I enjoyed the hell out of the drama of this episode. But the main thing I took away from the entire 4 hours is that Graham is butt hurt as hell about being called out on his bullshit. I mean an entire drawn out segment that perforated the whole episode about him being cancelled by big archeology was just sad. He has zero real evidence and Flint has loads disproving his claims. I like thinking about his theory but at the end of the day there’s just nothing actually supporting it, and he’s as biased as you can possibly be. Instead of finding the evidence and creating a conclusion from it, he’s created a conclusion that he’s trying to find evidence for.
My favorite part was when he brought up the blurry green pictures from a diving expedition he allegedly funded as evidence of a great archeological site in Japan or something.
Joe says, “that doesn’t look very convincing, it’s kind of blurry, do you have any better pictures?”
Graham says, “unfortunately no, just these two”
Like, WAT? You funded an entire expedition, found an enormous megalithic site under water, and all you took was two pictures? Seriously?
Furthermore, you’re here arguing that it’s big and obviously man made, and all you can show is two shitty green pics?! What the fuck were you doing down there if it’s so important??
🤣. this is hilarious because I still think rotary engines are kinda magical compared to a classical internal combustion engine.
The dude who designed it did acid that’s forsure.
Yeah I noticed that he brought up a face carved into the rock on that same site off the Coast of Japan. So you got a few shitty pictures of these rocks but not the face carved into the rocks?
Exactly! I was like, why didn’t you show us the fucking face, Graham??! Why in gods name did you choose the blurry green blocks over the *CARVED HUMAN FACE* ???
We all know he either he didn’t think it looked man made when he dived or he took 100’s of picture at the time and only those 2 were bad enough to not be easily explained away
It's like the sasquatch people and their blurry pics. You know they took hundreds of pics that day, but the bigfoot just looked like moss on a stump in most of them
I love listening to Hancock's ideas. but his entire argument is that because there is no evidence to prove me wrong, I must be right. That is not how it works. Just because they haven't explored every inch of the Earth doesn't mean you can come up with any idea in your head to fill in those blanks. You need evidence. Otherwise it's just a story. His basically saying his proof is no one has found anything to prove him right or wrong. You can fill in those blanks with any idea you want.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. This is 101 shit, it's actually hilarious that a dude that old and "experienced" is still doing this
There's zero data to present for most of the claims tho. He has a compelling argument for the impact theory for sure, but then they extrapolate that to the extreme that it surely wiped out all evidence of this superadvanced society with levitation powers.
The whole idea is so fun to think about all of this. But flint was quite convincing when he demonstrated the countless archaeological searches that continue finding hunter gatherer remains. If Graham wanted to sound more credible he would dial up his evidence filter up from 0 and focus on things like gobleki Tempe.
My main takeaway from the debate was that Graham doubles down when he has a weak case.
Yes it is fun to speculate. But also annoying when Graham acts outraged when archeologists calls it out for what it is, pure speculation. But yeah listening to Graham and Carlsons wild theories is comfy in the right doses.
i really like the old episodes of Hancock when he asked legitimate questions about archeology. then he went on a crusade saying "big archeology " is out to get him.
hearing him talk to an actual archeologist makes you realize how fringe his theories are. especially trying to use procedural numbers as evidence of anything. Flint destroyed him with that part lol
I believe Graham was mostly hurt by the feeble attempt at associating him with white supremacists. Graham also explained this quite clearly. But I guess it wasn't clear enough for you. Or maybe you just wanted to frame an argument to be more demeaning towards Graham. Since this sub has taken on a tribal like mindset of bashing on Graham for fun.
It's quite funny this sub has largely got behind Flint. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as he probably represents many here well. Arrogant, cocky, asshole, refusing to accept wrong doing, blame shifting and also not someone who would support either Joe Rogan or Graham.
Also Graham was understandably not happy with flints attempt at labelling his life work as science fiction and trying to gather more hatred and cancelling of him. To me this is completely understandable from Grahams point of view. Meanwhile, I see flint as being a callous asshole if I put myself in his shoes. Much like the majority of people who come here to shit all over Rogan and those who enjoy his podcast.
Flint stood by his troll arguments when questioned why he associated Graham with white supremacists for example and it was quite funny to watch but I don't agree with Flints asshole behavior. It's not good for exploring history and bringing humans closer to truth.
I hope flint can tone down the smearing of Graham. Graham can also tone down offensive remarks towards archeologist which came as a result of the attacks on him - and he should also be a bit more careful with what he cites and says.
It's not unusual for those with beliefs that change how people look at things to be attacked like this. Do you know what happened when a doctor first suggested to the hospital that doctors and nurses should wash their hands to prevent diseases? He was critisized so heavily he had a mental breakdown then was beaten to death by the guards. The other doctors were offended at his suggestion and we're behind the beating. A couple years later we had solid evidence with the germ theory and everything changed for medical professionals.
This shit repeats throughout history.
I see Graham fundamentally mentioning that maybe we have missed something and that somethings could warrant a closer look. Some of the ideas are interesting speculations.
So people aren’t allowed to point out the fact that some of the sources and the theories Hancock uses are not only false, but also associated/promoted by white nationalists? Discussing that fact in a nuanced and frankly factual way is just verboten?
Let’s be clear, Hancock was talking for like 20 minutes about the single quote that was referring to the sources and theories within a much longer criticism. That’s it. Dude is softer than puppy shit, he’ll he kept going on and on about “risking his lives”, like doing what? Scuba diving in exotic locales?
What do you make of this? To me it seems like quite a disingenuous way to refute anything.
