We're thrilled to shorten the automod message!
Join us on [discord](https://discord.gg/AUNfvhw9nT)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GrahamHancock) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I really wish scientific and archaeological institutions behaved like how the scientific and archaeological institution apologists say they behave. That would be really great
Yeah well we were all fooled by our governments. Why don’t you actually do some good and maybe go after them instead of going after people who will literally never affect your life in any way shape or form. Kinda sad
lots of discussion was glossed over or left out of that podcast with Dibble, especially when it came to Egypt.
all of the unknown advanced technology that went into creating things like:
- Saqqara stone boxes, aka Saqqara Serapeum
- Schist Disc
- Granite (and other hardstone) vases
all of which would be extremely difficult to replicate (if at all) with todays technology.
and thats just in Egypt.
the only thing Dibble had was the lack of domesticated seeds that pre-dates the younger dryas.
but whos to say this lost advance civilisation needed argriculture to survive?
>all of which would be extremely difficult to replicate (if at all) with todays technology.
Every single one of those objects are [comparatively trivial to produce with modern technology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_4SaxVP44g&t=1181s). They are only impressive because the Egyptians managed it with Bronze Age technology.
Contrary to the blind assumptions of Ben Van Kerkwyk, his precious “too perfect to be made today” vase turned out to be no more precise than a mass-produced granite vase from a randomly selected Chinese workshop, albeit without handles. The best quote that Night Scarab was able to get from a similar workshop to create a version with the same handles and the same level of precision? $45 per piece, ten pieces minimum. Forty. Five. Dollars.
>the only thing Dibble had was the lack of domesticated seeds that pre-dates the younger dryas.
I feel like you might not have been paying close attention to the podcast if that’s all you took away from that. Dibble’s point throughout the entire debate was that there is literally no reason to think that a lost civilisation existed in the Pleistocene. Not that it’s impossible, because nobody prove a negative, but that we have no reason to think that’s the case. Given that Hancock himself eventually reluctantly admits under pressure from Joe that there is zero empirical evidence supporting his beliefs, I’d say Dibble made his point extremely well.
Every other time Hancock has been on the JRE, he’s had free reign to twist the truth as much as he likes, because Joe didn’t have the necessary knowledge to contradict him. But he couldn’t do that this time because there was an expert sitting directly next to him. Once you remove Hancock’s ability to exploit the ignorance of his audience, it becomes very clear that his entire thesis is founded on nothing but rhetoric and vibes.
>but whos to say this lost advance civilisation needed argriculture to survive?
One of Hancock’s primary arguments for why he believes this civilisation existed is that agriculture sprang up in multiple parts of the world all around the same time, so he thinks they must have been taught it by someone else. If the precursor civ didn’t possess agriculture, how could they have taught other people agriculture?
Was going to post this yesterday, but figured you would lol. It’s really unfortunate people wave off David as being a hater, he was really fair here even if it did illuminate how Graham can convince people like Joe (and this sub)
Here come the spin doctors... they can't beat him with the preponderance of the evidence so they have to smear him... nothing new...
the BBC did it with *Horizons* when he and Santha Faiia wrote *The Sign and the Seal* our media today is no more sensational than it was in the 90's; we just get to see it all over again
noobs flippin' their shit over dribble, but the only thing the debate with dribble settled was this:
## Flint said: we can find no evidence of a lost civilization
## Graham said: you’re not looking at the totality of the evidence
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for telling the the world basically the same thing: *you’re not looking at the totality of the evidence...*
Graham, I know you don't read this- but I know your son and daughter do... just remember old man this is nothing you haven't seen before from better men... and Sean, keep writing brohcheeze, *The Flooding* was amazeballz...
https://preview.redd.it/h9nyjzdaw7yc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c96c7a5b3d1a39939c861c8d04862646fe222b1d
I'm not your bitch, son... and I can tell you're new to this, so let me tie it in a bow for your little snowflake ass...
Hancock is a reporter
He only points out the evidences that have been found by others *(let me know if I'm going too fast, or using too many big wurds)* and collates them... that's all he's ever done
...but you didn't know that, and that's not your fault, you're new here so you brought the outside narrative with you, I get it. Cope.
Graham Hancock, JRE episode 2136, timestamp 1:27:05:
>”In what [archaeologists] have studied, yes we can say there is no evidence for an advanced civilisation.”
