from a field, Archeology, which has a very long and well documented history of “discrediting the accomplishments of indigenous people” and “white washing their history”. I noticed, just like within the letter, you do not at any point actually explain what about grahams ideas specifically, not some amorphous idea of what has in the past has been done by people who are not graham, would make anyone who has followed his work believe that indigenous people are inferior. And you can’t, because NOWHERE in grahams work has he EVER proclaimed any belief in any kind of white supremacy. I’m black and Puerto Rican, are you really going to tell me that I can’t speak for myself, or that I need a field of science which has for longer than it hasn’t supported white supremacy, to tell me what racism is? I can promise you I don’t. Does flint dibble need to make sure that he explains that his thesis cites an open white supremacist? Apply the rules equally or stop with that nonsense, it’s beyond disrespect for the archeological community to weaponize racism in order to further a narrative. That is in it of itself racist, using native peoples to further narratives that they themselves have not espoused any belief in. Do better.
@MichaelGranado1 oh well, if we already have explainations about things that happened 5000 years ago we better stop asking questions. Solid point. 10/10 combat an argument of ignorance with an argument from authority. Big brain stuff. We're all very impressed.
@@MichaelGranado1 point 1: you spent the entire video not actually dealing with any of grahams claims, you just used wordplay to obfuscate. You saying we have enough evidence to rule out the idea that human civilization is older than the accepted current date is at the least intellectually dishonest and at the worst you know that’s simply not true which makes it a lie. If archeologists are very happy saying we don’t even have enough evidence to know where the sea peoples came from, then how would it in any way be possible that they have enough evidence to say they know for a fact people were not building cities before a comet hit the planet?
Point 2: if you’re going to make a video about strawmaning someone, maybe don’t straw man in that video. If you’re going to say graham is promoting racial violence or that the ideas he espouses promotes racial violence then you’re going to have to put roughly 50 percent of archeology as a whole in that same pot. Archeology is built on white supremacy, built on Europeans and people of European decent pillaging natives all over the world, and sticking native artifacts, up to and including bodies, in museums. I am black and Puerto Rican of Taino descent, I have yet to see anything in grahams work that espouses any level of white supremacy and it fact he makes the point regularly that he does not believe Europeans had anything to do with these lost civilizations. Again that’s just you being lazy and strawmaning.
Point 3: it’s honestly pretty obvious you don’t have a direct background in archeology itself because you don’t at any point engage with the substance, you just spend the entire video making amorphous statements that maybe could apply to graham if you ignore anything he’s ever said. And this is exactly your average person do not trust appeals to authority. Because authorities regularly lie and obfuscate. A video like this only does more to prove the point. Notice you didn’t read anywhere near the whole letter, you just cherry picked a few statements from the letter. Anyone who is reading this, please go watch DeDunkings video breaking down the letter in full. Y’all need to do better, and you in particular as someone who talks about critical thinking, need to come up with a more feasible argument than, well we already know everything about that, when we literally do not. That is a lie, or it’s you being ignorant but I have to believe you know better.
Dibble shouldn't have tried the "white supremacy" angle and Hancock should stop with the "that looks man-made to me" shtick
It's extremely either disengenuous or ignorant on your part to insinuate that Hancock's initial response was "because he's popular". It's clearly a statement made to explain that the more recognition his ideas get, the more that the mainstream archeology feel that they must take a stance against him. Regardless of who is right or wrong. If you want to nitpick a straw man, at least don't straw man his CLEAR explanation yourself.... The hypocrisy is astounding. Definitely glad to put a do not recommend this channel to me marking early on.
Thanks for watching and responding, I actually do appreciate critical feedback. My response to you would be the following quote by Hancock from the video:
"Some archaeologists feel very territorial about their profession, and they do not feel happy about outsiders entering the realm, especially if those outsiders have a large platform. I found that the attacks by archaeologist on me have increased step by step with my exposure. I wasn't very interesting to them when I only had one minor bestseller in 1992."
How do you interpret that statement?
That statement is a reasonable observation about the nature of expertise and the academy, and a personal guage of the amount and type of resistance he has encountered as his popularity, and reach, has increased.