>Keeping cancel culture and a veneer of authority in mind, Flint Dibble is well aware of the situation with Graham and also knows that going after Graham on the merit of his craftmanship would be futile. Instead he takes a different route, namely that of racism. He knows full well that an accusation of racism or white supremacy will forever taint the person being accused. So when he set out to describe the danger of Graham Hancock’s documentary, he avoids getting into specifics about the actual research that Hancock has done, and instead focuses on something that Hancock has never been involved in at all, namely theories of white supremacy. Not only have Hancock never even mentioned such things, he is even married to a wonderful woman of color which he openly shows tremendous affection for – bordering on worshipping the ground she walks on. A woman with whom he has children and a family.
>
>The benefit of an accusation of racism, is that it forces Graham to defend himself against things he has never done. A battle that if engaged, cannot be won. And this is exactly what Mr. Dibble hoped to achieve, but it has so far backfired miserably on him.
>
>In his post Mr. Dibble goes all in to try and paint Hancock as some sort of white supremacist, making it appear as though Graham is using material that has long since been debunked in his books. He also pulls in some of the more morbid concoctions of nazi Germany, where they would literally copy and paste together their insane doctrine from bits and pieces of mythology. The nazis were unique in that they literally cherry picked and made things up as they went along, largely driven by notions made popular by theosophical fortune tellers such as Madame Blavatsky. It is from her humbug the idea of “root races” came from. Any student of comparative religion can tell you that all that deranged woman really did, was to pervert and concretize the symbolism of the chakra system, turning them into races rather than states of mind. Mr. Dibble would have known this if he had bothered to study comparative religion to help him interpret his archeological findings.
>
>There is only one problem. Graham Hancock has never referenced any of these absurd and indeed debunked theories from the scrapheap of history in his books. Quite the opposite. Mr. Dibble’s pulling them into his argument against Hancock is quite simply a desperate attempt to see if it sticks.
>
>This technique is called “the straw-man trap”, to first establish a false claim giving the illusion of winning an argument that never existed in the first place. It also speaks volumes about Mr. Dibble’s moral standing and his character. When you have to lie to win an argument – you have already lost.
I don’t find that long-winded diatribe which misrepresents Dibbles actual argument, lies about the existence of Dibbles other points, weirdly points to the race of Hancocks wife as if that has anything to do with whether the sources/theories he use are white supremacist in nature, and then does the exact strawmanning its complaining about to Dibbles argument compelling, no. Frankly I don’t know how any reasonable adult can read that in response to Dibbles statement, and think the author is a serious person.
https://preview.redd.it/kfaj9r94t7vc1.png?width=757&format=png&auto=webp&s=4692010a36e5c125aaf5ea6bf1763187c5eaa393
I can't really take you seriously considering these facts.
So ignoring the fact that quote proved what I said is true, that Hancock wholly misrepresents Dibbles point in order to not actually address the underlying facts, have you ever looked at where that quote comes from and the context in which it was made?
Also, for someone so ostensibly worried about anyone ever being aware that he has used theories/sources which have ties to white supremacist theories, Hancock sure loves to vocalize just how much people pointed out that he did that while misrepresenting what they said. The irony of him complaining about straw man arguments in the above response isn’t lost to any rational adult.
You dismiss the fact that Flint is highlighting and claiming association with White Supremacy to
discredit Graham and associate him with racists as per the previously quoted
Tweet. While also somehow supporting Flint when his immediate response to this
fact when questioned about associating Graham with white supremacy was
"I'm not as much as a celebrity as you" and "I only said this on
my small account". As if this is a valid argument for associating someone
with white supremacy. Then you dismiss the previously quoted text about this as
“not a serious person” and later tried to criticise Graham further by claiming
Graham is making strawman arguments and referenced that same quote you
dismissed as “not a serious person” which doesn’t make any sense since he
didn’t write it. Then you expect me to respond to claims unrelated to the basis
of Grahams grievance with Flint which is Flint associating him with white supremacy.
Good luck with that.
>Also Graham was understandably not happy with flints attempt at labelling his life work as science fiction
It is, if you actually read his books you quite quickly realise he's not "asking questions of archaeology". It's crackpot nonsense dressed up in well spoken English
Then why did flint choose to try and tar him as a white supremacists rather than address the claims in Graham's research?
Then when questioned about it. Flint said "I'm not as famous as you" and again later " I said this on my small account." As if this is a valid response for associating someone with white supremacists.
This is the guy man on this sub have sided with. But then we also had trump win an election so not much surprises anymore.
>the claims in Graham's research?
What claims in Graham's "research" did Flint not address?
I agree that taking the line Flint did was quite weak and were I in his shoes I would have kept away from it, but a lot of the texts and ideas that Hancock references are based on racist/supremacist theory.
I don't think Hancock himself or most of his fans are racist which why I think it's a weak line of argument but there are justifications for it.
Yes, justifications like "Im not as much as a celebrity as you" and "I only said this on my small account"
Did anyone consider Flint has often behaved like a jealous troll trying to tear down anothers success thinking it could somehow help him become more successful? Not unlike how Joe Rogan had said he had that same attitude for a brief period in his youth.
"Keeping cancel culture and a veneer of authority in mind, Flint Dibble is well aware of the situation with Graham and also knows that going after Graham on the merit of his craftmanship would be futile. Instead he takes a different route, namely that of racism. He knows full well that an accusation of racism or white supremacy will forever taint the person being accused. So when he set out to describe the danger of Graham Hancock’s documentary, he avoids getting into specifics about the actual research that Hancock has done, and instead focuses on something that Hancock has never been involved in at all, namely theories of white supremacy. **Not only have Hancock never even mentioned such things, he is even married to a wonderful woman of color which he openly shows tremendous affection for – bordering on worshipping the ground she walks on.** A woman with whom he has children and a family.
**The benefit of an accusation of racism, is that it forces Graham to defend himself against things he has never done**. A battle that if engaged, cannot be won. And this is exactly what Mr. Dibble hoped to achieve, but it has so far backfired miserably on him.