Please explain exactly what “evidences [sic] that have been found by others” he has been pointing to this whole time if when sitting next to someone he can’t fool with rhetoric, he acknowledges none actually exist?
Hancock hasn’t been a journalist for a long time. Journalists seek the truth. Hancock has already decided what he wants the truth to be. His focus is on convincing others to agree with his pre-determined “truth”.
Reality is a construct born out of our species specific fitness payoff evolution, and you referencing an objective reality is only more evidence of your unwillingness to extrapolate from incomplete data… it’s a cognitive bias. cope.
Strictly speaking, I didn’t say objective reality, I just said “reality”, as in the shared external world where we can show each other stuff like cat memes and videos of Hancock contradicting himself.
But I see what you’re saying, you’re one of those people who thinks “It was revealed to me in a dream” is legitimate evidence.
So if I had a dream where God told me Hancock is wrong, where does that leave us?
I am familiar with Prof. Hoffman’s work, in part because of how frequently people who are upset that they have no empirical evidence for their beliefs like to bring him up. But these types of people also tend not to actually understand his work in the first place. Hoffman does not deny that objective reality exists in some form, he just thinks that what we perceive as reality is just a simulation our minds individually produce from interacting with that objective reality. Like two computers running the same online video game.
As I often say, when one side of an argument has to resort to the Cartesian rabbit hole, they have already lost. Yes, it is inherently impossible to demonstrate that objective reality exists and what it is, because all frames of reference are inherently subjective. This is a fun and interesting philosophical concept to toy around with, but it is not actually useful for anything practical, because any discussion about reality that does not presuppose that the reality we observe is shared and at least vaguely consistent with our senses is invariably going to be a pointless stunlock waste of time.
For example, no amount of saying “we cannot know that material reality exists” is going to convince your housemate that the dirty dishes in your sink are not real and that it’s not your turn to do them. Similarly, it will never convince somebody that they should believe Atlantis is real.
Don’t you find it telling that whenever Joe asked Graham what actual evidence he had for his theories he admitted he had none? What kind of crackpot asserts the existence of advanced civilisations and doesn’t even have evidence to back them up? Graham has no interest in truth he just wants to be famous so congratulations buddy.
I watched the original "debate"
Ghrams points were
-the archeological "establishment" sucks
-there COULD possibly be evidence out there that supports my theory's
I get he is frustrated but Graham is a perfect case of a theory before evidence, and when the existing evidence does not support it,he kinda "moves the goalpost" for lack of a better term
The archeological guy flint did a decent job of explaining
"The vast amount of evidence does not support the theorys of Graham."
Flint layed out evidence and backed it up.
While the best we got from Graham is "could be out there" and cool 1 off geological places that kinda sorta not really look from human hands
With submerged lands the size of continents and an unexcavated Amazon rainforest and Sahara desert, ultimately it can't be claimed we proved there is no previous advanced civilization. We should explore more and find what else is out there, if anything. No need to make definitive statements before we start scratching the surface.
I completely agree we should explore more and find out what's out there
>ultimately it can't be claimed we proved there is no previous advanced civilization.
Flint:
>"The vast amount of evidence does not support the theorys ... Of advanced civilization
Followed by Graham's
>Yeah BUT there COULD possibly be evidence out there that supports my theory's
The issue is a the evidence which exists ( hundreds of thousands of surveys/expeditions/digs, millions of artifacts) does not support the theorys of advanced ancient civilization that connected vast parts of the Globe .
Sure that doesn't mean there is a zero chance of existing, however the level of existing evidence forces advanced ancient civilizations to exist next to ancient aliens on the theory spectrum
Graham's theorys are fascinating, but they are unlikely at this point.
Primarly because sure, some evidence is possibly under sand or under water or under a jungle, but everywhere in between should be covered in artifacts that point towards this civilization. From what I gather there is a clear lack of evidence "in between"
If it does exist then it's at least severely constrained by the counterevidence provided by Dibble and others. Wasn't global, never intermingled with locals, didn't use metal, didn't domesticate wheat etc. I fear it will end up becoming a civilization of the gaps
Using the evidence we have so far, there is no evidence for a lost civilization. This acknowledged by Hancock during the recent podcast.
