Joe Rogan Experience | Hancock VS Dibble Showdown | This Is WILD!

[@metatronyt]

Link to the full original episode kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3WvYpJ7gq6qbNk

[@Didacmmv]

I think the whole extraordinary in the sentence refers more to the "amazing" things that the evidence will show, not in the sense that it has to be complicated or anything, just that it will awe us cause it will prove something extraordinary EDIT: and also extraordinary in the sense that it will change minds.

[@Mike_E_DeShaman]

Holy shit .. a link that actually works 🤩

[@cwchadwynn]

metatron i dont think hancock is claiming the alien stuff it is paul wallis who talks about the alien stuff useing sumarian texts and the book of enoch even the old testament. hancock and paul wallis ideas fit in with the sumarian texts.

[@Intranetusa]

@cwchadwynn, Graham Hancock claimed in the 1990s that Mars had an advanced civilization with connections to Egyptian pyramids (and wrote books on it).

[@cwchadwynn]

@@Intranetusa wow i did not know that thank you also what you just stated is the idea that you find in the sumarian texts or maybe it was the book of enoch talking about aliens from the sky/space or nibiru who we humans ones called God it is a fasinating read i have a public playlist where i have shared others channels and videos on this topic i do not benefit from this in any way non of the videos are my uploads but on this god alien and lost civilisation even atlantis i would mention paul wallis, also at the 5th kind, Ancient Astronaut Archive, Matt LaCroix who was interviewd by julian dorey. thank you for your reply

[@stapleman007]

Demonetization is Temporary The Glory of Rome is Forever

[@poponachtschnecke]

😂

[@gabrielalejandrodoldan4722]

ROMA AETERNA VICTRIX

[@FILIPLAMBOV]

“Comment in a Germanic language”

[@Ewil.Bluetooth]

​@@FILIPLAMBOVYeah because latin isn't an extremely important and glorified language all over the current western world... Rome's influence was only their spoken language... nothing else.... right..

[@RealKutcha]

...and the Wu

[@jordanhamilton50]

I love Carl Sagan's statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but he also stated, “Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence”.

[@glenchapman3899]

That second quote is not from Sagan - Has been around for a very long time

[@petternordberg2883]

@@jordanhamilton50 That second quote does not mean then that every theory is equally valid

[@rbo7]

You can't disprove an interdimensional bigfoot tooth fairy, but you don't give the thought the time of day without at least a HINT of evidence.

[@Theboxingobserver]

@@glenchapman3899the sign of a grifter = they recycle from previous grifters

[@zartic4life]

Nor is absence of evidence evidence. Something Athiests can't get through their thick skulls.

[@hugovandyk9918]

I think the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinarily evidence" is talking about how one needs evidence matching the claim rather than the idea that extraordinary claims can not be proven by "regular evidence" . As in if one claimed that eating a certain kind of apple could make you fly then the best evidence would be one of those apples that could make you fly. Now if we found someone flying around with an apple core in their pocket, that could be proof of the make-you-fly-apple or it could be a pilot who just had lunch mid-flight.

[@viljamtheninja]

I think more specifically it comes down to that the "evidence" must be unambiguous and essentially impossible to interpret in any other way. So if you make quite extraordinary claims, and use as your evidence facts that can be explained in quite ordinary way that do NOT imply anything extraordinary, that is poor arguing and doesn't actually prove anything. Essentially, you occam's razor ambiguous evidence rather than believing in the least likely and most extraordinary explanation.

[@WhoNeedsRogaine]

Yes, you nailed it. That's exactly what it means. The evidence must rise to meet the claim, and the burden of evidence is on the party making the claim. Logic 101. This phrase is muddied up by how it is frequently used by ppl that don't know what they are talking about.

[@grapetonenatches186]

I think he just liked to say things that he felt sounded profound.

[@MCharlesPainting]