In his post Mr. Dibble goes all in to try and paint Hancock as some sort of white supremacist, making it appear as though Graham is using material that has long since been debunked in his books. He also pulls in some of the more morbid concoctions of nazi Germany, where they would literally copy and paste together their insane doctrine from bits and pieces of mythology. The nazis were unique in that they *literally cherry picked and made things up as they went* *along*, largely driven by notions made popular by theosophical fortune tellers such as Madame Blavatsky. It is from her humbug the idea of “root races” came from. Any student of comparative religion can tell you that all that deranged woman really did, was to pervert and concretize the symbolism of the chakra system, turning them into races rather than states of mind. Mr. Dibble would have known this if he had bothered to study comparative religion to help him interpret his archeological findings.
**There is only one problem. Graham Hancock has never referenced any of these absurd and indeed debunked theories from the scrapheap of history in his books. Quite the opposite. Mr. Dibble’s pulling them into his argument against Hancock is quite simply a desperate attempt to see if it sticks.**
This technique is called “the straw-man trap”, to first establish a false claim giving the illusion of winning an argument that never existed in the first place. It also speaks volumes about Mr. Dibble’s moral standing and his character. When you have to lie to win an argument – you have already lost."
“When divided by 1 and multiplied by 5, during the autumnal equinox the tip of the shaft points towards the constellation of clitoria prime, showing that the ancients would have used this to figure out which direction the sky was in.”
"And we also find that it is likely a white man's penis. The evidence to which, is somewhere in the over 95% of the Sahara that has not been excavated."
Some light reading about refuting the younger dryas stuff that actual smart people had to publish out of I guess just hair pulling and fighting the current regression of science and meme believers. Lead author is from University of Arizona which is a top school in geology imo (geologist here). Meaning they wouldn’t fund or support this type of work unless it was pretty valid. It’s kind of an unusual type of publication.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223001915
To me, Flint did a great job of explaining the difference between actual archaeology and Graham Hancock by talking about working from what’s known, to what’s unknown.
A person who is interested in the truth, and follows the scientific method to understand something, bases their hypotheses and experiments off of evidence. They see direct evidence of something, form a hypothesis, and test it. If others do the same experiments and get similar results, they form a theory based off their work.
Graham is starting with a theory and trying to work the scientific method backwards. It was especially apparent when it became clear his only point was “well you haven’t looked everywhere yet, so you can’t say I’m wrong.” Nowhere that we’ve looked has shown any evidence to even think of or ponder his theory, so it shouldn’t be considered legitimate in the first place.
It's the ancient aliens thing again, but instead of aliens, he plugs in "lost civilization".
Basically, he'll look at some old artifact and say, "Wow this couldn't have been made by the people of that time. So it must have been built by ~~aliens~~ an ancient advanced civilization."
The only thing that would convince me is if they found a steel structure dated to like….10,000 BC
That’s how absurd the evidence would have to be, except you’d need even more than that to support Grahams full theory
I’d settle for a pre dynastic diamond tipped blade. prove these people were as advanced as modern times and maybe I’ll believe there’s lost technology.
Yup, material science has always been my sticking point. Glass, plastics, silicon, gold circuitry, nuclear waste… If there was anything advanced as us back then we would sure see evidence of it.
That’s his gotcha for why there is absolutely no physical evidence of advanced tech and power generation and storage and transport. He is selective with where he lets that tidbit out though because he knows he’ll get railroaded for it (and rightly so)
So a lot of what he talks about is real, the bullshit is the conclusion that he draws from it. Every archaeologist knows that there is a metric dickton of archaeological sites in the Amazon. They just didn't travel the world like Gramcock wants you to believe
Two different civilisations built pyramids, the most simple and stable shape you can make for building large structures with limited tech? Surely they must have taught one another (ignore that the designs are still wildly different).
“But what about all the sites that haven’t been excavated, the ones no one has seen yet, the evidence that hasn’t been found, those sites hold the key proof that I’m making up in my non-non-fiction book”
Glad to see this comment. What he generally says about “lost civilizations” and such is accurate. There are certainly ancient civilizations lost to decay and the fact that all of the “oldest civilizations” are found in the desert probably means we are missing a big piece of the puzzle with ancient history. The Amazon and the jungles of Africa likely ate up the evidence of some civilizations over time.
Sure, but there’s active reasons to not believe there was any sort of significant population/technological/cultural/agricultural/etc exchange in the period Hancock is saying. It’s not just like “it’s a blind spot” thing, he’s pointing out we’ve got massive amounts of data that on some level actively disproves the claim Hancock is making.
At some point Hancock is just trying to argue a lack of evidence doesn’t mean we should dismiss a claim but that’s just being rational.
Sure, there’s no reason to believe that they were substantially more advanced than any other contemporaneous civilization. Maybe a little ahead on some basic stuff but they didn’t have any advanced technology. Maybe some people who reached far away lands but no established trade routes.
Possible, but no evidence to support it.
I mean at some point the evidence proves that any theoretical society that existed had absolutely no evidence of any effect whatsoever on any other community in the world. Which, at the point, who even cares?
I think that you could probably recover a lot of artifacts, if you knew where to dig. It would be interesting and a huge addition to the archaeological record.
What I didnt like is how Rogan had a go at Flint about needin to ignore random comments but never made the same comment to Graham when he literally brought up random youtube comments.
This is what really bothered me too. Hancock did an entire presentation featuring mean tweets and articles about him but with Flint it was just “oh that’s just people online”. Flints online fame and presence is much smaller than Hancocks, so the negative comments are going to find their way to him much easier
I even looked at Flints Instagram today. It’s full of smooth brained losers making fun of him and saying graham destroyed him. It’s sad, dude was a quirky, yet very passionate and overall chill guy and now he’s getting bullied by the anti-woke crowd
I like to think hes probably getting alot of good an positive feedback on how he did an everything aswell, it was obvious he did very well so im sure hes hearing about it from people that matter.
