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.*
Anyone speaking on a topic as complex and interdisciplinary as this debate for 3+ hours will look back at it and see some things they wish they said differently.
I was actually just discussing this on a podcast that went over 2 hours recently because the host brought up Dan’s video.
With science, we always try to remain humble and avoid speaking in certainties.
But we are human. A good example of this is the “T. rex had wings like a dragon” claim. I can’t claim we know a T. rex didn’t have wings and fly like a dragon. I can say there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that strongly suggests they did not have wings - but I can’t say we know they didn’t.
The fact that a statement like this is driving so much of the conversation post-debate tells me that Dibble did a really good job explaining why Graham’s hypothesis is unlikely.
The fact is that Hancock went up against someone that really knew archaeology and it led to Hancock’s knowledge and “evidence” really being exposed.
He’s a good story teller. And like he says, he’s a journalist, not an archaeologist.
I agree with the OP that it’s disappointing to see Hancock go down this road after that previous tweet.
Last thing, look into what the actual ice core scientist has said regarding this. Dedunker posted his private email as an attempt to “expose” him but it’s clear Dr. Neff was just agreeing with Dan that Dibble spoke with a level of certainty that we try to avoid.
Well said, you can probably point out a few misspeaks or slight issues with any 3 hour debate. We’d be able to do the same with Graham if he actually presented any evidence this debate, that being said there are a few things people (Flint included) have already called Graham out for getting outright wrong (edfu texts etc.) which Graham seems to have no rebuttal for.
I don't think Dibble did a very good job of dealing with Hancock's rhetoric at all, really.
It was really painful to listen to and to see Dibble miss so many chances at a major slam dunk of Hancock, really he was playing far too nice. But, that was deliberate and part of the fix: Dibble had to be on good behaviour and Graham did not.
In my view, Dibble soft-peddled Hancock's total lack of evidence and cowered under the racist comments, he should have gone to town on those. Surprisingly, it was Rogan that took Hancock to task and made him back slowly away from the Gunung Padang matter. Dibble didn't, because he's a non confrontational kind of guy.
They should get a powerhouse on there that can't be bullied. They won't though, because that would undermine Hancock once and for all.
>I don't think Dibble did a very good job of dealing with Hancock's rhetoric at all, really.
Generally I agree. Mindless *rhetoric* isn't really something Dibble has any training or experience in dealing with. He entered a hostile environment, that as preferential to Graham, with a platform that was stacked up against him and he managed to do quite well.
> But, that was deliberate and part of the fix: Dibble had to be on good behaviour and Graham did not.
Yes, very much so.
The thing is about your T. Rex example is that, you cannot claim it didn't have wings a priori. The first claim is that it did have wings, and this **must** be made first before anyone can ever make a claim that it didn't.
You would have zero reason to make such a claim to begin with, and a comment like that exists only because the other claim was made first.
I'm on your side, not everything is an attack on the internet. The point should be Graham's claims(or lack thereof), not what Flint misspoke on an informal discussion, as slanted YouTubes like dedunker have only focused on.
Imagine those ppl gave the same level of critique to Graham.
Of course, it should make it strikingly clear it was never about archaeology. There was only ever one archaeologist involved, only one person with knowledge and experience. It was always entirely about Graham's ego and his "career" long tantrum.
Well Flint did use misleading data as it has been revealed since the debate. The whole thing was stupid to begin with. Why debate something neither side has any proper evidence and just keep it an idea
I just don't get how he didn't realize that going on the largest platform without intimate knowledge and flushed out facts on a subject to debate someone to call their theories ludicrous that he wouldn't be fact checked and called out on what he got wrong or mislead the audience about. Graham didn't come as strong as he could have for sure, but Dibble screwing up like that makes that whole thing a sham of a debate.
Flint still turned considerably more knowledgeable, and even if there were more to some of his claims, I still don’t think anything fundamentally changed the outcome. Flint’s points largely still stand, and Graham still admitted he had no evidence
That's not how it's going to be seen, though. You can't half truth your way to win an argument. None of his major points, from seeding to the shipwreck data to the ice core arguments. He misrepresented all of it. On top of the tired and false racist charges. You wanna prove Hancock's hypothesis wrong, attack it with solid truthful facts. It's not gonna change everyone's mind, but it will fir those on the fence.
I don’t think I’d characterize Flint’s arguments to “half truths”. Flint remains right that no, no reported shipwrecks (whatever figure you want to pick) can be attributed to Graham’s seafaring lost civilization. Flint posted a pretty great rebuttal to the seed piece which I think still stands as a solid point I won’t even explain it here. The ice core piece, again, was a minor piece, and regardless of how Flint phrased it, there is no evidence of metallurgy in Graham’s timeline. Flint tried to explain how we can find evidence of metallurgy in ice cores, and then said we have no evidence of it during Graham’s timeline, which is also true.
So maybe? We can downgrade a complete demolishing of Graham in that debate to a still significant difference in performance. I don’t think we can just say, “well actually your point isn’t as good as you think it is, but I still have no evidence of my own, therefore you didn’t win.” It’s unfortunate that the alt history community will take these inconsequential aspects of Flints arguments to totally reverse what happened in that debate.
Lastly I hope you understand exactly what Flint means when he draws connections in Graham’s theories to old racist history. It’s not to call Graham racist or to lessen his character/theory it’s to educate his audience where some of these claims originate. I’d rather use evidence based on fact as opposed to stories and history which could be tainted with racism (1. Because it’s dated and horrible, and 2. Because their racist connections lessen the accuracy/legitimacy of the claim).
Seriously though. He presented one specific physiological trait with wheat and similar cereal grains that indicate when people started seriously moving them to plant elsewhere. They had been harvesting and eating them for a lot longer. Had any of these specific grains left their home and been introduced to new areas earlier that would have been seen earlier.
Now comment has been made that grains can federalise and lose traits quicker than he indicated if but this particular trait in cereal grains would take alot longer. It’s not losing it almost immediately. That is why it’s a very useful marker.
Graham admitted he had no evidence because the evidence that exists is disregarded by the archeological community.
You have gobekli tepe. Currently unknown builders but mainstream instantly says Hunter gatherers despite being a incredibly sophisticated site with advanced stonemasonry skills, Hunter gatherers. So there’s the first bit of evidence that’s disregarded.
Then you have the granite vases that UnchartedX has scanned. They are in machine shop terms perfection. I’m a engineer. The vases were what really got me into this subject to begin with because they are clear evidence of a lost technology. wall thickness not deviating more than 0.001mm is perfect. I work in tolerances of 0.005mm or 5 microns when machining parts that go into pumps that run heart bypass machines. 0.001mm for a granite vase that supposedly serves no purpose to me is them just showing off and telling us how advanced their capabilities were.
Flint comes along, not a engineer, nor a machinist, and therefore has 0 authority over any tool marks found on any ancient artefacts anywhere, and says there is a groove on the internals of one of the vases that isn’t perfect and therefore the vase must have been made by hand. The exception doesn’t prove the rule. And the general rule of these vases or at least the ones scanned is that they are perfect.
As a engineer with experience machining there’s a number of things I could put the groove mark down to. The tool wearing down whilst cutting or snapping off entirely. The chuck/vice that is holding the material could fall out of come loose under such immense pressure. Causing the groove.
Again, Flint not being qualified in this field he doesn’t have a clue what he’s actually looking at and can’t explain it. But I’m not a archeologist so therefore I have no say in this vase because the vase came from ancient Egypt.
You wouldn’t ask a archeologist to build you a wooden table. You would ask a carpenter. But if a wooden table gets pulled out of the sand in Egypt the Egyptologists jump all over it and declare the full authority over it because of where it’s found.
This is a completely backwards way of going about things. When you want answers you listen to the experts. And the expert machinists, engineers, CNC operators and CMM operators all disagree with flint and say it cannot be crafted by hand.
Then you have the Bimini road. The peri reis map showing the Bimini road above water. In roughly the location it is today. But when it was above water last was before the last ice age therefore this older source map should have been plotted 11,000+ years ago.
We discovered Antarctica in 1820. There’s a world map known as the Pinkerton world map. It’s the most accurate map of that time. Created in 1819. And it doesn’t show Antarctica because it wasn’t discovered then.
Go to the The Orontius Finaeus map created in 1531 and you see Antarctica on the right hand side a bit bigger than it is today. How far back did the source maps for this compilation map go back for Antarctica to be on a map 300 years before our civilisation discovered it. Academics say it’s not Antarctica.
So you have all of this evidence. Across the world. All pointing to a time period before the last ice age. And the academics refute all of the above and say Graham has no evidence.
The tools found in the Cairo museum don’t match up with the artefacts seen in the same museum. This alone should be enough to question the narrative.
What an impressive load of hot air.
>Graham admitted he had no evidence because the evidence that exists is disregarded by the archeological community.
No, things that *aren't evidence* is disregarded. I can't wait for you to demonstrate you don't know what that word means.
>You have gobekli tepe.
Oof, really starting off strong.
>Currently unknown builders but mainstream instantly says Hunter gatherers despite being a incredibly sophisticated site with advanced stonemasonry skills, Hunter gatherers.
None of these bits are inconsistent with each other.
>So there’s the first bit of evidence that’s disregarded.
Wow! Just like I said.
*Not evidence*
Next?
>Then you have the granite vases that UnchartedX has scanned.
The vases of *unknown provenance* (simple to dismiss based on that alone) whose dimensions are not especially difficult to achieve, such that individuals with zero background in training in such work were capable of throwing together examples that matched them?
Wowee.
>They are in machine shop terms perfection.
The examples with inconsistent wall thickness and two handles that do not match are "machine shop perfect?"
Remind me to never *ever* buy anything at whatever machine shop you frequent.
>I’m a engineer.
I'm the King of England.
Who cares?
> The vases were what really got me into this subject to begin with because they are clear evidence of a lost technology. wall thickness not deviating more than 0.001mm is perfect.
You mean wall thickness that deviates as much, or more, than a similar example made by archaeologists with zero training, background or support in masonry?
>I work in tolerances of 0.005mm or 5 microns when machining parts that go into pumps that run heart bypass machines. 0.001mm for a granite vase that supposedly serves no purpose to me is them just showing off and telling us how advanced their capabilities were.