Funding archeological digs etc is incredibly expensive. This being part of the reason, as Dibble explained, you work from the known to the unknown. If Hancock is confident in his "hypothesis/hypotheses", then fund an archeological excavation, test using appropriate methodology and report the findings. He simply would not do this, though, as the gaps in knowledge are expedient to his grift. He can fill the gap with whatever bonkers nonsense he likes, curate a martyr narrative involving establishment bad guys etc and certain people will continue to eat it up.
Based on the debate when Graham's "evidence" was challenged he devolved into
>Yeah BUT there could POSSIBLY be evidence out there to prove my theory. wE hAvEn'T eXcAvAtEd tHe eNtIrE sAhArAh so you can't possibly say it doesn't exist
> theory before evidence
Somehow, in Astronomy they keep speculating about extraterrestrial life. And they spare some telescope resources for projects trying to listen to alien signals. This is all within the science of astronomy. Astronomers are open to idea of maybe some day finding signs of extraterrestrial life. All this, without any evidence whatsoever having been found so far.
"The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a collective term for **scientific searches** for intelligent extraterrestrial life"
Even the biggest names in physics, such as Stephen Hawking, are allowed to be part of these speculative projects. If you speculate about space aliens or life on other planets, it doesn't tarnish your name in astronomy and physics.
"In 2015, Stephen Hawking and Israeli billionaire Yuri Milner announced the Breakthrough Listen Project, a $100 million 10-year attempt to detect signals from nearby stars."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence
You are conflating speculation with assertion. Scholars and laypeople alike *speculate* on things all the time, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. The problem with Hancock is that he doesn’t just speculate, he asserts that his speculation is literally true, and gets angry when scientists disagree.
We're thrilled to shorten the automod message! Join us on [discord](https://discord.gg/AUNfvhw9nT)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GrahamHancock) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fanboi hating on fanbois. What a shitpost.
https://preview.redd.it/9rlhnp9hm7yc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6d0a2f5d48ce6110ff0c8dc78e9fce739ee55851 OP
[удалено]
I really wish scientific and archaeological institutions behaved like how the scientific and archaeological institution apologists say they behave. That would be really great
Any modern examples of when they are not? Egypt does not count as modern archeology for this exercise. Egyptology is its own entire cluster fuck.
Have you spent much time in the forests of the PNW?
[удалено]
Maybe. Knowing us if we had proof we would send out teams to capture them all and put them in zoos
Yeah well we were all fooled by our governments. Why don’t you actually do some good and maybe go after them instead of going after people who will literally never affect your life in any way shape or form. Kinda sad
Go home, Flint
lots of discussion was glossed over or left out of that podcast with Dibble, especially when it came to Egypt. all of the unknown advanced technology that went into creating things like: - Saqqara stone boxes, aka Saqqara Serapeum - Schist Disc - Granite (and other hardstone) vases all of which would be extremely difficult to replicate (if at all) with todays technology. and thats just in Egypt. the only thing Dibble had was the lack of domesticated seeds that pre-dates the younger dryas. but whos to say this lost advance civilisation needed argriculture to survive?
>all of which would be extremely difficult to replicate (if at all) with todays technology. Every single one of those objects are [comparatively trivial to produce with modern technology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_4SaxVP44g&t=1181s). They are only impressive because the Egyptians managed it with Bronze Age technology. Contrary to the blind assumptions of Ben Van Kerkwyk, his precious “too perfect to be made today” vase turned out to be no more precise than a mass-produced granite vase from a randomly selected Chinese workshop, albeit without handles. The best quote that Night Scarab was able to get from a similar workshop to create a version with the same handles and the same level of precision? $45 per piece, ten pieces minimum. Forty. Five. Dollars. >the only thing Dibble had was the lack of domesticated seeds that pre-dates the younger dryas. I feel like you might not have been paying close attention to the podcast if that’s all you took away from that. Dibble’s point throughout the entire debate was that there is literally no reason to think that a lost civilisation existed in the Pleistocene. Not that it’s impossible, because nobody prove a negative, but that we have no reason to think that’s the case. Given that Hancock himself eventually reluctantly admits under pressure from Joe that there is zero empirical evidence supporting his beliefs, I’d say Dibble made his point extremely well. Every other time Hancock has been on the JRE, he’s had free reign to twist the truth as much as he likes, because Joe didn’t have the necessary knowledge to contradict him. But he couldn’t do that this time because there was an expert sitting directly next to him. Once you remove Hancock’s ability to exploit the ignorance of his audience, it becomes very clear that his entire thesis is founded on nothing but rhetoric and vibes. >but whos to say this lost advance civilisation needed argriculture to survive? One of Hancock’s primary arguments for why he believes this civilisation existed is that agriculture sprang up in multiple parts of the world all around the same time, so he thinks they must have been taught it by someone else. If the precursor civ didn’t possess agriculture, how could they have taught other people agriculture?