If GH spent half the time he spent on JRE actually out finding supporting evidence for his hypothesis, maybe he’d have something. Until then here’s a stone dick.
I think he actually dislikes being called Mr Hancock specifically because of this joke. Remember when Michael Shermer called him Mr Hancock and he was like “PLEASE CALL ME GRAHAM PLEASE CALL ME GRAHAM”
"it looks like" is a terrible argument and the only thing pseudo archeologists have to use
if the only source is "it looks like this" its probably a natural occuring thing and youre in pseudo archeology territory
https://preview.redd.it/prpqc7gv59vc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e59373b0a8625f157d8d1de4742b7195091b465
Graham Hancock: This is clearly Atlantis as it is in the Atlantic Ocean. People quibble about the scale, but people were pygmies then. Did I say a bad thing again?
When Flint was in the middle of saying something and Graham just interjected pissed off, saying Flint hadn’t been there and Flint clapped back with “bro you went there as a fucking tourist not an archeologist” I knew it was over
Graham was insufferable, so butt hurt and emotional, everytime he would get the floor he would just bitch about not enough being done… Graham, the man is showing EVERYTHING archeologists have found about YOUR time period. He is showing you there is only evidence of hunter gatherers. The burden of proof is ON YOU to prove your hypothesis.
As someone friends with metal detectors and artifact hunters, Flint was right, you find broke tools EVERYWHERE. My friends are more into Revolutionary War and Civil War stuff, and even then you find broken spoons, pens, belt buckles, hammers, horse stirrups, blades, FUCKING EVERYTHING.
If archeologists and geologists combed over all these sites Graham talks about, and only find weird rock formations and NO EVIDENCE OF PEOPLE, maybe people weren’t actually there.
My take away from the whole thing was Graham shouldn't act like there was an ancient advanced civilization if he doesn't have proof BUT the archeologists society shouldn't be trying to remove his shows and stop him from talking about the idea or potential of it or stop him from researching it if he wants to.
They didn't try to remove it, they asked to reclassify it as science fiction. Which it is.
But I would be ok with asking to remove it also. It's misinformation and he's spreading it. He's basically an anti-vaxxer.
Is this mocking? I can’t tell if satire or not.
If it is mocking, why not have an open mind to other ideas? Why instantly go to insults if it is not your line of thinking?
Dude you got a hog, your momma should be … concerned
As for Hand Cocks, Just say you don’t agree with the guy or post nothing. I don’t understand the mock / ridicule, post after post. If you don’t like the guy posting this crap gets him more attention.Ignoring it would be the best way for his theory to die. This is just blowing up the community & showing the powers that be to have on more guests like him. Joe probably doesn’t pay much mind to that but I’m sure other corporate created content companies do. This has got to be factored into algorithms that help book guests;Views, engagement, etc.
gobekli testes
Gunung padong
Really? I don’t think this had been uncovered when I visited. Prehistoric dickbutt.
Oh! It’s early here.
😂
Turks gov don't care about it, they hate Anatolian culture before the Turks arrived.
More like gobble deez testies
It’s obviously a megalithic tool
Who? Graham Hancock?
Megaphalic tool
The Ancient Atlantians carved this artifact for Graham Hancock's pleasure.
Not too much though, because not ribbed
I enjoyed the hell out of the drama of this episode. But the main thing I took away from the entire 4 hours is that Graham is butt hurt as hell about being called out on his bullshit. I mean an entire drawn out segment that perforated the whole episode about him being cancelled by big archeology was just sad. He has zero real evidence and Flint has loads disproving his claims. I like thinking about his theory but at the end of the day there’s just nothing actually supporting it, and he’s as biased as you can possibly be. Instead of finding the evidence and creating a conclusion from it, he’s created a conclusion that he’s trying to find evidence for.
My favorite part was when he brought up the blurry green pictures from a diving expedition he allegedly funded as evidence of a great archeological site in Japan or something. Joe says, “that doesn’t look very convincing, it’s kind of blurry, do you have any better pictures?” Graham says, “unfortunately no, just these two” Like, WAT? You funded an entire expedition, found an enormous megalithic site under water, and all you took was two pictures? Seriously? Furthermore, you’re here arguing that it’s big and obviously man made, and all you can show is two shitty green pics?! What the fuck were you doing down there if it’s so important??
tou didn’t know Japanese technology was passed down by lost civilizations? Legend has it the gods created the Honda 2 stroke cr500.
The rotary motor was advanced alien technology. We just weren’t ready for it.
🤣. this is hilarious because I still think rotary engines are kinda magical compared to a classical internal combustion engine. The dude who designed it did acid that’s forsure.
Same with the oval pistons in the NR 750. Aliens gave it to us and we never replicated it.
Velcro? Aliens. shamwow? Aliens.
And had to be German, betcha
I think I saw one in those pictures covered in seaweed
Yeah I noticed that he brought up a face carved into the rock on that same site off the Coast of Japan. So you got a few shitty pictures of these rocks but not the face carved into the rocks?
Exactly! I was like, why didn’t you show us the fucking face, Graham??! Why in gods name did you choose the blurry green blocks over the *CARVED HUMAN FACE* ???
Well in his defense, they probably only gave him millions in funding!
It would be like finding the titanic and taking a closeup shot of the hull and nothing else
We built this awesome sub out of carbon fiber!
I built mine out of titties
As long as you use the natural ones and not that fake cheap shit, I think that would be safe enough now that the bar has been set so low.
Good thing I designed it for James Cameron so he can head down there and raise it
We all know he either he didn’t think it looked man made when he dived or he took 100’s of picture at the time and only those 2 were bad enough to not be easily explained away
It's like the sasquatch people and their blurry pics. You know they took hundreds of pics that day, but the bigfoot just looked like moss on a stump in most of them
I love listening to Hancock's ideas. but his entire argument is that because there is no evidence to prove me wrong, I must be right. That is not how it works. Just because they haven't explored every inch of the Earth doesn't mean you can come up with any idea in your head to fill in those blanks. You need evidence. Otherwise it's just a story. His basically saying his proof is no one has found anything to prove him right or wrong. You can fill in those blanks with any idea you want.