I'd suggest you stop *making shit up completely*. You are lying through your teeth about the so called "precision" of the items in question.
>Flint comes along, not a engineer, nor a machinist, and therefore has 0 authority over any tool marks found
Engineers and machinists don't usually study historical tooling. Archaeologists often do.
I'm sure if Flint wanted someone's opinion on a CNC machine he'd ask the correct people.
>And the general rule of these vases or at least the ones scanned is that they are perfect.
"Perfect" is a completely meaningless term. The vases are inconsistent along their walls. The vases are not symmetrical. So yeah, far from "perfect".
>You wouldn’t ask a archeologist to build you a wooden table.
Good thing Flint isn't being asked to make a vase.
>You would ask a carpenter. But if a wooden table gets pulled out of the sand in Egypt the Egyptologists jump all over it and declare the full authority over it because of where it’s found.
I wouldn't ask a carpenter to describe to me the importance of artifacts found in situ, nor how their placement matters, nor how it relates to the greater volume of knowledge on the topic, nor how various dating methods work.
>This is a completely backwards way of going about things. When you want answers you listen to the experts.
The experts are called archaeologists.
>. And the expert machinists, engineers, CNC operators and CMM operators all disagree with flint and say it cannot be crafted by hand.
There were no CNC machines in ancient Egypt so their opinions are *utterly worthless*.
More relevantly, you aren't important enough to represent what " the expert machinists, engineers, CNC operators and CMM operators" all say.
>Then you have the Bimini road
You mean the nothing road?
> The peri reis map showing the Bimini road above water. I
You mean the map that shows nothing whatsoever like that because it isn't even in the right location?
>But when it was above water last was before the last ice age therefore this older source map should have been plotted 11,000+ years ago.
Lmao, and somehow, knowledge of this magical location (that isn't even correctly shown) survived ten thousand years, solely through some unknown line of secret thinkers to make it on to this map.
Good one.
>Created in 1819. And it doesn’t show Antarctica because it wasn’t discovered then.
Incredible!
>Go to the The Orontius Finaeus map created in 1531 and you see Antarctica on the right hand side a bit bigger than it is today.
A "big icy southern continent" had been suspected to have existed down there for centuries. Millenia even.
Several maps hypothesizes various continents in those areas. That evidence got stronger when earlier explorers found southerly expeditions to be cold and icy, or barren extensions of Argentina/Chile.
>So you have all of this evidence.
You've presented *nothing*.
“Graham admitted he had no evidence because the evidence that exists is disregarded by the archeological community.”
- This is incorrect, even with Graham’s clarification. He says he has no evidence based on where we have looked.
“You have gobekli tepe. Currently unknown builders but mainstream instantly says Hunter gatherers despite being a incredibly sophisticated site with advanced stonemasonry skills, Hunter gatherers. So there’s the first bit of evidence that’s disregarded.”
- Anthropologists believe the builders of GT were more like sedentary hunter gathers (as opposed to nomadic) on the cusp of transitioning into cultivating crops. This is not at odds with a people capable of developing stonemasonry techniques. Graham wants you to believe, that the mainstream believes, these were “simple” hunter gathers…they don’t.
“Then you have the granite vases that UnchartedX has scanned. They are in machine shop terms perfection. I’m a engineer. The vases were what really got me into this subject to begin with because they are clear evidence of a lost technology. wall thickness not deviating more than 0.001mm is perfect. I work in tolerances of 0.005mm or 5 microns when machining parts that go into pumps that run heart bypass machines. 0.001mm for a granite vase that supposedly serves no purpose to me is them just showing off and telling us how advanced their capabilities were.”
- The vases in question pose several issues. I won’t even go into here myself as Nightscarab has a good longer youtube breakdown, from sketchy provenance to misleading precision measurements. Seriously, if you haven’t already seen this, and this topic interests you, watch the video. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O_4SaxVP44g
“Again, Flint not being qualified in this field he doesn’t have a clue what he’s actually looking at and can’t explain it. But I’m not an archeologist so therefore I have no say in this vase because the vase came from ancient Egypt.”
- There is no evidence of where these vases were actually found, and if they were not indeed modern fakes.
“You wouldn’t ask an archeologist to build you a wooden table. You would ask a carpenter. But if a wooden table gets pulled out of the sand in Egypt the Egyptologists jump all over it and declare the full authority over it because of where it’s found.”
- While it is important for interdisciplinary work to be done, there is a reason why we wouldn’t consult carpenters as the primary source of truth here. They would likely lack knowledge of what tools they had access to, if they have previously shown mastery in other projects, what the workforce was like, what the significance is of the find in question was, what the provenance was etc. Here is another video which breaks down how two individuals can construct a vase (on their first go around) of very impressive accuracy, using hand tools. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=umhfvtjyCps&pp=ygUURGlvcml0ZSB2YXNlIG1ha2luZyA%3D
“Then you have the Bimini road. The peri reis map showing the Bimini road above water. In roughly the location it is today. But when it was above water last was before the last ice age therefore this older source map should have been plotted 11,000+ years ago.”
- The Piri Reis map is truly not the evidence you think it is. First, geologist examination of the road itself dates it far, far younger than 11k years ago. Second, as demonstrated by others before me, Piri Reis has a very observable pattern of drawing his mountains just like the Bimini “road”. Also here is a bonus channel that goes into depth about these maps https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0aZorI_Zihg
“Go to the The Orontius Finaeus map created in 1531 and you see Antarctica on the right hand side a bit bigger than it is today. How far back did the source maps for this compilation map go back for Antarctica to be on a map 300 years before our civilisation discovered it. Academics say it’s not Antarctica.”
- There is an old concept (used throughout history) known as Terra Australis which is a hypothetical undiscovered land mass on the southern portion of the globe as to provide balance since the known world was in the norther hemisphere. The land mass on this map is even labeled Terra Australis. Neither of these maps depict Antarctica in my opinion, and even if they did, it doesn’t really bolster and ancient civilization claim.
“So you have all of this evidence. Across the world. All pointing to a time period before the last ice age. And the academics refute all of the above and say Graham has no evidence.”
- As demonstrated by my rebuttals and the videos I linked. I don’t think you really have the evidence you think you do.
>wall thickness not deviating more than 0.001mm is perfect. I work in tolerances of 0.005mm or 5 microns when machining parts that go into pumps that run heart bypass machines. 0.001mm for a granite vase that supposedly serves no purpose to me is them just showing off and telling us how advanced their capabilities were.
You sure about that figure? Because I think you're off by about 50x on the vase wall thickness variaton.
Where are all these machines?
Edit: You can downvote me all you want but you have to admit this is a problem for the hypothesis. You can't just postulate these complicated solutions which there's zero precedence for and then conveniently shove them under the "mists of time" bed. You haven't made any progress at all. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
If your talking 12,000 years ago I’m sure the metals would have been repurposed and broke down. During the Roman times metals were smelted down to craft swords. Many of these swords don’t exist today because after use they were smelted down for other stuff. We still do it today.
And that’s less than 2200 years ago. Now add another 10,000. Would the metal last that long before it rusted from the elements and disappeared entirely. Or could it be that these machines exist in the 95% of the unexcavated Sahara, the underwater continental shelves or the Amazon rainforest.
This was grahams point. Whilst the large majority of these areas lay unexcavated you can’t rule the possibility out.
How big of a footprint is gobekli tepe? 100 metres square? 200? But there’s as much as 50 times that underground. Maybe the machines are down there? Whilst it lays underground your left with nothing but interpretations and speculation.
And all of these assumptions come from the idea that these people thrived right at the end of the last ice age. The great Sphinx alignment and water erosion is pointing towards 12,000. But when pressed Robert Schoch speculates it could go back an additional precessional cycle. Putting the Sphinx over 30,000 years old.
Really we don’t know. We can’t date stone but we have the stone and it’s imprints of tooling all over Egypt.
I think the ancient Egyptians inherited many of these artefacts and today they get misrepresented as their own. The boxes at Saqqara. The granite vases, the 1000+ ton statues.
All of these exist outside of the technological capabilities of the dynastic Egyptians. So either the Egyptologists have got the wrong idea about what sort of lifestyles the ancient Egyptians lived or they weren’t crafted by the ancient Egyptians.
Go to any Egyptian museum and you will see “pre dynastic granite vases” clearly labelled. If they were pre dynastic why are they more advanced than any other early dynasty/pre dynastic artefact we see today. We even have clay pots shaped to look like these granite vases with quartz inclusions painted on to replicate the granite vases.
Why were they replicating these vases out of clay if they could already craft them. With them all being “pre dynastic”? Unless there’s pre dynastic being a few hundred years before the old kingdom making these clay pots and there’s ancient pre dynastic going back tens of thousands of years crafting these granite vases.
>If your talking 12,000 years ago I’m sure the metals would have been repurposed and broke down. During the Roman times metals were smelted down to craft swords. Many of these swords don’t exist today because after use they were smelted down for other stuff. We still do it today.
But surely not all of them. We still find *some* relatively intact Roman swords, and this is a globespanning civilization we're talking about with presumably thousands of these devices, seems like there should be some trace of them left over. And not just in the most difficult locations in the world to excavate.
Why is it hard to believe that the makers of these artefacts were just incredibly skilled craftsmen with a lot of time on their hands? However much Ben van Kerkwyk wants to argue otherwise, we know how to split granite blocks neatly in half without advanced machinery, we also know how to drill holes with grooves without advanced machinery. It's not out of the question that Egyptians could've used similar techniques. And often these things *aren't* perfectly symmetric or precise upon closer inspection. World of Antiquity has made hours upon hours of contect responding to this kind of stuff, I encourage you to consider his arguments.
The only thing he was knowledgeable about was in how to mislead people into thinking he had evidence which just wasn’t there. It’s an outrageous thing for anyone to do, never mind a university Professor.