The "poor me, I'm so popular that archeologists hate me" interpretation you have adopted is a strawman, and only one of many in your video.
The only reason you are making this video is his popularity and reach. It speaks to his point, and your tone reinforces it.
@@likwidmoceanI guess I find it hypocritical that Hancock has said in interviews that no archeologist will engage with his work or even debate him, and they ignore him. But then when they do engage with his work he equates the criticism to cancel culture. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t!
Hancock is taken seriously when people treat him seriously.
I think we know far less than archaeologists would like us all to believe.
IT is factual that archaeology curates findings. Most academics do the same, particularly in the humanities.
There is something amiss.
I teach in the humanities. I don't know what you are talking about and I've never witnessed anything akin to what you are saying.
@@MichaelGranado1 What is a woman?
@@MichaelGranado1 The humanities have led western culture into this bizarre biological reality denial that is destabilizing civilization itself.
@@tomharris5661 I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but here is the wiki. Not sure if that's what your looking for: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman
@@MichaelGranado1 I thought you were a teacher, and you're pointing me to what is known to be one of if not the least reliable source? Wiki? Really? Why not just tell me what a woman is in your own words? Your dodging a simple question as a self-proclaimed teacher in the humanities illustrates the point I'm making precisely. Are there fundamental immutable human traits, and what does that mean for humans? Is that not what the humanities set out to explore?
When one's brain is even smoother than the top of one's head.
This is the level of smug bullies that are Hancock fans.
@@raina4732 wtf are you talking about? On one hand he claims to be a student of the history of science, while at the same time ignoring that the scientific consensus is overturned time and again; that literally is the history of science.
@edbop lmao it's overturned when there is proof that changes our perception and understanding. Your argument is simply that it must be true because it happens every so often.
Please try a little harder
@@Lastofthefreenames Yeah and new evidence has been found, clovis first is no longer the consensus, but was just a few years ago; not to mention gobeki teppi. To suggest Dibble's argument has been made into a strawman just isn't true. Diddle misrepresented the science and in some cases outright lied. I haven't suggested anything is true; all i've said is that this guy doesn't seem to understand the history of science.
@@edbop Science works in conjunction with evidence. You can't push forward a new paradigm without evidence first. Even if ALL the archeologists and rogue guys suspect something to be true based on intuition, they can't change the story until they find evidence. Science is flexible because it opens as new evidence enters. Don't forget the the reason we know about Pre clovis and gobekli tepe is because of all the archeological work done by... archeologists.
Ok, the comments here are predictably not great. Immature, emotional. But the way I understand it is like when Christians bombard a book/ video about atheism or historical inaccuracies in the Bible, with terrible spam comments. Not to diss Christians or anything, but they can get emotional when their world view is challenged. Anyone can. When I was a Hancock fan, like many of the fans commenting are, I also felt like a lost advanced ancient civilization was a sort of new paradigm, shifting reality and very spiritual, it was big. The idea that we could have come from super beings, or a civilization that was super human, or even human but “better” was as intoxicating and comforting as I’m sure the idea of a god is for many religious people. And breaking these beliefs was sort of like losing a religion for me. I was defensive at first (though never harassed or spammed anyone), and then I felt a little bit like the ground was coming out from under me. To admit that I had wasted literally years and actual money on these lost ancient conspiracies... I felt very weird about it, kind of in shock for a while. Like, was I that gullible to believe in all that stuff with zero evidence? I didn’t believe in god for the same reason, so how could I have fallen for that? I think people who follow Graham and have invested many years and money like I had, probably have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he is wrong and he also just makes stuff up (like Malta hiding evidence of a hybrid animal, NASA hiding evidence of an Egyptian Sphinx on mars, an archeologist’s career being “ruined” for not believing Clovis first when really that archeologist never lost his job and retired happily in 2002, etc.)
It’s hard to hear everything you believed in was a lie. I owned Hancock’s books and had given them out as gifts. And it’s hard to hear people debunk someone you look up to. Either you start to see the truth of the matter and question your own naïveté, or you dig your heels in even further.