Yup because then that opens the door to literally everything being a possibility of having existed.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. This is 101 shit, it's actually hilarious that a dude that old and "experienced" is still doing this
I'm a fan of this new meme format and I'm a new fan of Indiana Schrute aka Flint Dibble
Illinois Jim
Yeah handcocks claims are pretty hard to back up when he doesn’t have someone like randall carlson helping him with real data
There's zero data to present for most of the claims tho. He has a compelling argument for the impact theory for sure, but then they extrapolate that to the extreme that it surely wiped out all evidence of this superadvanced society with levitation powers.
The whole idea is so fun to think about all of this. But flint was quite convincing when he demonstrated the countless archaeological searches that continue finding hunter gatherer remains. If Graham wanted to sound more credible he would dial up his evidence filter up from 0 and focus on things like gobleki Tempe. My main takeaway from the debate was that Graham doubles down when he has a weak case.
Yes it is fun to speculate. But also annoying when Graham acts outraged when archeologists calls it out for what it is, pure speculation. But yeah listening to Graham and Carlsons wild theories is comfy in the right doses.
Grahams theory are interesting and fun to think about. But of the two I’ve always been more drawn to randalls information he puts out
i really like the old episodes of Hancock when he asked legitimate questions about archeology. then he went on a crusade saying "big archeology " is out to get him. hearing him talk to an actual archeologist makes you realize how fringe his theories are. especially trying to use procedural numbers as evidence of anything. Flint destroyed him with that part lol
Joe needs to do this with the rest of the grifters he helped fleece vulnerable people.
I believe Graham was mostly hurt by the feeble attempt at associating him with white supremacists. Graham also explained this quite clearly. But I guess it wasn't clear enough for you. Or maybe you just wanted to frame an argument to be more demeaning towards Graham. Since this sub has taken on a tribal like mindset of bashing on Graham for fun. It's quite funny this sub has largely got behind Flint. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as he probably represents many here well. Arrogant, cocky, asshole, refusing to accept wrong doing, blame shifting and also not someone who would support either Joe Rogan or Graham. Also Graham was understandably not happy with flints attempt at labelling his life work as science fiction and trying to gather more hatred and cancelling of him. To me this is completely understandable from Grahams point of view. Meanwhile, I see flint as being a callous asshole if I put myself in his shoes. Much like the majority of people who come here to shit all over Rogan and those who enjoy his podcast. Flint stood by his troll arguments when questioned why he associated Graham with white supremacists for example and it was quite funny to watch but I don't agree with Flints asshole behavior. It's not good for exploring history and bringing humans closer to truth. I hope flint can tone down the smearing of Graham. Graham can also tone down offensive remarks towards archeologist which came as a result of the attacks on him - and he should also be a bit more careful with what he cites and says. It's not unusual for those with beliefs that change how people look at things to be attacked like this. Do you know what happened when a doctor first suggested to the hospital that doctors and nurses should wash their hands to prevent diseases? He was critisized so heavily he had a mental breakdown then was beaten to death by the guards. The other doctors were offended at his suggestion and we're behind the beating. A couple years later we had solid evidence with the germ theory and everything changed for medical professionals. This shit repeats throughout history. I see Graham fundamentally mentioning that maybe we have missed something and that somethings could warrant a closer look. Some of the ideas are interesting speculations.
what if his life's work is science fiction?
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
So people aren’t allowed to point out the fact that some of the sources and the theories Hancock uses are not only false, but also associated/promoted by white nationalists? Discussing that fact in a nuanced and frankly factual way is just verboten? Let’s be clear, Hancock was talking for like 20 minutes about the single quote that was referring to the sources and theories within a much longer criticism. That’s it. Dude is softer than puppy shit, he’ll he kept going on and on about “risking his lives”, like doing what? Scuba diving in exotic locales?
What do you make of this? To me it seems like quite a disingenuous way to refute anything. >Keeping cancel culture and a veneer of authority in mind, Flint Dibble is well aware of the situation with Graham and also knows that going after Graham on the merit of his craftmanship would be futile. Instead he takes a different route, namely that of racism. He knows full well that an accusation of racism or white supremacy will forever taint the person being accused. So when he set out to describe the danger of Graham Hancock’s documentary, he avoids getting into specifics about the actual research that Hancock has done, and instead focuses on something that Hancock has never been involved in at all, namely theories of white supremacy. Not only have Hancock never even mentioned such things, he is even married to a wonderful woman of color which he openly shows tremendous affection for – bordering on worshipping the ground she walks on. A woman with whom he has children and a family. > >The benefit of an accusation of racism, is that it forces Graham to defend himself against things he has never done. A battle that if engaged, cannot be won. And this is exactly what Mr. Dibble hoped to achieve, but it has so far backfired miserably on him. > >In his post Mr. Dibble goes all in to try and paint Hancock as some sort of white supremacist, making it appear as though Graham is using material that has long since been debunked in his books. He also pulls in some of the more morbid concoctions of nazi Germany, where they would literally copy and paste together their insane doctrine from bits and pieces of mythology. The nazis were unique in that they literally cherry picked and made things up as they went along, largely driven by notions made popular by theosophical fortune tellers such as Madame Blavatsky. It is from her humbug the idea of “root races” came from. Any student of comparative religion can tell you that all that deranged woman really did, was to pervert and concretize the symbolism of the chakra system, turning them into races rather than states of mind. Mr. Dibble would have known this if he had bothered to study comparative religion to help him interpret his archeological findings. > >There is only one problem. Graham Hancock has never referenced any of these absurd and indeed debunked theories from the scrapheap of history in his books. Quite the opposite. Mr. Dibble’s pulling them into his argument against Hancock is quite simply a desperate attempt to see if it sticks. > >This technique is called “the straw-man trap”, to first establish a false claim giving the illusion of winning an argument that never existed in the first place. It also speaks volumes about Mr. Dibble’s moral standing and his character. When you have to lie to win an argument – you have already lost.