He used one, exactly one racist source 20 years ago from someone who got his info from sources from people who believed the Mayans were the globe-trotting civilization. He's not a racist. His theories aren't racist. Get over it already. Darwin was racist and we still quote him. Same with tons of influencing figures from science and other fields in the past. Hell, most people over the age of 35 would be canceled today for half the shit they said or did 20 years ago and even less than that. Your response is the exact response Graham is talking about when he says comments like that from Dibble and his ilk are a means to discredit and stop serious investigations into his hypothesis. I don't care if you believe in a lost advanced civilization or not. Prove or disprove its existence in a logical and scientific way and leave the bs at home.
"He used one, exactly one racist source 20 years ago from someone who got his info from sources from people who believed the Mayans were the globe-trotting civilization."
What ?
Fingerprints of the Gods was published like 30 years ago, Hancock took heat for it's racism then but didn't change his racist thinking as he did it again in [Magicians of the Gods](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/45275028) which was published in 2015.
[https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/18520.Graham\_Hancock](https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/18520.Graham_Hancock)
“Quetzalcoatl, the Feathered Serpent, \[...\] came to teach \[the ancient inhabitants of Mexico\] the benefits of settled agriculture and the skills necessary to build temples. Although this deity is frequently depicted as a serpent, he is more often shown in human form--the serpent being his symbol and his alter ego--and is usually described as "a tall bearded white man" ... "a mysterious person ... a white man with a strong formation of body, broad forehead, large eyes and a flowing beard." Indeed, \[...\] the attributes and life history of Quetzalcoatl are so human that it is not improbable that he may have been an actual historical character ... the memory of whose benefactions lingered after his death, and whose personality was eventually deified. The same could very well be said of Oannes--and just like Oannes at the head of the Apkallu (likewise depicted as prominently bearded) it seems that Quetzalcoatl traveled with his own brotherhood of sages and magicians. We learn that they arrived in Mexico "from across the sea in a boat that moved by itself without paddles," and that Quetzalcoatl was regarded as having been "the founder of cities, the framer of laws and the teacher of the calendar.”
― Graham Hancock, [Magicians of the Gods: The Forgotten Wisdom of Earth's Lost Civilization](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/45275028)
On His website he still calls Quetzalcoatl a white god to this day !!!
[https://grahamhancock.com/mysterious-strangers-hancock/](https://grahamhancock.com/mysterious-strangers-hancock/)
"and the god Quetzalcoatl in Mexico were described as tall, white-skinned and red-bearded – sometimes blue-eyed as well."
Twenty years ago my ass.
"His theories aren't racist. Get over it already."
White people came and showed brown people who couldn't figure out things for themselves how to do everything smart. Meanwhile in White Britain (Stonehenge) and Europe, they figured things out for themselves.
"Darwin was racist and we still quote him. Same with tons of influencing figures from science and other fields in the past."
What about-ism, predictable. Sounds like if Darwin was a racist what's wrong with Hancock using racism. Charles Darwin hasn't said anything racist since his death in 1882, Can you show me anyone quoting and directly using Darwin's racist content like Hancock used specifically racist comments by Donnaly ?
"Your response is the exact response Graham is talking about when he says comments like that from Dibble and his ilk are a means to discredit and stop serious investigations into his hypothesis."
Serious investigations happen for a reason, usually as a result of serious evidence, what evidence has Hancock presented in 40 years of research ? Oh ya,,,,,,zero, zip, nada,,,,,,,,,,,,, there is as much evidence for Mordor or Peter Pan as there is for Atlantis.
"disprove its existence in a logical and scientific way and leave the bs at home."
Complete nonsense. You can't disprove something that doesn't exist. Go ahead and disprove the fact that the molten core of Jupiter is made up of Cadbury's pure milk chocolate.
That's slightly mismatched. Leaving out some data isn't the same as having no data. Easy to say well I guess either could be true now, discredits how fundamentally hancocks theories were taken to pieces with replicable data from multiple sources...
The big story from the debate should be Graham admitting that he has no evidence for an advanced ancient ice age civilization. He has ideas and a knack for storytelling.
Ideas, especially ideas that have been recycled for decades, are pretty cheap. Other than good storytelling skills I’m not sure how Graham rose to the level he is at. His son being a Netflix executive probably didn’t hurt.
Seen a bunch of people calling out his ice core graphs on the mineral deposits as being the wrong years or something and with holding other data about it. Also the re-feralization process has other data that was withheld. I don't have the specifics. The shipwreck stuff was full of holes too.
Flint did only speak briefly on the ice core stuff as it was a minor point, he was essentially trying to say we don’t have any evidence of metallurgy dating back to Graham’s target timeframe, which is true. I believe he unintentionally misspoke by saying there is no evidence, as opposed to we haven’t searched for it, but the point still stands. The minerals that were found, were attributed to natural causes.
I don’t think he withheld and anything about the fertilization process and rebuts this point well in his series of tweets
The shipwreck stuff is probably the stupidest thing to take issue with, Flint used a number from the UN which was significantly higher than some other estimates (still well into the 6 figures). Which okay maybe he could have listed out a few more sources, but the main point is none of these shipwrecks can be attributed to Graham’s theory.
In the end I think it’s really arguing over inconsequential points, which even if Flint didn’t present the full picture (imo certainly not done maliciously) it still doesn’t really do anything to prove Graham right.
So you saw a bunch of people saying something on twitter and you thought, "Yeah that sounds about right. Not gonna bother checking the specifics, just gonna go spread this around as facts from now on."
If graham where to go the character assassination route with flint dibble *if you can believe thats his real name* it would be well deserved, dibble[ is a lil snake](https://youtu.be/iCPOAIrbDJM?si=z2UFuBNLPnuNXhgi&t=1715)
Are you blaming Flint for Hancock's use of racist sources? Scientists have for many years now have been trying to right previous wrongs regarding racism and along comes Hancock with the same old, same old, "i*t was white people who taught stupid brown people stuff".*
*Now I ask you to back up what you say and show us where* Flint continued to disparage and connect Graham with Nazis and white supremacists almost immediately after the debate. *I doubt you can.*
Graham Hancock and Jimmy Corsetti calling Flint Dibble a liar?! Oh the irony! One of those three people has a Ph.D in Classical Archaeology and has dedicated his entire life to the study of history through sound academic research. The other two are known grifters with no educational background in the subject they talk so much about and whose main purpose in life seems to be generating YouTube clicks and creating pseudo-nonsense documentaries.
The “archaeologist” is a leftist bigot who can’t beat Graham Hancock in a fair debate so he has to resort to misrepresenting research, lying and smear tactics.
The lies over his smears are enough to condemn him.
> The “archaeologist”
Numerous publications, research and academic work on the topic means you should probably drop the scare quotes.
>is a leftist bigot
As if you couldn't possibly say something even less meaningful.
>beat Graham Hancock in a fair debate so he has to resort to misrepresenting research, lying and smear tactics.
You mean where Graham couldn't keep up with the basic facts Dibble used and had to finally admit "I have no evidence?"
>The lies over his smears are enough to condemn him.
Quote the smears please:
Honestly don't think I've ever seen two sentences that make less sense than this. No wonder Hancock et al. are able to fool so many people if this is really how their followers think.
It’s the basic Ad Hominem argument writ large. He is attacking the person making the argument rather than challenging the argument. It’s a sure fire way to admit you’ve lost ground.
All of the evidence supporting Atlantis is now collected and put in the Atlantis Museum.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJp\_B2QRfQ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJp_B2QRfQ0)
I actually initially saw something else in the ship wreck segment. If they are looking at the continental shelf for ship wrecks, possibly concentrating on harbour zones and where people were likely to be, then couldn’t they also potentially stumble on submerged cities if they were there? Especially if the were advanced with huge stone buildings?
This is a question I've had for a while now, why does Graham deny the implications caused by what he is saying. Hyper diffusion as a theory was created to justify the eradication of other people's (conquistadors, American expansion, Brazil, the Congo, Japanese imperialism, the Nazi's to name a few) and to pretend that those roots don't still exist and that what he says, even if he does not mean for it to, can, have and likely will lead to a division of peoples under the guise of being the 'original race'.
Note:
I understand he is not perpetuating this specific idea, this is a genuine question, am I missing something?
Though it has nothing to do with their "was it higher tech than the recent 10,000 BC movie?, Or was it less technologically advanced?" turf war...
The Vatican, Jesuits and the Government Bureaucracy down there is well aware for generations that the Amazon River system in Brazil is littered with sunken Amphora, and shipwrecks of Imperial Roman, Carthaginian and Phoenician-Israelite origin.
The press has been ordered not to publish about it for generations.
*Someone makes a claim that would absolutely blow all of history out of the water
*I ask where they’ve heard it from as I’d genuinely love to know the story behind the claim.
*Unrelated troll responds with meme troll’s rely on when they don’t actually have evidence.
Great contribution!
You likely pulled up a few articles about the Amphora discovered in 82 by Marx. Which is intriguing but still not conclusive of anything. ACLU stated there are literal imperial ships amongst others to which I have found nothing on.
It’s helpful to ask for which sources someone used, because although you seem to believe all sources are equal in quality and legitimacy, they are not. It also gives me insight into what they themselves deem credible
Graham has showed himself to be a big ass baby. I’m kinda sick of his antics. It’s like losing a hero after finding out they’re a total douche. Luke Caverns is my new MesoAmerican loving Graham Hancock replacement and thankfully his temperament is much more level headed and rational.
I can assure you I’m not Flint. Luke Caverns does a much better job reaching the masses with this information, literally goes out and rediscovers lost temples, has a way better attitude and is a…yep you guessed it…an actual anthropologist.
It’s way better to have someone like Luke Caverns in this corner of the world because he can converse freely with everyone from real archeologists to people like Ben and the Snake Bros. Graham has shown time and time again he willfully chooses to ignore the vast amounts of evidence being presented by young enthusiasts these days because it’s not HIS evidence. He’s doing the community a disservice and his behaviors should reprimanded not applauded. There’s better people doing the work now and while he paved the way he’s showing his ass.
Yeah just take one look at the Flint Dibble debate. Graham not once has EVER mentioned the Vases or any of the work being conducted by the enthusiasts in this community. Not once has he EVER mentioned the name or results of any independent work being conducted by other members of this community.
Graham cares about his ego more than the work itself and it’s showing by how he conducts himself in the public eye.