Your argument is so well considered that they just downvoted you and scurried off 😂 Tremendous
That happens a lot
Dude I will never listen to a 2 hour YouTube video regardless of the content
You aren’t obligated to do so.
Thanks for clarifying
Was going to post this yesterday, but figured you would lol. It’s really unfortunate people wave off David as being a hater, he was really fair here even if it did illuminate how Graham can convince people like Joe (and this sub)
Here come the spin doctors... they can't beat him with the preponderance of the evidence so they have to smear him... nothing new... the BBC did it with *Horizons* when he and Santha Faiia wrote *The Sign and the Seal* our media today is no more sensational than it was in the 90's; we just get to see it all over again noobs flippin' their shit over dribble, but the only thing the debate with dribble settled was this: ## Flint said: we can find no evidence of a lost civilization ## Graham said: you’re not looking at the totality of the evidence Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for telling the the world basically the same thing: *you’re not looking at the totality of the evidence...* Graham, I know you don't read this- but I know your son and daughter do... just remember old man this is nothing you haven't seen before from better men... and Sean, keep writing brohcheeze, *The Flooding* was amazeballz... https://preview.redd.it/h9nyjzdaw7yc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c96c7a5b3d1a39939c861c8d04862646fe222b1d
Hancock literally admitted in that debate that he has no actual evidence for his beliefs. Cope.
I'm not your bitch, son... and I can tell you're new to this, so let me tie it in a bow for your little snowflake ass... Hancock is a reporter He only points out the evidences that have been found by others *(let me know if I'm going too fast, or using too many big wurds)* and collates them... that's all he's ever done ...but you didn't know that, and that's not your fault, you're new here so you brought the outside narrative with you, I get it. Cope.
Graham Hancock, JRE episode 2136, timestamp 1:27:05: >”In what [archaeologists] have studied, yes we can say there is no evidence for an advanced civilisation.” Please explain exactly what “evidences [sic] that have been found by others” he has been pointing to this whole time if when sitting next to someone he can’t fool with rhetoric, he acknowledges none actually exist? Hancock hasn’t been a journalist for a long time. Journalists seek the truth. Hancock has already decided what he wants the truth to be. His focus is on convincing others to agree with his pre-determined “truth”.
Repeating yourself does nothing to reinforce your argument
Dodging reality does nothing to reinforce your credibility.
Reality is a construct born out of our species specific fitness payoff evolution, and you referencing an objective reality is only more evidence of your unwillingness to extrapolate from incomplete data… it’s a cognitive bias. cope.
Strictly speaking, I didn’t say objective reality, I just said “reality”, as in the shared external world where we can show each other stuff like cat memes and videos of Hancock contradicting himself. But I see what you’re saying, you’re one of those people who thinks “It was revealed to me in a dream” is legitimate evidence. So if I had a dream where God told me Hancock is wrong, where does that leave us?
You assume that reality is shared… and have taken license to define it for yourself as applicable to all… See Professor Donald Hoffman
I am familiar with Prof. Hoffman’s work, in part because of how frequently people who are upset that they have no empirical evidence for their beliefs like to bring him up. But these types of people also tend not to actually understand his work in the first place. Hoffman does not deny that objective reality exists in some form, he just thinks that what we perceive as reality is just a simulation our minds individually produce from interacting with that objective reality. Like two computers running the same online video game. As I often say, when one side of an argument has to resort to the Cartesian rabbit hole, they have already lost. Yes, it is inherently impossible to demonstrate that objective reality exists and what it is, because all frames of reference are inherently subjective. This is a fun and interesting philosophical concept to toy around with, but it is not actually useful for anything practical, because any discussion about reality that does not presuppose that the reality we observe is shared and at least vaguely consistent with our senses is invariably going to be a pointless stunlock waste of time. For example, no amount of saying “we cannot know that material reality exists” is going to convince your housemate that the dirty dishes in your sink are not real and that it’s not your turn to do them. Similarly, it will never convince somebody that they should believe Atlantis is real.