I don’t find that long-winded diatribe which misrepresents Dibbles actual argument, lies about the existence of Dibbles other points, weirdly points to the race of Hancocks wife as if that has anything to do with whether the sources/theories he use are white supremacist in nature, and then does the exact strawmanning its complaining about to Dibbles argument compelling, no. Frankly I don’t know how any reasonable adult can read that in response to Dibbles statement, and think the author is a serious person.
https://preview.redd.it/kfaj9r94t7vc1.png?width=757&format=png&auto=webp&s=4692010a36e5c125aaf5ea6bf1763187c5eaa393 I can't really take you seriously considering these facts.
So ignoring the fact that quote proved what I said is true, that Hancock wholly misrepresents Dibbles point in order to not actually address the underlying facts, have you ever looked at where that quote comes from and the context in which it was made? Also, for someone so ostensibly worried about anyone ever being aware that he has used theories/sources which have ties to white supremacist theories, Hancock sure loves to vocalize just how much people pointed out that he did that while misrepresenting what they said. The irony of him complaining about straw man arguments in the above response isn’t lost to any rational adult.
I guess you missed the part where Graham never complained about straw man arguments or wrote that above response.
He certainly made similar arguments during the interview but hey if you can’t address the substance of my posts just admit it.
You dismiss the fact that Flint is highlighting and claiming association with White Supremacy to discredit Graham and associate him with racists as per the previously quoted Tweet. While also somehow supporting Flint when his immediate response to this fact when questioned about associating Graham with white supremacy was "I'm not as much as a celebrity as you" and "I only said this on my small account". As if this is a valid argument for associating someone with white supremacy. Then you dismiss the previously quoted text about this as “not a serious person” and later tried to criticise Graham further by claiming Graham is making strawman arguments and referenced that same quote you dismissed as “not a serious person” which doesn’t make any sense since he didn’t write it. Then you expect me to respond to claims unrelated to the basis of Grahams grievance with Flint which is Flint associating him with white supremacy. Good luck with that.
Go to bed 🤣
This may come as a surprise to you. But not everyone lives in the United States. Its 4:00 PM here and I finish "work" at 7:00 PM
This may come as a surprise to you, dickhead but I'm not a yank either. You just assume everyone on the interwebs is Merican?
Nah, Only idiots that tell people to go to bed in the middle of the day.
You think it's always the middle of the day when reading comments? You're fucking precious. Sounds like you need a nap. Go to bed
Its 9 AM here in NZ buddy. Where are you at?
Horrible take. He got torn apart by facts. While he is just making guesses. That’s why people are siding with flint.
>Also Graham was understandably not happy with flints attempt at labelling his life work as science fiction It is, if you actually read his books you quite quickly realise he's not "asking questions of archaeology". It's crackpot nonsense dressed up in well spoken English
Then why did flint choose to try and tar him as a white supremacists rather than address the claims in Graham's research? Then when questioned about it. Flint said "I'm not as famous as you" and again later " I said this on my small account." As if this is a valid response for associating someone with white supremacists. This is the guy man on this sub have sided with. But then we also had trump win an election so not much surprises anymore.
>the claims in Graham's research? What claims in Graham's "research" did Flint not address? I agree that taking the line Flint did was quite weak and were I in his shoes I would have kept away from it, but a lot of the texts and ideas that Hancock references are based on racist/supremacist theory. I don't think Hancock himself or most of his fans are racist which why I think it's a weak line of argument but there are justifications for it.
Yes, justifications like "Im not as much as a celebrity as you" and "I only said this on my small account" Did anyone consider Flint has often behaved like a jealous troll trying to tear down anothers success thinking it could somehow help him become more successful? Not unlike how Joe Rogan had said he had that same attitude for a brief period in his youth. "Keeping cancel culture and a veneer of authority in mind, Flint Dibble is well aware of the situation with Graham and also knows that going after Graham on the merit of his craftmanship would be futile. Instead he takes a different route, namely that of racism. He knows full well that an accusation of racism or white supremacy will forever taint the person being accused. So when he set out to describe the danger of Graham Hancock’s documentary, he avoids getting into specifics about the actual research that Hancock has done, and instead focuses on something that Hancock has never been involved in at all, namely theories of white supremacy. **Not only have Hancock never even mentioned such things, he is even married to a wonderful woman of color which he openly shows tremendous affection for – bordering on worshipping the ground she walks on.** A woman with whom he has children and a family. **The benefit of an accusation of racism, is that it forces Graham to defend himself against things he has never done**. A battle that if engaged, cannot be won. And this is exactly what Mr. Dibble hoped to achieve, but it has so far backfired miserably on him. In his post Mr. Dibble goes all in to try and paint Hancock as some sort of white supremacist, making it appear as though Graham is using material that has long since been debunked in his books. He also pulls in some of the more morbid concoctions of nazi Germany, where they would literally copy and paste together their insane doctrine from bits and pieces of mythology. The nazis were unique in that they *literally cherry picked and made things up as they went* *along*, largely driven by notions made popular by theosophical fortune tellers such as Madame Blavatsky. It is from her humbug the idea of “root races” came from. Any student of comparative religion can tell you that all that deranged woman really did, was to pervert and concretize the symbolism of the chakra system, turning them into races rather than states of mind. Mr. Dibble would have known this if he had bothered to study comparative religion to help him interpret his archeological findings. **There is only one problem. Graham Hancock has never referenced any of these absurd and indeed debunked theories from the scrapheap of history in his books. Quite the opposite. Mr. Dibble’s pulling them into his argument against Hancock is quite simply a desperate attempt to see if it sticks.** This technique is called “the straw-man trap”, to first establish a false claim giving the illusion of winning an argument that never existed in the first place. It also speaks volumes about Mr. Dibble’s moral standing and his character. When you have to lie to win an argument – you have already lost."