Anyway, I thank you and other educators like you (World of Antiquity, & Sacred Geometry Decoded included) for pointing out all the flaws in this belief system. And maybe it will turn the light on to critical thinking for someone and save them from falling into other conspiracy traps in the future.
14:05 Your statements:
Hancock's ideas are "at odd with archeology" and that he is "labelled a pseudo-archeologist", "at odd with the common consensus of archeologists".
So what you're telling me that Lex is making a mistake on considering Graham Hancock's research, evidence and work as invalid in comparison to "archeologists investigations" , because he is "labelled a pseudo-archeologist" by archeologists because his "ideas" are "at odd with the common consensus of archeologists". Observe how none of your statements involve "truth" which is the standard that any fact should be held on, wether true or false at different degrees.
Truth or the value of any fact presented is not defined by any group of experts, truth is held by its bearing on reality, scientific method, probability, etc. Not the personal opinion of other human beings on the nature of your character, that is not what makes your presented facts true or false.
You're the one supposedly educating us on fallacies, so I will skip the 2 main type of fallacies you're engaging in here.
That is not what I was trying to convey. I am saying that lex has placed both Hancock And archaeologies Methodology on the same epistemological level when in fact they are categorically different. They start from different places and employ different techniques In how they interpret the past. Handcock admits this and both the rogan debate and in this interview.
It is because of his methodology and the conclusions that he reaches based on his methodology that he is labeled a pseudo archaeologist.
@@MichaelGranado1 no, that was not what you were conveying. Because if it was there would be no issue on equating both sides. There is not an issue on putting both sides in the same context, hypothesis and scientific method go hand in hand, in fact, most of archeology's narrative is conjecture and is hypothesis. That is because they want to approach the past with the scientific method while at the same time having a narrative.
It's like "Sorry guys, you can't have both" you're either scientific or you protect a narrative.
In this case, there is no error on putting them both side by side, one side is the conjecture and the other side is the refutations.
This is scientific method, one has to put the theory against the evidence and see if it holds ground. Sadly Dr. Dibble approached this debate in bad faith with false claims that don't reflect the nature of the data.
And yes, what you were trying to convey is that Hancock's work non-admissible because of "Archeologists consensus". Nobody has authority over truth, truth is authority.
What a fallacy.
I like Graham and I think speculation has a primary function in archaeology and science in general, namely pointing the way for making observations.
The issue I have with him is his general philosophy based on everlasting life as a source for meaning. Do the right thing simply because it is the right thing.
I have the bird feeder cognitive test. If you put seed out must you observe every kernal's consumption or are you content to know some birds are well-fed on your dime? If the latter, then that is evidence that you care about life on Earth beyond yourself.
Especially in archaeology, speculation on the unknowable specifics of ancient artifacts is the payoff for gathering all the empirical evidence. The possibilities are what we are after.
I can certainly see where you are coming from. From an outsider's perspective, with archeology It seems like the artifact comes first, and then the explanation for that artifact.
Handcock is taking artifacts that already have explanations, Offering a different explanation for that artifact, And then claiming that the artifact points to something that we don't have any evidence for. It's a really odd methodology.
As an archaeologist, we are upset at the constant notion that ancient people were primitive and not smart enough to do what they did. This the theme with ancient apocalypse and ancient aliens series. No one questions the more white european stuff like they do the peoples of color stuff. That is what we mean by racism and anti-semitism (as if those are 2 different things). His constant notion that people had to have help denigrates the accomplishments of those that came before us and discredits their achievements. The Native Americans here in the U.S. were victims of that. That is why they were called savages, as if it was a classification. They weren't as technologically advanced as Europeans, sure, but they built great civilizations and were quite resourceful in inventing ways to make their lives easier. It is clear hancock does not understand the damage and harm his words has, as he either doesn't know or doesn't care if his words paint these people as stupid or unintelligent. Racist people always believe they are smarter/superior to all the other races, and this is more rhetoric inline with that thinking, whether he knows it or not.
Ah yes, accusing people of being racist in ways that prove you haven't actually reaf their material as to avoid having to deal with their arguments. A total classic.
@@yellowfellow7246 WTF are you even talking about? I don't have to "reaf" anything if I can understand what he talks about. You clearly don't understand the point I made. I apologize for not being able to express it monosyllabically for you to understand.