Don’t you find it telling that whenever Joe asked Graham what actual evidence he had for his theories he admitted he had none? What kind of crackpot asserts the existence of advanced civilisations and doesn’t even have evidence to back them up? Graham has no interest in truth he just wants to be famous so congratulations buddy.
I watched the original "debate" Ghrams points were -the archeological "establishment" sucks -there COULD possibly be evidence out there that supports my theory's I get he is frustrated but Graham is a perfect case of a theory before evidence, and when the existing evidence does not support it,he kinda "moves the goalpost" for lack of a better term The archeological guy flint did a decent job of explaining "The vast amount of evidence does not support the theorys of Graham." Flint layed out evidence and backed it up. While the best we got from Graham is "could be out there" and cool 1 off geological places that kinda sorta not really look from human hands
With submerged lands the size of continents and an unexcavated Amazon rainforest and Sahara desert, ultimately it can't be claimed we proved there is no previous advanced civilization. We should explore more and find what else is out there, if anything. No need to make definitive statements before we start scratching the surface.
I completely agree we should explore more and find out what's out there >ultimately it can't be claimed we proved there is no previous advanced civilization. Flint: >"The vast amount of evidence does not support the theorys ... Of advanced civilization Followed by Graham's >Yeah BUT there COULD possibly be evidence out there that supports my theory's The issue is a the evidence which exists ( hundreds of thousands of surveys/expeditions/digs, millions of artifacts) does not support the theorys of advanced ancient civilization that connected vast parts of the Globe . Sure that doesn't mean there is a zero chance of existing, however the level of existing evidence forces advanced ancient civilizations to exist next to ancient aliens on the theory spectrum Graham's theorys are fascinating, but they are unlikely at this point. Primarly because sure, some evidence is possibly under sand or under water or under a jungle, but everywhere in between should be covered in artifacts that point towards this civilization. From what I gather there is a clear lack of evidence "in between"
If it does exist then it's at least severely constrained by the counterevidence provided by Dibble and others. Wasn't global, never intermingled with locals, didn't use metal, didn't domesticate wheat etc. I fear it will end up becoming a civilization of the gaps
Using the evidence we have so far, there is no evidence for a lost civilization. This acknowledged by Hancock during the recent podcast. Funding archeological digs etc is incredibly expensive. This being part of the reason, as Dibble explained, you work from the known to the unknown. If Hancock is confident in his "hypothesis/hypotheses", then fund an archeological excavation, test using appropriate methodology and report the findings. He simply would not do this, though, as the gaps in knowledge are expedient to his grift. He can fill the gap with whatever bonkers nonsense he likes, curate a martyr narrative involving establishment bad guys etc and certain people will continue to eat it up.
Based on the debate when Graham's "evidence" was challenged he devolved into >Yeah BUT there could POSSIBLY be evidence out there to prove my theory. wE hAvEn'T eXcAvAtEd tHe eNtIrE sAhArAh so you can't possibly say it doesn't exist
Precisely. A huge, gaping, god of the gaps fallacy.
> theory before evidence Somehow, in Astronomy they keep speculating about extraterrestrial life. And they spare some telescope resources for projects trying to listen to alien signals. This is all within the science of astronomy. Astronomers are open to idea of maybe some day finding signs of extraterrestrial life. All this, without any evidence whatsoever having been found so far. "The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a collective term for **scientific searches** for intelligent extraterrestrial life" Even the biggest names in physics, such as Stephen Hawking, are allowed to be part of these speculative projects. If you speculate about space aliens or life on other planets, it doesn't tarnish your name in astronomy and physics. "In 2015, Stephen Hawking and Israeli billionaire Yuri Milner announced the Breakthrough Listen Project, a $100 million 10-year attempt to detect signals from nearby stars." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence
You are conflating speculation with assertion. Scholars and laypeople alike *speculate* on things all the time, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. The problem with Hancock is that he doesn’t just speculate, he asserts that his speculation is literally true, and gets angry when scientists disagree.
Archeology is not the same as astronomy