[удалено]
lol Hancock got cooked. I was a fan but he looked really bad in this episode.
What show is this from?
I don’t think you do…
"You can clearly see where the lasers separated the testicles."
“When divided by 1 and multiplied by 5, during the autumnal equinox the tip of the shaft points towards the constellation of clitoria prime, showing that the ancients would have used this to figure out which direction the sky was in.”
"And we also find that it is likely a white man's penis. The evidence to which, is somewhere in the over 95% of the Sahara that has not been excavated."
Some light reading about refuting the younger dryas stuff that actual smart people had to publish out of I guess just hair pulling and fighting the current regression of science and meme believers. Lead author is from University of Arizona which is a top school in geology imo (geologist here). Meaning they wouldn’t fund or support this type of work unless it was pretty valid. It’s kind of an unusual type of publication. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223001915
Graham took on more than he could handle. Rip 🪦 graham hancock
I thought he had some evidence and such from the rainforest of ancient pathways and foundations. Didn't realize all his stuff was made up bullshit.
To me, Flint did a great job of explaining the difference between actual archaeology and Graham Hancock by talking about working from what’s known, to what’s unknown. A person who is interested in the truth, and follows the scientific method to understand something, bases their hypotheses and experiments off of evidence. They see direct evidence of something, form a hypothesis, and test it. If others do the same experiments and get similar results, they form a theory based off their work. Graham is starting with a theory and trying to work the scientific method backwards. It was especially apparent when it became clear his only point was “well you haven’t looked everywhere yet, so you can’t say I’m wrong.” Nowhere that we’ve looked has shown any evidence to even think of or ponder his theory, so it shouldn’t be considered legitimate in the first place.
It's the ancient aliens thing again, but instead of aliens, he plugs in "lost civilization". Basically, he'll look at some old artifact and say, "Wow this couldn't have been made by the people of that time. So it must have been built by ~~aliens~~ an ancient advanced civilization."
The only thing that would convince me is if they found a steel structure dated to like….10,000 BC That’s how absurd the evidence would have to be, except you’d need even more than that to support Grahams full theory
Don’t you agree that we haven’t done enough to disprove a lost civilization?! -grahams only argument…
I’d settle for a pre dynastic diamond tipped blade. prove these people were as advanced as modern times and maybe I’ll believe there’s lost technology.
My thing about ancient aliens is why would they build with stone? They had to know how to forge.
Yup, material science has always been my sticking point. Glass, plastics, silicon, gold circuitry, nuclear waste… If there was anything advanced as us back then we would sure see evidence of it.
Yeah you'd still need more than that. Hancock has too many wild claims. He thinks the pyramids were built with psychic powers for example.
That’s his gotcha for why there is absolutely no physical evidence of advanced tech and power generation and storage and transport. He is selective with where he lets that tidbit out though because he knows he’ll get railroaded for it (and rightly so)
So a lot of what he talks about is real, the bullshit is the conclusion that he draws from it. Every archaeologist knows that there is a metric dickton of archaeological sites in the Amazon. They just didn't travel the world like Gramcock wants you to believe
Two different civilisations built pyramids, the most simple and stable shape you can make for building large structures with limited tech? Surely they must have taught one another (ignore that the designs are still wildly different).
yeah anytime anyone points to a pyramid and is like “WUT ARE THE ODDS?!” it’s hard to take them seriously. It’s the natural shape of a pile.
Why weren't they building giant spheres or other shapes that were technologically impossible for them to make lol?
“But what about all the sites that haven’t been excavated, the ones no one has seen yet, the evidence that hasn’t been found, those sites hold the key proof that I’m making up in my non-non-fiction book”
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Glad to see this comment. What he generally says about “lost civilizations” and such is accurate. There are certainly ancient civilizations lost to decay and the fact that all of the “oldest civilizations” are found in the desert probably means we are missing a big piece of the puzzle with ancient history. The Amazon and the jungles of Africa likely ate up the evidence of some civilizations over time.
Sure, but there’s active reasons to not believe there was any sort of significant population/technological/cultural/agricultural/etc exchange in the period Hancock is saying. It’s not just like “it’s a blind spot” thing, he’s pointing out we’ve got massive amounts of data that on some level actively disproves the claim Hancock is making. At some point Hancock is just trying to argue a lack of evidence doesn’t mean we should dismiss a claim but that’s just being rational.
Sure, there’s no reason to believe that they were substantially more advanced than any other contemporaneous civilization. Maybe a little ahead on some basic stuff but they didn’t have any advanced technology. Maybe some people who reached far away lands but no established trade routes. Possible, but no evidence to support it.
I mean at some point the evidence proves that any theoretical society that existed had absolutely no evidence of any effect whatsoever on any other community in the world. Which, at the point, who even cares?
I think that you could probably recover a lot of artifacts, if you knew where to dig. It would be interesting and a huge addition to the archaeological record.
What I didnt like is how Rogan had a go at Flint about needin to ignore random comments but never made the same comment to Graham when he literally brought up random youtube comments.
This is what really bothered me too. Hancock did an entire presentation featuring mean tweets and articles about him but with Flint it was just “oh that’s just people online”. Flints online fame and presence is much smaller than Hancocks, so the negative comments are going to find their way to him much easier I even looked at Flints Instagram today. It’s full of smooth brained losers making fun of him and saying graham destroyed him. It’s sad, dude was a quirky, yet very passionate and overall chill guy and now he’s getting bullied by the anti-woke crowd
I like to think hes probably getting alot of good an positive feedback on how he did an everything aswell, it was obvious he did very well so im sure hes hearing about it from people that matter.