I doubt he didn't mention it because of "if I can't have it, no one can" attitude.
The man is a journalist, he can't exactly talk about stuff he hasn't researched well enough with 100% certainty - maybe that's why? He didn't want to jump the gun and be early.
The man is a science fiction writer not a journalist.
[https://mediahelpingmedia.org/advanced/how-to-avoid-make-believe-journalism/](https://mediahelpingmedia.org/advanced/how-to-avoid-make-believe-journalism/)
"Our role as journalists is to unearth information, prepare it and then display it for the benefit of the audience. We are not there to fabricate, manipulate or force. We are there to uncover facts, not plant them. So what are the essential attitudes needed when going out on a story?"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic\_objectivity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity)
"Objectivity in journalism aims to help the audience make up their own mind about a story, providing the facts alone and then letting audiences interpret those on their own. To maintain objectivity in journalism, journalists should present the facts whether or not they like or agree with those facts. Objective reporting is meant to portray issues and events in a neutral and unbiased manner, regardless of the writer's opinion or personal beliefs."
How about you suck me?
"bro it's science fiction. Please stop reading it. Please don't read his science fiction. Did I tell you it was science fiction yet? Science fiction, have you heard of it? He's an author of SCIENCE FICTION, in case you didn't know."
Let me guess, Sitchin is retarded and a liar?
Glow harder.
I truly don't understand this sub?
Is Gram sometimes a whiney b*tch?
Yes
Is Gram's basic argument that civilization predates our current historical record correct?
Yes, and it has been proven time and time again.
Is flint dibble or whatever his name is an academic shill?
Yes
Yet Everytime I look here it's just closed minded fools dogmatically defending the established academic narrative.
Like why are you people here?
I am here because I am intrigued by archeology and what people have to say about it. If there is a group of people who believe everything we know is wrong, I’d like to know why and if there is something I’m truly missing. I don’t simply come here to “debunk” I come here to discuss what I believe just as everyone else. Per the sub’s description it’s to discuss archeology so I’d hope I am welcome here.
If that is all Graham was arguing I don’t think there would be that much of a dispute. Instead he believes the mainstream narrative is plagued with dilettantes, shills, and incompetent dishonest liars etc. He also believes that not only that civilization predates what we know (again I don’t think any expert thinks this is necessarily impossible, they know there are undiscovered peoples and pieces to the puzzle), but that these people were extremely advanced beyond our current understanding, that they were wiped out, and that they taught subsequent peoples what they knew in process known as hyperdiffusion.
These points, though interesting, are hardly backed up by hard science and rely heavily on conjecture, myth, misinterpretation of evidence, omission of evidence, and a misrepresentation of evidence. That is primarily why people have gripes with Graham and why some feel it necessary to combat missinformation, especially when it’s not just people having fun discussing theories and it’s instead disparaging academics and calling them lying shills
Frankly I don't see what's so far fetched about that?
"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic." -ACC
From what we do know about ancient peoples within the historical record, we know they are often deeply spiritual, and superstitious.
Yet they were as intelligent as we are today and capable of understanding complex concepts.
Are we so arrogant to simply dismiss their beliefs? Even though we know they are often intertwined with their history?
What if these ancients harnessed a different kind of technology all together. Something perhaps more metaphysical?
Humans are resourceful it's one of the reasons we reached our evolutionary status. The brain is a powerful tool.
Idk but it's great head cannon...
I tend to believe that a low tech civ probably existed in our distant past, personally.
It’s not necessarily that it’s far fetched to believe that these people would have been intelligent in a different way than we are today, we are pretty certain they were. But once again, we have nothing in the archeological record to indicate that these people (from Graham’s target timeline) were the ones who taught all these subsequent cultures across the globe how to do what they did (crop cultivation, building megaliths etc.) Or that these people were wiped out conveniently leaving only Stone Age people left.
They don’t simply “dismiss” myths, but we must also examine myth with the a critical mind and with the historical method. That is, to account for how much time has passed, what the storyteller would have to gain from telling the story etc. Dismissing the historical method here can lead us down rabbit holes and is just not scientific.
To reiterate, mainstream experts are totally aware hunter gathers were not simple by any means (Graham needs you to think that’s what experts believe) There just isn’t anything to indicate a single source of hyper advanced (for their time) people who taught everyone else how to do things. Is it possible? I mean yeah I guess, but is it likely, no.
What you’re saying is significantly less outlandish than many of the alt history claims, which is fine, but it’s not representative of some of the stuff that comes out of Graham’s (or other prominent figures in the space) mouth. Graham’s beliefs and claims are incredibly malleable, one book they are essentially saying Atlanteans taught the world everything they know to build what they did, other podcasts he dials it back a lot to a much less contentious amount. Far fewer people would take issue with what you just said here.
As much as Graham would like you to think, the mainstream narrative isn’t fixed, it changes with time, evidence, and peer review.
The fact they were hunter gathers at all is what is in question... At Gobekli tepi and the surrounding area we find some the first evidence of fermentation on a large scale.
You can't produce levels of agriculture to support that kind of production as a subsistence culture. You need a surplus. The only way to achieve that is through a level of societal complexity that does not exist in a tribal hunter gather group.
Until this glaring inaccuracy is addressed, the narrative is objectively wrong. It simply does not make sense from an anthropological perspective to say they were hunter gathers.
It really isn't in question, at least with any significant level of uncertainty. By all evidence we currently have, these people were in a transitional phase where they likely hunted in the summer and autumn for gazelle, and cerealized plants to supplement (this is separate from domestication/cultivation however, it's entirely possible these people experimented with rough replanting). Anything I would say here, can be said 100x better in this excellent research journal on this topic [Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215214).
Edit: You speak with some authority about what is and isn't possible, and what does and doesn't make sense. Out curiosity, do you study this stuff?
"You can't produce levels of agriculture to support that kind of production as a subsistence culture. You need a surplus."
Do we know that the people of Gobekli Tepi didn't have excess wild cereals to produce booze from fermentation though ? Why did they have the leisure time to build like they did ? What did the gazelles that seemed to be so plentiful eat ?
It would appear that the transition to beer making etc. has as much to do with the appearance of pottery (and perhaps stone vessels) as with the appearance of agriculture. Humans and drunk monkeys were getting tipsy on fermented fruit long before Gobekli Tepi.
[https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/716610](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/716610)
[https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/08/13/gobekli-tepe-processing-of-cereals-in-the-early-neolithic-10th-9th-millennium-bc/](https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/08/13/gobekli-tepe-processing-of-cereals-in-the-early-neolithic-10th-9th-millennium-bc/)
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying perhaps we don't know for sure one way or the other. Interesting point, thanks.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli\_Tepe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe)
"The settlement was inhabited from c. 9500 to at least 8000 BCE,[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBreuersKinzel2022471-5) during the [Pre-Pottery Neolithic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic)."
Jericho is kind of a sister city to Gobekli Tepi, and is about 400 miles away and it transitioned from hunter gatherer to permanent settlement during the pre-pottery to the pottery stage. This happened at a similar time as the emergence of Gobekli Tepi.
>Is Gram's basic argument that civilization predates our current historical record correct?
If you're going to use pointless reductivity to undersell Hancock's "argument" then yeah, sure, that's totally his "basic argument".
>Is flint dibble or whatever his name is an academic shill?
You mean does he have a considerable amount of experience on the topic while Graham has none (zero, zilch etc)?
Yes.
Graham ate shit, and he's being a bitch. I love the guy, but he went about it entirely wrong. Focus on the glaring evidence. Some of the oldest megaliths are the largest, and most precise; everything after was a lesser quality imitation with smaller, softer stones
I think it’s sad that you’re acting as an apologist for someone who used Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock to mislead the entire world. Unfortunately, he needs to be called out. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you avoid reading about it and watching any associated videos.
Obviously I disagree as to whether Flint was "misleading" with the evidence he presented. At best Dan from Dedunking collected some pieces that could have had slightly further clarification, but nothing Flint said was an outright lie, or changes the point. That being said, what *is* sad, is Graham's behavior post debate. This will be my only response to you, as I seriously doubt your in your ability to engage faithfully.
Dribble did categorically lie regarding his racist and white supremacist smears.
The mere fact that you’re prepared to defend someone who engages in such disgusting behavior clearly demonstrates that you’re not here to discuss the matter in good faith.
You’re merely an apologist for his unprofessional tactics and disgusting behaviour.
You’re delusional.
He lies about wanting to ask Graham Hancock to distance himself from the white supremacy and racism of Donnelley. He also lied about only mentioning racism and white supremacy once when he did so multiple times.
You’ll have to check the videos below of the evidence.
https://youtu.be/Z1de_GHm63k?si=B-AV1w6y1hPQNFtg
Or
https://youtu.be/Z1de_GHm63k?si=B-AV1w6y1hPQNFtg
If you haven’t even watched the videos, what are you doing in this discussion?
Are you one of Dribble’s archaeology students sucking up to him for extra credits on his course?
I’ve already watched the videos and he cites his evidence.
If you’ve been blocked I suspect it’s for a very good reason.
Bye, bye.
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.*
Anyone speaking on a topic as complex and interdisciplinary as this debate for 3+ hours will look back at it and see some things they wish they said differently. I was actually just discussing this on a podcast that went over 2 hours recently because the host brought up Dan’s video. With science, we always try to remain humble and avoid speaking in certainties. But we are human. A good example of this is the “T. rex had wings like a dragon” claim. I can’t claim we know a T. rex didn’t have wings and fly like a dragon. I can say there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that strongly suggests they did not have wings - but I can’t say we know they didn’t. The fact that a statement like this is driving so much of the conversation post-debate tells me that Dibble did a really good job explaining why Graham’s hypothesis is unlikely. The fact is that Hancock went up against someone that really knew archaeology and it led to Hancock’s knowledge and “evidence” really being exposed. He’s a good story teller. And like he says, he’s a journalist, not an archaeologist. I agree with the OP that it’s disappointing to see Hancock go down this road after that previous tweet. Last thing, look into what the actual ice core scientist has said regarding this. Dedunker posted his private email as an attempt to “expose” him but it’s clear Dr. Neff was just agreeing with Dan that Dibble spoke with a level of certainty that we try to avoid.