You clearly missed the point of this video too, so really just move on.
What makes me think hes right is people trying to debunk him with such stupid arguments and claiming to be archeologists
Your non-argument (because it doesn't actually deal with any of Hancocks points, and is essentially an attempt at discrediting him through name calling) is that he's racist because he questions that non white civilizations built magnificent works of architecture, but never questions white european stuff.
It's an embarrassing argument to make, because had you read anything the dude wrote over the past 20 years you'd know he questions european megalithic structures the same way he does all the others, and your claim has quite literally nothing to do with what he argues.
Then again, you saying you don't need to read books to understand his ideas kind of tells me the intelectual level at which you're engaging, right off the bat.
@@yellowfellow7246 his points discredits himself without anyone's help. They're nothing but conjecture, what ifs, maybes, looks like, and so on. There is nothing concrete about any of his stuff. I hate to say it, but even flat earthers have better evidence for their points than he does and they are idiots.
His rhetoric is the same. I'm sorry you can't grasp the concept, but anyone defending Hancock and his ideas aren't exactly looking for evidence. I'm sorry, but he's no better than ancient aliens guys, and will be pseudo science until he can produce real evidence. Hypotheses aren't proof.
Why is that thing on your lip?
TLDR: Changing the accreditation of achievements based on facts is the definition of archaeology and can hardly be used as a "being-rasist" argument against Hancock in the first place. (If the AASO does not want to sound hipocritical.)
Long version: I get your point that Hancock does not reply directly to the accusation of being "racist" in the sense that he takes away from the achievements of the indigenous people.
However I think that this claim is itself a strawman argument by the American Archeology Society at best or mud-throwing at worst.
Hancocks hypothesis would be rasist if he would attribute the achievements to a different group of people for the sole sake of the different group being righteous or supreme (in his view). But he is trying to attribute the achievements to the historically rightful group. (Which is exactly the same what archaeologists do.)
Especially not if the group of people Hancock is attributing the achievements to is not even a contemporary society but a society that is 6000 years older than the currently attributed society.
I can see where you're coming from here, especially with the statement of wanting to attribute the sites to the correct group. I think that it is inherently important to get the historical details correct, that I think we could agree on.
To clarify, the SAA letter is not saying that Hancock himself is racist, or even that the show itself is racist. It's a slightly different claim, which is that these ideas are very SIMILIAR two arguments in the past which have been used to discredit indigenous people and do dangerous things like take away their land. See for example the policies of Andrew Jackson, and the speech that he gave crediting the works of North American indigenous people to other sources.
Hancock does not make Jackson's argument, and I think that he would fundamentally disagree with the sorts of arguments that people in the 19th century made about indigenous people. My primary issue is that Hancock doesn't seem to acknowledge how his ideas are similar, and doesn't spend any time separating himself from those ideas.
Don't know if that makes sense, let me know.
Great way to steal lex's thumbnail.
I'm promoting his content by reviewing it, 🤷♂. I think he'll be ok.
@@MichaelGranado1 I'd doubt the powers that be at TH-cam would agree with that point of view should Friedman decide to kick up a stink about it.
@@MikhailUlyanovv I am more than happy to change it if Lex wants me too.
@MichaelGranado1 you're getting yourself in to all sorts on bother from what I can tell in these comments. Maybe think ahead in future, just as Dibble should have 🤣
@@MikhailUlyanovv i doubt lex really cares i was just being an ass cuz im a graham fanboy
“I’m not trying to undermine Hancocks ideas..”
you’re just trying to undermine his arguments. lol okay pal. Go ahead and try to make a quick buck off of graham hancocks ever growing name and reputation. I’m sure it will get you far
I'm responding to what I believe are bad arguments, it's something I do on this channel. To says I'm doing it for a quick buck is funny to me. That would be nice.