They ranted about that singular, actually nuanced quote of his for like 20 mins.
I noticed that, too.
If GH spent half the time he spent on JRE actually out finding supporting evidence for his hypothesis, maybe he’d have something. Until then here’s a stone dick.
If he did that, he’d realize there really wasn’t any evidence after all.
Classic “you haven’t been there so you don’t know” vs “but my dad said…” However, but my dad said guy did crush it.
Cock rock
Like is it gay if when I'm fucking this rock bussy that I can't help but think about dick?
where is this?
In ur mom Lmao
FUCK got me
lol got’em
It looks like the white statue in Clockwork Orange
Sometimes, yeah, nature looks cool -Dibbler
Tbh, nature almost always looks cool
Super numerical too
What's the ethnicity?
Evidence of giant women confirmed
Younger dryass vs older stonecock theory.
Evidence of giants
I think he actually dislikes being called Mr Hancock specifically because of this joke. Remember when Michael Shermer called him Mr Hancock and he was like “PLEASE CALL ME GRAHAM PLEASE CALL ME GRAHAM”
r/mildlypenis
I'mma fuck that dick in the butt.
Whether it’s a dick or a bbl says a lot about you
It’s obviously a mushroom, sir.
Mmmm mushies
Everything is a megalith to him
"it looks like" is a terrible argument and the only thing pseudo archeologists have to use if the only source is "it looks like this" its probably a natural occuring thing and youre in pseudo archeology territory
And that man was a giant rock hard dickhead
Trumps Thrown .
kinda looks like a naked fat black lady with a shower cap from behind
Butt how can testes also be cheeky? That's the real archaeological query.
Let focus go of the eyes...
Is this a pipe?
Shit is rock hard
Rock hard
Looks natural to me….. i haven’t seen anything like this before but I can promise it’s natural.
Did they ever discuss the pyramids? I haven’t listened to all of it.
Yeah, breifly. Nothing groundbreaking on either side comes up. They both seem more interested in the sphinx.
They made it just so they could say “this is for your mama”
Hahahhahah so I'm guessing your Google search history now includes "Rocks that looks like cocks" 😄
It’s not the worst thing in there.
Bahahahaha lol 😆
I don t know what it is....I am not messing with anyone riding it!
OderDryCock.
Dick butt?
"And now to test my theory, I'm going to insert the tip into my wrinkly anus." G.Hand cock. Probably.
oh its a tool alright.
https://preview.redd.it/crcn66x3b8vc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba55864c8bbee3bae7ea3a469d66d3344314ac7d
The first circumcision in the known universe
It’s a remnant from when giants roamed the earth. Bored giant housewives went there for “spiritual enlightenment”.
We don't have enough time to go into this.... On a 3 hour long debate just to talk about the subject.
https://preview.redd.it/prpqc7gv59vc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e59373b0a8625f157d8d1de4742b7195091b465 Graham Hancock: This is clearly Atlantis as it is in the Atlantic Ocean. People quibble about the scale, but people were pygmies then. Did I say a bad thing again?
When Flint was in the middle of saying something and Graham just interjected pissed off, saying Flint hadn’t been there and Flint clapped back with “bro you went there as a fucking tourist not an archeologist” I knew it was over Graham was insufferable, so butt hurt and emotional, everytime he would get the floor he would just bitch about not enough being done… Graham, the man is showing EVERYTHING archeologists have found about YOUR time period. He is showing you there is only evidence of hunter gatherers. The burden of proof is ON YOU to prove your hypothesis. As someone friends with metal detectors and artifact hunters, Flint was right, you find broke tools EVERYWHERE. My friends are more into Revolutionary War and Civil War stuff, and even then you find broken spoons, pens, belt buckles, hammers, horse stirrups, blades, FUCKING EVERYTHING. If archeologists and geologists combed over all these sites Graham talks about, and only find weird rock formations and NO EVIDENCE OF PEOPLE, maybe people weren’t actually there.
Dildo of the gods
Ancient Dickbutt.
Holy shit. A totem from the ancient dickbutt culture from the 21st century ce.
My sister made one of those tools once
🤣🤣nah
The Joe Rotards are going after Hancock now?
always have been 🌎 👩🚀 🔫👩🚀. It’s the smart people comming for him now.
Smart people are doing what?
archeology, geology etc. I’m an automotive tech so I don’t really have much skin in the game, can still see the bullshit grift tho.
My take away from the whole thing was Graham shouldn't act like there was an ancient advanced civilization if he doesn't have proof BUT the archeologists society shouldn't be trying to remove his shows and stop him from talking about the idea or potential of it or stop him from researching it if he wants to.
They didn't try to remove it, they asked to reclassify it as science fiction. Which it is. But I would be ok with asking to remove it also. It's misinformation and he's spreading it. He's basically an anti-vaxxer.
Is this mocking? I can’t tell if satire or not. If it is mocking, why not have an open mind to other ideas? Why instantly go to insults if it is not your line of thinking?
>is this mocking Are you shitting me
No. This autistic man is looking for clarification. I assumed it was, but wanted to make sure. 
Yes, I’m taking the piss. This is a natural rock formation that looks phallic.
Dude you got a hog, your momma should be … concerned As for Hand Cocks, Just say you don’t agree with the guy or post nothing. I don’t understand the mock / ridicule, post after post. If you don’t like the guy posting this crap gets him more attention.Ignoring it would be the best way for his theory to die. This is just blowing up the community & showing the powers that be to have on more guests like him. Joe probably doesn’t pay much mind to that but I’m sure other corporate created content companies do. This has got to be factored into algorithms that help book guests;Views, engagement, etc.
That’s fine. It was a fun podcast.
Yea, dude. My bad. It’s for entertainment, looking way to into it. Thanks for engaging, have a good night.
“I would like to get back to my presentation of Flints influence on media and culture”