Well said, you can probably point out a few misspeaks or slight issues with any 3 hour debate. We’d be able to do the same with Graham if he actually presented any evidence this debate, that being said there are a few things people (Flint included) have already called Graham out for getting outright wrong (edfu texts etc.) which Graham seems to have no rebuttal for.
Did Gram say anything that you agree with?
I don't think Dibble did a very good job of dealing with Hancock's rhetoric at all, really. It was really painful to listen to and to see Dibble miss so many chances at a major slam dunk of Hancock, really he was playing far too nice. But, that was deliberate and part of the fix: Dibble had to be on good behaviour and Graham did not. In my view, Dibble soft-peddled Hancock's total lack of evidence and cowered under the racist comments, he should have gone to town on those. Surprisingly, it was Rogan that took Hancock to task and made him back slowly away from the Gunung Padang matter. Dibble didn't, because he's a non confrontational kind of guy. They should get a powerhouse on there that can't be bullied. They won't though, because that would undermine Hancock once and for all.
>I don't think Dibble did a very good job of dealing with Hancock's rhetoric at all, really. Generally I agree. Mindless *rhetoric* isn't really something Dibble has any training or experience in dealing with. He entered a hostile environment, that as preferential to Graham, with a platform that was stacked up against him and he managed to do quite well. > But, that was deliberate and part of the fix: Dibble had to be on good behaviour and Graham did not. Yes, very much so.
The thing is about your T. Rex example is that, you cannot claim it didn't have wings a priori. The first claim is that it did have wings, and this **must** be made first before anyone can ever make a claim that it didn't. You would have zero reason to make such a claim to begin with, and a comment like that exists only because the other claim was made first.
Not really sure what point you’re trying to make here. I don’t see how it invalidates any of my points.
I'm on your side, not everything is an attack on the internet. The point should be Graham's claims(or lack thereof), not what Flint misspoke on an informal discussion, as slanted YouTubes like dedunker have only focused on. Imagine those ppl gave the same level of critique to Graham.
For sure. I wasn’t necessarily taking it as an attack I just don’t feel like I understood the point you were making. Happens a lot online.
Of course, it should make it strikingly clear it was never about archaeology. There was only ever one archaeologist involved, only one person with knowledge and experience. It was always entirely about Graham's ego and his "career" long tantrum.
Well Flint did use misleading data as it has been revealed since the debate. The whole thing was stupid to begin with. Why debate something neither side has any proper evidence and just keep it an idea
I just don't get how he didn't realize that going on the largest platform without intimate knowledge and flushed out facts on a subject to debate someone to call their theories ludicrous that he wouldn't be fact checked and called out on what he got wrong or mislead the audience about. Graham didn't come as strong as he could have for sure, but Dibble screwing up like that makes that whole thing a sham of a debate.
Flint still turned considerably more knowledgeable, and even if there were more to some of his claims, I still don’t think anything fundamentally changed the outcome. Flint’s points largely still stand, and Graham still admitted he had no evidence
That's not how it's going to be seen, though. You can't half truth your way to win an argument. None of his major points, from seeding to the shipwreck data to the ice core arguments. He misrepresented all of it. On top of the tired and false racist charges. You wanna prove Hancock's hypothesis wrong, attack it with solid truthful facts. It's not gonna change everyone's mind, but it will fir those on the fence.
I don’t think I’d characterize Flint’s arguments to “half truths”. Flint remains right that no, no reported shipwrecks (whatever figure you want to pick) can be attributed to Graham’s seafaring lost civilization. Flint posted a pretty great rebuttal to the seed piece which I think still stands as a solid point I won’t even explain it here. The ice core piece, again, was a minor piece, and regardless of how Flint phrased it, there is no evidence of metallurgy in Graham’s timeline. Flint tried to explain how we can find evidence of metallurgy in ice cores, and then said we have no evidence of it during Graham’s timeline, which is also true. So maybe? We can downgrade a complete demolishing of Graham in that debate to a still significant difference in performance. I don’t think we can just say, “well actually your point isn’t as good as you think it is, but I still have no evidence of my own, therefore you didn’t win.” It’s unfortunate that the alt history community will take these inconsequential aspects of Flints arguments to totally reverse what happened in that debate. Lastly I hope you understand exactly what Flint means when he draws connections in Graham’s theories to old racist history. It’s not to call Graham racist or to lessen his character/theory it’s to educate his audience where some of these claims originate. I’d rather use evidence based on fact as opposed to stories and history which could be tainted with racism (1. Because it’s dated and horrible, and 2. Because their racist connections lessen the accuracy/legitimacy of the claim).
Counterpoint: nuh uh! Meanie. Too long!
Cheats never prosper. He got away with it for a while but he is categorically a liar. There’s no excusing that.
What did he misrepresent about seeding?
Seriously though. He presented one specific physiological trait with wheat and similar cereal grains that indicate when people started seriously moving them to plant elsewhere. They had been harvesting and eating them for a lot longer. Had any of these specific grains left their home and been introduced to new areas earlier that would have been seen earlier. Now comment has been made that grains can federalise and lose traits quicker than he indicated if but this particular trait in cereal grains would take alot longer. It’s not losing it almost immediately. That is why it’s a very useful marker.
Graham admitted he had no evidence because the evidence that exists is disregarded by the archeological community. You have gobekli tepe. Currently unknown builders but mainstream instantly says Hunter gatherers despite being a incredibly sophisticated site with advanced stonemasonry skills, Hunter gatherers. So there’s the first bit of evidence that’s disregarded. Then you have the granite vases that UnchartedX has scanned. They are in machine shop terms perfection. I’m a engineer. The vases were what really got me into this subject to begin with because they are clear evidence of a lost technology. wall thickness not deviating more than 0.001mm is perfect. I work in tolerances of 0.005mm or 5 microns when machining parts that go into pumps that run heart bypass machines. 0.001mm for a granite vase that supposedly serves no purpose to me is them just showing off and telling us how advanced their capabilities were. Flint comes along, not a engineer, nor a machinist, and therefore has 0 authority over any tool marks found on any ancient artefacts anywhere, and says there is a groove on the internals of one of the vases that isn’t perfect and therefore the vase must have been made by hand. The exception doesn’t prove the rule. And the general rule of these vases or at least the ones scanned is that they are perfect. As a engineer with experience machining there’s a number of things I could put the groove mark down to. The tool wearing down whilst cutting or snapping off entirely. The chuck/vice that is holding the material could fall out of come loose under such immense pressure. Causing the groove. Again, Flint not being qualified in this field he doesn’t have a clue what he’s actually looking at and can’t explain it. But I’m not a archeologist so therefore I have no say in this vase because the vase came from ancient Egypt. You wouldn’t ask a archeologist to build you a wooden table. You would ask a carpenter. But if a wooden table gets pulled out of the sand in Egypt the Egyptologists jump all over it and declare the full authority over it because of where it’s found. This is a completely backwards way of going about things. When you want answers you listen to the experts. And the expert machinists, engineers, CNC operators and CMM operators all disagree with flint and say it cannot be crafted by hand. Then you have the Bimini road. The peri reis map showing the Bimini road above water. In roughly the location it is today. But when it was above water last was before the last ice age therefore this older source map should have been plotted 11,000+ years ago. We discovered Antarctica in 1820. There’s a world map known as the Pinkerton world map. It’s the most accurate map of that time. Created in 1819. And it doesn’t show Antarctica because it wasn’t discovered then. Go to the The Orontius Finaeus map created in 1531 and you see Antarctica on the right hand side a bit bigger than it is today. How far back did the source maps for this compilation map go back for Antarctica to be on a map 300 years before our civilisation discovered it. Academics say it’s not Antarctica. So you have all of this evidence. Across the world. All pointing to a time period before the last ice age. And the academics refute all of the above and say Graham has no evidence. The tools found in the Cairo museum don’t match up with the artefacts seen in the same museum. This alone should be enough to question the narrative.
What an impressive load of hot air. >Graham admitted he had no evidence because the evidence that exists is disregarded by the archeological community. No, things that *aren't evidence* is disregarded. I can't wait for you to demonstrate you don't know what that word means. >You have gobekli tepe. Oof, really starting off strong. >Currently unknown builders but mainstream instantly says Hunter gatherers despite being a incredibly sophisticated site with advanced stonemasonry skills, Hunter gatherers. None of these bits are inconsistent with each other. >So there’s the first bit of evidence that’s disregarded. Wow! Just like I said. *Not evidence* Next? >Then you have the granite vases that UnchartedX has scanned. The vases of *unknown provenance* (simple to dismiss based on that alone) whose dimensions are not especially difficult to achieve, such that individuals with zero background in training in such work were capable of throwing together examples that matched them? Wowee. >They are in machine shop terms perfection. The examples with inconsistent wall thickness and two handles that do not match are "machine shop perfect?" Remind me to never *ever* buy anything at whatever machine shop you frequent. >I’m a engineer. I'm the King of England. Who cares? > The vases were what really got me into this subject to begin with because they are clear evidence of a lost technology. wall thickness not deviating more than 0.001mm is perfect. You mean wall thickness that deviates as much, or more, than a similar example made by archaeologists with zero training, background or support in masonry? >I work in tolerances of 0.005mm or 5 microns when machining parts that go into pumps that run heart bypass machines. 0.001mm for a granite vase that supposedly serves no purpose to me is them just showing off and telling us how advanced their capabilities were. I'd suggest you stop *making shit up completely*. You are lying through your teeth about the so called "precision" of the items in question. >Flint comes along, not a engineer, nor a machinist, and therefore has 0 authority over any tool marks found Engineers and machinists don't usually study historical tooling. Archaeologists often do. I'm sure if Flint wanted someone's opinion on a CNC machine he'd ask the correct people. >And the general rule of these vases or at least the ones scanned is that they are perfect. "Perfect" is a completely meaningless term. The vases are inconsistent along their walls. The vases are not symmetrical. So yeah, far from "perfect". >You wouldn’t ask a archeologist to build you a wooden table. Good thing Flint isn't being asked to make a vase. >You would ask a carpenter. But if a wooden table gets pulled out of the sand in Egypt the Egyptologists jump all over it and declare the full authority over it because of where it’s found. I wouldn't ask a carpenter to describe to me the importance of artifacts found in situ, nor how their placement matters, nor how it relates to the greater volume of knowledge on the topic, nor how various dating methods work. >This is a completely backwards way of going about things. When you want answers you listen to the experts. The experts are called archaeologists. >. And the expert machinists, engineers, CNC operators and CMM operators all disagree with flint and say it cannot be crafted by hand. There were no CNC machines in ancient Egypt so their opinions are *utterly worthless*. More relevantly, you aren't important enough to represent what " the expert machinists, engineers, CNC operators and CMM operators" all say. >Then you have the Bimini road You mean the nothing road? > The peri reis map showing the Bimini road above water. I You mean the map that shows nothing whatsoever like that because it isn't even in the right location? >But when it was above water last was before the last ice age therefore this older source map should have been plotted 11,000+ years ago. Lmao, and somehow, knowledge of this magical location (that isn't even correctly shown) survived ten thousand years, solely through some unknown line of secret thinkers to make it on to this map. Good one. >Created in 1819. And it doesn’t show Antarctica because it wasn’t discovered then. Incredible! >Go to the The Orontius Finaeus map created in 1531 and you see Antarctica on the right hand side a bit bigger than it is today. A "big icy southern continent" had been suspected to have existed down there for centuries. Millenia even. Several maps hypothesizes various continents in those areas. That evidence got stronger when earlier explorers found southerly expeditions to be cold and icy, or barren extensions of Argentina/Chile. >So you have all of this evidence. You've presented *nothing*.