@@MichaelGranado1 you’re riding the wave of graham Hancocks controversy for clicks/views I.e. money. Grifter activities
@@garrettsandini5358And Hancock is riding the wave of real archeologists. How many archeological digs has Graham volunteered on or donated to or funded in the specific areas he’s demanding people work on? With his millions from books sales and Netflix series, you’d expect him to at least have put some of his money where his mouth is. Nope. Zero. He’s very happy to keep selling books, giving “alternative” tours of sites archeologists have discovered. But actually get his hands dirty? Actually use his vast wealth and resources to fund the search for his lost civilization? No, not Graham. He’s “just asking questions” to make a Netflix series about how he just asks questions. He’s spend decades “just asking questions” and waiting for archeologists to uncover his lost civilization, and do all the hard for work him for free.
@@garrettsandini5358 Calling someone a grifter while defending Graham Hancock is the level of unawareness that I strive for in life.
This video seems deeply disingenuous.
Your description of logic was lackluster, and you strawman many things casually throughout this video while seeming to lack the self awareness to notice the hypocrisy.
1. It's not a strawman to claim that academics are territorial and defend their studies, it's de jure. The acceptance of catastrophism via the refutation of gradualism demonstrates this within the academy between highly credentialed peers.
2. Challengers to accepted paradigms, especially amateurs, meet resistance as their popularity increases, it's de facto. Would you be making this video if his books had sold 50 copies en toto? Doubt it.
3. It's not a strawman to identify the tactics used to repress the views of alternative thinkers. Guilt by association is not a valid basis for criticism. Hancock's theory is contrary to white supremacy, and ignoring that is very telling. This has been gone over at length by Hancock. Should Hancock's perspective have basis in reality it would significantly augment the histories of traditional people. The assumption that only non white populations benefited from the distribution of information is applied to his argument by academics, as presented by the letter. The assumption that the people distributing the information were white is also applied from outside. Having listened to Hancock speak at length, he consistently speaks of a global culture, implying a pan racial makeup of people. The central role of non white populations in this culture, is presented by his attention to phenotypic features of statues he associates with this culture.
@@likwidmocean brilliant take
1. I clearly listed out the two Strawmen that Hancock made in this interview. 1. Archaeologist reject him because he's popular and 2. Archaeologist reject him essentially because they are virtue signaling (these ideas are dangerous because they're racist).
2. I agree with this point to an extent, however I don't think that Hancock is operating within the context of the paradigm. As I stated in the video, the methodology that he uses is completely different. Einstein challenged the Paradigm of 19th century physics, but he did so using 19th century physics (non-euclidean geometry, the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment, in assumptions about the speed of light). I'm more than happy to change this position if you are able to give me an example from the history of science that supports your claim. I'm more than happy to admit when I'm wrong.
3. It's a straw man on Hancock's part because he's not portraying their criticism as legitimate and acknowledging the historical basis for their claims. From the interview, the suggestion is that they are saying these things simply to get him shut down (virtue signaling), and not because similar arguments have been made with respect to Native American sites since the early 19th century and that these arguments have been used to justify the removal of land from indigenous people (within the context of US history).
Thanks for the response, looking forward to your reply.
Lmao a lot of hurt people in these comments
I cannot take archeologists seriously when they speak of racism. these are the same people who go to ancient sites of other peoples culture and read what those people say about their own culture and say " its just a myth, obviously we know better". when they recently created that recreation of amenhotep III's face and made him white. archeologists all over applauded it. and it looked NOTHING like how the contemporary artists in amenhoteps time portrayed him. ...they made sure to remove his melanin and African features in their "recreation"....hmm but these are the same people who want to tell me graham hancock is a racist? The same guy who cites Cheik Anta Diop in his books..one of the most prestigious african scholars to ever be in the field. The same scholar whom European and American archeologists for decades scorned because his research and knowledge of his own African culture and ancient culture far exceeded theirs and told a very different story than the one they were and STILL ARE proposing. The only strawman I see is Archeologists warning of ethics when they themselves lack it. Archeologists calling Graham a racist is them projecting.
📚📚📚
Wow do better
Thanks 🥰
@@MichaelGranado1 😘 for the algorithm
@@mmmmmGuinness You know it!
Who would sit through a whole podcast of two complete poser frauds talking about anything?
20 likes brother u live in dibbles world of complete mental darkness.. do better ur babbling about nothing.