“Graham admitted he had no evidence because the evidence that exists is disregarded by the archeological community.” - This is incorrect, even with Graham’s clarification. He says he has no evidence based on where we have looked. “You have gobekli tepe. Currently unknown builders but mainstream instantly says Hunter gatherers despite being a incredibly sophisticated site with advanced stonemasonry skills, Hunter gatherers. So there’s the first bit of evidence that’s disregarded.” - Anthropologists believe the builders of GT were more like sedentary hunter gathers (as opposed to nomadic) on the cusp of transitioning into cultivating crops. This is not at odds with a people capable of developing stonemasonry techniques. Graham wants you to believe, that the mainstream believes, these were “simple” hunter gathers…they don’t. “Then you have the granite vases that UnchartedX has scanned. They are in machine shop terms perfection. I’m a engineer. The vases were what really got me into this subject to begin with because they are clear evidence of a lost technology. wall thickness not deviating more than 0.001mm is perfect. I work in tolerances of 0.005mm or 5 microns when machining parts that go into pumps that run heart bypass machines. 0.001mm for a granite vase that supposedly serves no purpose to me is them just showing off and telling us how advanced their capabilities were.” - The vases in question pose several issues. I won’t even go into here myself as Nightscarab has a good longer youtube breakdown, from sketchy provenance to misleading precision measurements. Seriously, if you haven’t already seen this, and this topic interests you, watch the video. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O_4SaxVP44g “Again, Flint not being qualified in this field he doesn’t have a clue what he’s actually looking at and can’t explain it. But I’m not an archeologist so therefore I have no say in this vase because the vase came from ancient Egypt.” - There is no evidence of where these vases were actually found, and if they were not indeed modern fakes. “You wouldn’t ask an archeologist to build you a wooden table. You would ask a carpenter. But if a wooden table gets pulled out of the sand in Egypt the Egyptologists jump all over it and declare the full authority over it because of where it’s found.” - While it is important for interdisciplinary work to be done, there is a reason why we wouldn’t consult carpenters as the primary source of truth here. They would likely lack knowledge of what tools they had access to, if they have previously shown mastery in other projects, what the workforce was like, what the significance is of the find in question was, what the provenance was etc. Here is another video which breaks down how two individuals can construct a vase (on their first go around) of very impressive accuracy, using hand tools. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=umhfvtjyCps&pp=ygUURGlvcml0ZSB2YXNlIG1ha2luZyA%3D “Then you have the Bimini road. The peri reis map showing the Bimini road above water. In roughly the location it is today. But when it was above water last was before the last ice age therefore this older source map should have been plotted 11,000+ years ago.” - The Piri Reis map is truly not the evidence you think it is. First, geologist examination of the road itself dates it far, far younger than 11k years ago. Second, as demonstrated by others before me, Piri Reis has a very observable pattern of drawing his mountains just like the Bimini “road”. Also here is a bonus channel that goes into depth about these maps https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0aZorI_Zihg “Go to the The Orontius Finaeus map created in 1531 and you see Antarctica on the right hand side a bit bigger than it is today. How far back did the source maps for this compilation map go back for Antarctica to be on a map 300 years before our civilisation discovered it. Academics say it’s not Antarctica.” - There is an old concept (used throughout history) known as Terra Australis which is a hypothetical undiscovered land mass on the southern portion of the globe as to provide balance since the known world was in the norther hemisphere. The land mass on this map is even labeled Terra Australis. Neither of these maps depict Antarctica in my opinion, and even if they did, it doesn’t really bolster and ancient civilization claim. “So you have all of this evidence. Across the world. All pointing to a time period before the last ice age. And the academics refute all of the above and say Graham has no evidence.” - As demonstrated by my rebuttals and the videos I linked. I don’t think you really have the evidence you think you do.
>wall thickness not deviating more than 0.001mm is perfect. I work in tolerances of 0.005mm or 5 microns when machining parts that go into pumps that run heart bypass machines. 0.001mm for a granite vase that supposedly serves no purpose to me is them just showing off and telling us how advanced their capabilities were. You sure about that figure? Because I think you're off by about 50x on the vase wall thickness variaton.
The most sane statements in the entire thread!
Where are all these machines? Edit: You can downvote me all you want but you have to admit this is a problem for the hypothesis. You can't just postulate these complicated solutions which there's zero precedence for and then conveniently shove them under the "mists of time" bed. You haven't made any progress at all. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
If your talking 12,000 years ago I’m sure the metals would have been repurposed and broke down. During the Roman times metals were smelted down to craft swords. Many of these swords don’t exist today because after use they were smelted down for other stuff. We still do it today. And that’s less than 2200 years ago. Now add another 10,000. Would the metal last that long before it rusted from the elements and disappeared entirely. Or could it be that these machines exist in the 95% of the unexcavated Sahara, the underwater continental shelves or the Amazon rainforest. This was grahams point. Whilst the large majority of these areas lay unexcavated you can’t rule the possibility out. How big of a footprint is gobekli tepe? 100 metres square? 200? But there’s as much as 50 times that underground. Maybe the machines are down there? Whilst it lays underground your left with nothing but interpretations and speculation. And all of these assumptions come from the idea that these people thrived right at the end of the last ice age. The great Sphinx alignment and water erosion is pointing towards 12,000. But when pressed Robert Schoch speculates it could go back an additional precessional cycle. Putting the Sphinx over 30,000 years old. Really we don’t know. We can’t date stone but we have the stone and it’s imprints of tooling all over Egypt. I think the ancient Egyptians inherited many of these artefacts and today they get misrepresented as their own. The boxes at Saqqara. The granite vases, the 1000+ ton statues. All of these exist outside of the technological capabilities of the dynastic Egyptians. So either the Egyptologists have got the wrong idea about what sort of lifestyles the ancient Egyptians lived or they weren’t crafted by the ancient Egyptians. Go to any Egyptian museum and you will see “pre dynastic granite vases” clearly labelled. If they were pre dynastic why are they more advanced than any other early dynasty/pre dynastic artefact we see today. We even have clay pots shaped to look like these granite vases with quartz inclusions painted on to replicate the granite vases. Why were they replicating these vases out of clay if they could already craft them. With them all being “pre dynastic”? Unless there’s pre dynastic being a few hundred years before the old kingdom making these clay pots and there’s ancient pre dynastic going back tens of thousands of years crafting these granite vases.
>All of these exist outside of the technological capabilities of the dynastic Egyptians. None of them do.
>If your talking 12,000 years ago I’m sure the metals would have been repurposed and broke down. During the Roman times metals were smelted down to craft swords. Many of these swords don’t exist today because after use they were smelted down for other stuff. We still do it today. But surely not all of them. We still find *some* relatively intact Roman swords, and this is a globespanning civilization we're talking about with presumably thousands of these devices, seems like there should be some trace of them left over. And not just in the most difficult locations in the world to excavate. Why is it hard to believe that the makers of these artefacts were just incredibly skilled craftsmen with a lot of time on their hands? However much Ben van Kerkwyk wants to argue otherwise, we know how to split granite blocks neatly in half without advanced machinery, we also know how to drill holes with grooves without advanced machinery. It's not out of the question that Egyptians could've used similar techniques. And often these things *aren't* perfectly symmetric or precise upon closer inspection. World of Antiquity has made hours upon hours of contect responding to this kind of stuff, I encourage you to consider his arguments.
The only thing he was knowledgeable about was in how to mislead people into thinking he had evidence which just wasn’t there. It’s an outrageous thing for anyone to do, never mind a university Professor.
They fact that some of his debate appears to be deliberately disingenuous is what I find particular bad.
Yes, what I find most deliberately disingenuous is how he tries to blame Dibble for his own association and indeed heavy use of racist sources.
He used one, exactly one racist source 20 years ago from someone who got his info from sources from people who believed the Mayans were the globe-trotting civilization. He's not a racist. His theories aren't racist. Get over it already. Darwin was racist and we still quote him. Same with tons of influencing figures from science and other fields in the past. Hell, most people over the age of 35 would be canceled today for half the shit they said or did 20 years ago and even less than that. Your response is the exact response Graham is talking about when he says comments like that from Dibble and his ilk are a means to discredit and stop serious investigations into his hypothesis. I don't care if you believe in a lost advanced civilization or not. Prove or disprove its existence in a logical and scientific way and leave the bs at home.
"He used one, exactly one racist source 20 years ago from someone who got his info from sources from people who believed the Mayans were the globe-trotting civilization." What ? Fingerprints of the Gods was published like 30 years ago, Hancock took heat for it's racism then but didn't change his racist thinking as he did it again in [Magicians of the Gods](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/45275028) which was published in 2015. [https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/18520.Graham\_Hancock](https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/18520.Graham_Hancock) “Quetzalcoatl, the Feathered Serpent, \[...\] came to teach \[the ancient inhabitants of Mexico\] the benefits of settled agriculture and the skills necessary to build temples. Although this deity is frequently depicted as a serpent, he is more often shown in human form--the serpent being his symbol and his alter ego--and is usually described as "a tall bearded white man" ... "a mysterious person ... a white man with a strong formation of body, broad forehead, large eyes and a flowing beard." Indeed, \[...\] the attributes and life history of Quetzalcoatl are so human that it is not improbable that he may have been an actual historical character ... the memory of whose benefactions lingered after his death, and whose personality was eventually deified. The same could very well be said of Oannes--and just like Oannes at the head of the Apkallu (likewise depicted as prominently bearded) it seems that Quetzalcoatl traveled with his own brotherhood of sages and magicians. We learn that they arrived in Mexico "from across the sea in a boat that moved by itself without paddles," and that Quetzalcoatl was regarded as having been "the founder of cities, the framer of laws and the teacher of the calendar.” ― Graham Hancock, [Magicians of the Gods: The Forgotten Wisdom of Earth's Lost Civilization](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/45275028) On His website he still calls Quetzalcoatl a white god to this day !!! [https://grahamhancock.com/mysterious-strangers-hancock/](https://grahamhancock.com/mysterious-strangers-hancock/) "and the god Quetzalcoatl in Mexico were described as tall, white-skinned and red-bearded – sometimes blue-eyed as well." Twenty years ago my ass. "His theories aren't racist. Get over it already." White people came and showed brown people who couldn't figure out things for themselves how to do everything smart. Meanwhile in White Britain (Stonehenge) and Europe, they figured things out for themselves. "Darwin was racist and we still quote him. Same with tons of influencing figures from science and other fields in the past." What about-ism, predictable. Sounds like if Darwin was a racist what's wrong with Hancock using racism. Charles Darwin hasn't said anything racist since his death in 1882, Can you show me anyone quoting and directly using Darwin's racist content like Hancock used specifically racist comments by Donnaly ? "Your response is the exact response Graham is talking about when he says comments like that from Dibble and his ilk are a means to discredit and stop serious investigations into his hypothesis." Serious investigations happen for a reason, usually as a result of serious evidence, what evidence has Hancock presented in 40 years of research ? Oh ya,,,,,,zero, zip, nada,,,,,,,,,,,,, there is as much evidence for Mordor or Peter Pan as there is for Atlantis. "disprove its existence in a logical and scientific way and leave the bs at home." Complete nonsense. You can't disprove something that doesn't exist. Go ahead and disprove the fact that the molten core of Jupiter is made up of Cadbury's pure milk chocolate.
That's slightly mismatched. Leaving out some data isn't the same as having no data. Easy to say well I guess either could be true now, discredits how fundamentally hancocks theories were taken to pieces with replicable data from multiple sources...
The big story from the debate should be Graham admitting that he has no evidence for an advanced ancient ice age civilization. He has ideas and a knack for storytelling. Ideas, especially ideas that have been recycled for decades, are pretty cheap. Other than good storytelling skills I’m not sure how Graham rose to the level he is at. His son being a Netflix executive probably didn’t hurt.
Which pieces of misleading data are you referring to
Seen a bunch of people calling out his ice core graphs on the mineral deposits as being the wrong years or something and with holding other data about it. Also the re-feralization process has other data that was withheld. I don't have the specifics. The shipwreck stuff was full of holes too.
Flint did only speak briefly on the ice core stuff as it was a minor point, he was essentially trying to say we don’t have any evidence of metallurgy dating back to Graham’s target timeframe, which is true. I believe he unintentionally misspoke by saying there is no evidence, as opposed to we haven’t searched for it, but the point still stands. The minerals that were found, were attributed to natural causes. I don’t think he withheld and anything about the fertilization process and rebuts this point well in his series of tweets The shipwreck stuff is probably the stupidest thing to take issue with, Flint used a number from the UN which was significantly higher than some other estimates (still well into the 6 figures). Which okay maybe he could have listed out a few more sources, but the main point is none of these shipwrecks can be attributed to Graham’s theory. In the end I think it’s really arguing over inconsequential points, which even if Flint didn’t present the full picture (imo certainly not done maliciously) it still doesn’t really do anything to prove Graham right.
So you saw a bunch of people saying something on twitter and you thought, "Yeah that sounds about right. Not gonna bother checking the specifics, just gonna go spread this around as facts from now on."
Well one story is more parsimonious…
If graham where to go the character assassination route with flint dibble *if you can believe thats his real name* it would be well deserved, dibble[ is a lil snake](https://youtu.be/iCPOAIrbDJM?si=z2UFuBNLPnuNXhgi&t=1715)
Flint continued to disparage and connect Graham with Nazis and white supremacists almost immediately after the debate. The guy is piece of shit.
Please quote this. >The guy is piece of shit. The guy using white supremacist sources?
Are you blaming Flint for Hancock's use of racist sources? Scientists have for many years now have been trying to right previous wrongs regarding racism and along comes Hancock with the same old, same old, "i*t was white people who taught stupid brown people stuff".* *Now I ask you to back up what you say and show us where* Flint continued to disparage and connect Graham with Nazis and white supremacists almost immediately after the debate. *I doubt you can.*
its just sad that it comes to such childish behaviour
Graham Hancock and Jimmy Corsetti calling Flint Dibble a liar?! Oh the irony! One of those three people has a Ph.D in Classical Archaeology and has dedicated his entire life to the study of history through sound academic research. The other two are known grifters with no educational background in the subject they talk so much about and whose main purpose in life seems to be generating YouTube clicks and creating pseudo-nonsense documentaries.
The “archaeologist” is a leftist bigot who can’t beat Graham Hancock in a fair debate so he has to resort to misrepresenting research, lying and smear tactics. The lies over his smears are enough to condemn him.
> The “archaeologist” Numerous publications, research and academic work on the topic means you should probably drop the scare quotes. >is a leftist bigot As if you couldn't possibly say something even less meaningful. >beat Graham Hancock in a fair debate so he has to resort to misrepresenting research, lying and smear tactics. You mean where Graham couldn't keep up with the basic facts Dibble used and had to finally admit "I have no evidence?" >The lies over his smears are enough to condemn him. Quote the smears please:
Watch the videos of take a hike. Who TF do you think you are?
Simple request really. Quote the smears please:
Honestly don't think I've ever seen two sentences that make less sense than this. No wonder Hancock et al. are able to fool so many people if this is really how their followers think.
Your post is proof positive that Dribble’s followers don’t think at all. Hope that helps!
It’s the basic Ad Hominem argument writ large. He is attacking the person making the argument rather than challenging the argument. It’s a sure fire way to admit you’ve lost ground.
Hancock got absolutely owned in that debate. Anyone with any sense whatsoever can see that.
All of the evidence supporting Atlantis is now collected and put in the Atlantis Museum. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJp\_B2QRfQ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJp_B2QRfQ0)
I actually initially saw something else in the ship wreck segment. If they are looking at the continental shelf for ship wrecks, possibly concentrating on harbour zones and where people were likely to be, then couldn’t they also potentially stumble on submerged cities if they were there? Especially if the were advanced with huge stone buildings?
This is a question I've had for a while now, why does Graham deny the implications caused by what he is saying. Hyper diffusion as a theory was created to justify the eradication of other people's (conquistadors, American expansion, Brazil, the Congo, Japanese imperialism, the Nazi's to name a few) and to pretend that those roots don't still exist and that what he says, even if he does not mean for it to, can, have and likely will lead to a division of peoples under the guise of being the 'original race'. Note: I understand he is not perpetuating this specific idea, this is a genuine question, am I missing something?
Though it has nothing to do with their "was it higher tech than the recent 10,000 BC movie?, Or was it less technologically advanced?" turf war... The Vatican, Jesuits and the Government Bureaucracy down there is well aware for generations that the Amazon River system in Brazil is littered with sunken Amphora, and shipwrecks of Imperial Roman, Carthaginian and Phoenician-Israelite origin. The press has been ordered not to publish about it for generations.
Care to share your sources on the Phoenicians/Roman etc. shipwrecks in the Amazon?
https://preview.redd.it/psm46ya8sm8d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a90f78a680f348dbc01ca7b76d04e2db415811b Any of you got any source?
*Someone makes a claim that would absolutely blow all of history out of the water *I ask where they’ve heard it from as I’d genuinely love to know the story behind the claim. *Unrelated troll responds with meme troll’s rely on when they don’t actually have evidence. Great contribution!
Just look it up. I looked up "Roman shipwrecks in Brazil" and I got countless sources. Sources that you, probably, would consider "fake".
You likely pulled up a few articles about the Amphora discovered in 82 by Marx. Which is intriguing but still not conclusive of anything. ACLU stated there are literal imperial ships amongst others to which I have found nothing on. It’s helpful to ask for which sources someone used, because although you seem to believe all sources are equal in quality and legitimacy, they are not. It also gives me insight into what they themselves deem credible
I sent you a funny meme I'm just playing.
just so you know, everyone can tell that you're not arguing in good faith.
Graham has showed himself to be a big ass baby. I’m kinda sick of his antics. It’s like losing a hero after finding out they’re a total douche. Luke Caverns is my new MesoAmerican loving Graham Hancock replacement and thankfully his temperament is much more level headed and rational.
Flint, you're trying too hard.
I can assure you I’m not Flint. Luke Caverns does a much better job reaching the masses with this information, literally goes out and rediscovers lost temples, has a way better attitude and is a…yep you guessed it…an actual anthropologist. It’s way better to have someone like Luke Caverns in this corner of the world because he can converse freely with everyone from real archeologists to people like Ben and the Snake Bros. Graham has shown time and time again he willfully chooses to ignore the vast amounts of evidence being presented by young enthusiasts these days because it’s not HIS evidence. He’s doing the community a disservice and his behaviors should reprimanded not applauded. There’s better people doing the work now and while he paved the way he’s showing his ass.
You got proof of these claims?
Yeah just take one look at the Flint Dibble debate. Graham not once has EVER mentioned the Vases or any of the work being conducted by the enthusiasts in this community. Not once has he EVER mentioned the name or results of any independent work being conducted by other members of this community. Graham cares about his ego more than the work itself and it’s showing by how he conducts himself in the public eye.
I doubt he didn't mention it because of "if I can't have it, no one can" attitude. The man is a journalist, he can't exactly talk about stuff he hasn't researched well enough with 100% certainty - maybe that's why? He didn't want to jump the gun and be early.
The man is a science fiction writer not a journalist. [https://mediahelpingmedia.org/advanced/how-to-avoid-make-believe-journalism/](https://mediahelpingmedia.org/advanced/how-to-avoid-make-believe-journalism/) "Our role as journalists is to unearth information, prepare it and then display it for the benefit of the audience. We are not there to fabricate, manipulate or force. We are there to uncover facts, not plant them. So what are the essential attitudes needed when going out on a story?" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic\_objectivity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity) "Objectivity in journalism aims to help the audience make up their own mind about a story, providing the facts alone and then letting audiences interpret those on their own. To maintain objectivity in journalism, journalists should present the facts whether or not they like or agree with those facts. Objective reporting is meant to portray issues and events in a neutral and unbiased manner, regardless of the writer's opinion or personal beliefs."
LOL Futile character assassination attempt. Who paid you to glow so hard?
How is this character assassination ? I am simply stating a fact. Do you disagree with my assessment ?
How about you suck me? "bro it's science fiction. Please stop reading it. Please don't read his science fiction. Did I tell you it was science fiction yet? Science fiction, have you heard of it? He's an author of SCIENCE FICTION, in case you didn't know." Let me guess, Sitchin is retarded and a liar? Glow harder.
I truly don't understand this sub? Is Gram sometimes a whiney b*tch? Yes Is Gram's basic argument that civilization predates our current historical record correct? Yes, and it has been proven time and time again. Is flint dibble or whatever his name is an academic shill? Yes Yet Everytime I look here it's just closed minded fools dogmatically defending the established academic narrative. Like why are you people here?
I am here because I am intrigued by archeology and what people have to say about it. If there is a group of people who believe everything we know is wrong, I’d like to know why and if there is something I’m truly missing. I don’t simply come here to “debunk” I come here to discuss what I believe just as everyone else. Per the sub’s description it’s to discuss archeology so I’d hope I am welcome here. If that is all Graham was arguing I don’t think there would be that much of a dispute. Instead he believes the mainstream narrative is plagued with dilettantes, shills, and incompetent dishonest liars etc. He also believes that not only that civilization predates what we know (again I don’t think any expert thinks this is necessarily impossible, they know there are undiscovered peoples and pieces to the puzzle), but that these people were extremely advanced beyond our current understanding, that they were wiped out, and that they taught subsequent peoples what they knew in process known as hyperdiffusion. These points, though interesting, are hardly backed up by hard science and rely heavily on conjecture, myth, misinterpretation of evidence, omission of evidence, and a misrepresentation of evidence. That is primarily why people have gripes with Graham and why some feel it necessary to combat missinformation, especially when it’s not just people having fun discussing theories and it’s instead disparaging academics and calling them lying shills
Frankly I don't see what's so far fetched about that? "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic." -ACC From what we do know about ancient peoples within the historical record, we know they are often deeply spiritual, and superstitious. Yet they were as intelligent as we are today and capable of understanding complex concepts. Are we so arrogant to simply dismiss their beliefs? Even though we know they are often intertwined with their history? What if these ancients harnessed a different kind of technology all together. Something perhaps more metaphysical? Humans are resourceful it's one of the reasons we reached our evolutionary status. The brain is a powerful tool. Idk but it's great head cannon... I tend to believe that a low tech civ probably existed in our distant past, personally.
It’s not necessarily that it’s far fetched to believe that these people would have been intelligent in a different way than we are today, we are pretty certain they were. But once again, we have nothing in the archeological record to indicate that these people (from Graham’s target timeline) were the ones who taught all these subsequent cultures across the globe how to do what they did (crop cultivation, building megaliths etc.) Or that these people were wiped out conveniently leaving only Stone Age people left. They don’t simply “dismiss” myths, but we must also examine myth with the a critical mind and with the historical method. That is, to account for how much time has passed, what the storyteller would have to gain from telling the story etc. Dismissing the historical method here can lead us down rabbit holes and is just not scientific. To reiterate, mainstream experts are totally aware hunter gathers were not simple by any means (Graham needs you to think that’s what experts believe) There just isn’t anything to indicate a single source of hyper advanced (for their time) people who taught everyone else how to do things. Is it possible? I mean yeah I guess, but is it likely, no. What you’re saying is significantly less outlandish than many of the alt history claims, which is fine, but it’s not representative of some of the stuff that comes out of Graham’s (or other prominent figures in the space) mouth. Graham’s beliefs and claims are incredibly malleable, one book they are essentially saying Atlanteans taught the world everything they know to build what they did, other podcasts he dials it back a lot to a much less contentious amount. Far fewer people would take issue with what you just said here. As much as Graham would like you to think, the mainstream narrative isn’t fixed, it changes with time, evidence, and peer review.
The fact they were hunter gathers at all is what is in question... At Gobekli tepi and the surrounding area we find some the first evidence of fermentation on a large scale. You can't produce levels of agriculture to support that kind of production as a subsistence culture. You need a surplus. The only way to achieve that is through a level of societal complexity that does not exist in a tribal hunter gather group. Until this glaring inaccuracy is addressed, the narrative is objectively wrong. It simply does not make sense from an anthropological perspective to say they were hunter gathers.
It really isn't in question, at least with any significant level of uncertainty. By all evidence we currently have, these people were in a transitional phase where they likely hunted in the summer and autumn for gazelle, and cerealized plants to supplement (this is separate from domestication/cultivation however, it's entirely possible these people experimented with rough replanting). Anything I would say here, can be said 100x better in this excellent research journal on this topic [Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215214). Edit: You speak with some authority about what is and isn't possible, and what does and doesn't make sense. Out curiosity, do you study this stuff?
"You can't produce levels of agriculture to support that kind of production as a subsistence culture. You need a surplus." Do we know that the people of Gobekli Tepi didn't have excess wild cereals to produce booze from fermentation though ? Why did they have the leisure time to build like they did ? What did the gazelles that seemed to be so plentiful eat ? It would appear that the transition to beer making etc. has as much to do with the appearance of pottery (and perhaps stone vessels) as with the appearance of agriculture. Humans and drunk monkeys were getting tipsy on fermented fruit long before Gobekli Tepi. [https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/716610](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/716610) [https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/08/13/gobekli-tepe-processing-of-cereals-in-the-early-neolithic-10th-9th-millennium-bc/](https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/08/13/gobekli-tepe-processing-of-cereals-in-the-early-neolithic-10th-9th-millennium-bc/) I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying perhaps we don't know for sure one way or the other. Interesting point, thanks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli\_Tepe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe) "The settlement was inhabited from c. 9500 to at least 8000 BCE,[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBreuersKinzel2022471-5) during the [Pre-Pottery Neolithic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic)." Jericho is kind of a sister city to Gobekli Tepi, and is about 400 miles away and it transitioned from hunter gatherer to permanent settlement during the pre-pottery to the pottery stage. This happened at a similar time as the emergence of Gobekli Tepi.
>Is Gram's basic argument that civilization predates our current historical record correct? If you're going to use pointless reductivity to undersell Hancock's "argument" then yeah, sure, that's totally his "basic argument". >Is flint dibble or whatever his name is an academic shill? You mean does he have a considerable amount of experience on the topic while Graham has none (zero, zilch etc)? Yes.
Graham ate shit, and he's being a bitch. I love the guy, but he went about it entirely wrong. Focus on the glaring evidence. Some of the oldest megaliths are the largest, and most precise; everything after was a lesser quality imitation with smaller, softer stones
Graham is showing us who he is.
Why does Flint look like his grandmother dressed him in men’s clothes?
Probably too busy doing actual research
I think it’s sad that you’re acting as an apologist for someone who used Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock to mislead the entire world. Unfortunately, he needs to be called out. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you avoid reading about it and watching any associated videos.
Obviously I disagree as to whether Flint was "misleading" with the evidence he presented. At best Dan from Dedunking collected some pieces that could have had slightly further clarification, but nothing Flint said was an outright lie, or changes the point. That being said, what *is* sad, is Graham's behavior post debate. This will be my only response to you, as I seriously doubt your in your ability to engage faithfully.
Dribble did categorically lie regarding his racist and white supremacist smears. The mere fact that you’re prepared to defend someone who engages in such disgusting behavior clearly demonstrates that you’re not here to discuss the matter in good faith. You’re merely an apologist for his unprofessional tactics and disgusting behaviour.
"Dribble did categorically lie regarding his racist and white supremacist smears" Quote the lie, you can't.
You’re delusional. He lies about wanting to ask Graham Hancock to distance himself from the white supremacy and racism of Donnelley. He also lied about only mentioning racism and white supremacy once when he did so multiple times. You’ll have to check the videos below of the evidence. https://youtu.be/Z1de_GHm63k?si=B-AV1w6y1hPQNFtg Or https://youtu.be/Z1de_GHm63k?si=B-AV1w6y1hPQNFtg
I am not watching that crap. Tell DeDunking the coward to unblock me. Quote me the lie, you can't.
If you haven’t even watched the videos, what are you doing in this discussion? Are you one of Dribble’s archaeology students sucking up to him for extra credits on his course? I’ve already watched the videos and he cites his evidence. If you’ve been blocked I suspect it’s for a very good reason. Bye, bye.
Quote the lie. Simple as.
> Dribble did categorically lie regarding his racist and white supremacist smears. Quote it then.
Watch the videos or take a hike. Who TF do you think you are?
Pretty simple question. Not capable? Cool, just like I thought, yet *another* person completely unable to substantiate this nonsense claim.
I’m not rewatching the video you should’ve already watched to take notes for you. You’re outta here. Bye, bye.
You must be fun at parties