@@viljamtheninja To be fair, in this sense, most things cannot be proven. As Nietzsche said: anything can be interpreted in multiple ways. This is also the fundamental framework of Postmodernists, and, therefore, modern/current science as a whole movement (at least since the 1980s). On the other hand, certain scientism types claim that there is 'objective truth', but external from God (i.e. objective nature in some way, that can be proven objectively, and cannot be interpreted or disproven). Sam Harris and the atheistic types follow the latter theory, made popular in about 1900 by Lord Russell and others. The problem is, they were wrong in some profound ways, and disproven by many since and before (including Jung, Boss, Wittgenstein, Darwin, and Einstein). The only truly 'objective' things I've ever found are Darwinism/genetics, the relative spherical nature of the Earth, and the relative truthfulness of the Holocaust. And as you likely know, the latter two have been gravely under attack since at least the 1990s, and the former is now entirely under attack due to transgenderism and otherwise since at least 2014 (and the 1970s to lesser degrees). The problem with such 'objective reality' as the aforementioned shows, is... you can just reject it. You can either claim that genetics don't really exist, or that they don't really mean what we think they mean, or you can just deny them entirely, despite their meaning exactly what we think they mean. And, of course, you can always just question the evidence and history themselves, or demand more evidence. This is a fundamental moral and narrative issue: if the thing -- theory, idea, whatever -- doesn't carry enough narrative and moral weight, it is rejected as it's not useful enough to one's life and future. For example, such figures as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris claim to be Darwinists and that there is 'objective truth', yet they are the very same people to reject the idea that objective truth is Darwinian, which is ironic. This proves they are biased and have a deeper motivation and issue. The Darwinian truth is that 'whatever is useful for survival is true/real'. But this breaks their entire materialist and atheistic framework, as it implies that 'whatever is harmful to survival is untrue/non-real'. In this way, oddly, religion could be true/real (i.e. useful for survival) and Darwinism as a theory/knowledge of Darwinism itself could be untrue/non-real (i.e. harmful to survival/ultimately lead to death). Naturally, this applies both at the individual level and species level (though the latter is more complex to tackle, and is much weaker, since it's perfectly reasonable to think that humans don't actually operate on species-level terms; thus, such a level of analysis is nullified in such terms). Of course, we do care about the survival of the species, nonetheless -- but this is typically by extension of ourselves and our own culture. If you act right for the local level, the global level will take care of itself, is the general idea. This is not innately the case, of course, but it's a solid axiom, and might be the only workable axiom... unless you want a globalist dictatorship, since that's the only way to 'act globally, not locally'. Hence, the widespread hatred of globalism: they are not anti-freedom or anti-trade. They are anti-national agendas, and pro-localism. Leftists always assume that globalism means general trade or whatsoever, or lie about it meaning such. But that's not how everybody else is thinking.

[@TamerSpoon3]

@@viljamtheninja Occam's Razor actually applies in the exact opposite way that you've described. Usually someone trotting out "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" offers independent explanations for every single fact offered by their opponent as evidence for their supposed "extraordinary claim". That results in an "ordinary explanation" that requires many independent, often unjustified, assumptions or assertions to explain the available evidence. Occam's Razor stats that causes should not be multiplied beyond necessity, so the "ordinary explanation" with many independent causes is therefore less likely than the "extraordinary explanation" that has only one or a few causes. Such argumentation is also often Circular Reasoning because the only justification for weighing evidence against an "extraordinary claim" is the mere fact that it's "extraordinary" and therefore least likely.

[@sussudioharvey9458]

Before I watch this I’ll throw my 2cents in. Because I’ve been here before. Over the decades I’ve met and worked with many archaeologists and anthropologists as an admitted amateur. You know how to work a brush and trowel and you get drafted. And being a pragmatist, big mouth and the only one actually talking to the locals and learning a bit of their past culture… well let’s say I sometimes do a bit of eye rolling and snorting at “conclusions”. Some of these people are Extraordinary brilliant and I hugely respect them. Others get blindsided by preconceived pet “ theories “ and egos when working at a site. Like you say Metatron you must never base your evaluations of past societies by modern standards. I love anthropology because our “ facts” are always evolving as we learn more about various societies and uncover more evidence. People forget that this field is not stagnant and preconceptions are easily overturned. I find this exciting. So I’m willing to entertain alternative theories. But only those that actually make sense for a past society to possibly be associated with. We may eventually find evidence to back them up. But let’s be rational and when comparing some of these theories proposed to the actual societies themselves…they make no real sense.

[@kristinthomsen3175]

I wasn't surprised that most of the entrenched scientists were from North America. Our schooling kills the creative impulse of children to our ruin.

[@Kvint-kh12345]

There's a youtuber, who searches for weird places in Google Earth, and then goes out to see them in person. And in quite a few videos he filmed places, that look man-made, have straight lines and high walls, but are actually natural phenomena. Like one place he went to was a plateu with zigzag edges, made of 90° smooth edges, and just below there were hundreds of almost perfect (and some perfect) massive cubes of sandstone that fell from that edge. If it wasn't proven, that it's a natural phenomenon, you'd be sure it was a type of quarry, but it isn't. Point is, just because something looks unnatural, doesn't mean it is.

[@Kvint-kh12345]

Just looked that dude up, channel is called "thePOVchannel"

[@VespasianJudea]

I’ve seen these. You’re correct. Just because it looks cut out with a laser doesn’t mean water and time didn’t do it first.

[@spracketskooch]

I read the relevant papers on orthogonal jointing in sandstone, and you're correct about the video you're referencing. However, there is another video of his where he visits a place that has perpendicular cracks in the sandstone, forming even more perfect blocks. This area isn't consistent with what is described in the papers. I'm not suggesting it was manmade, just that it is unique. I've been fought tooth and nail, and been repeatedly insulted just for saying that it is a unique formation and I can understand why someone would think it was manmade. Seems like literally any concessions at all are vehemently resisted. Can't even say, "I see how you would think that".

[@Richard-Freeman]

What's the channel?

[@albertbrzozowski]

​@@Richard-Freeman i think he's speaking about thePOVchannel

[@mrh4900]

It’s okay to be Anglo Saxon

[@-MacCloud-]

As a Celt, I am triggered by this statement. I am currently painting myself in wode and corralling the chariots. See you at Stonehenge.

[@SaltyFlatEarth]

We are the true Isrealites! ❤

[@apokatastasian2831]

Skyrim is for the nords

[@thunderwarrior1]

It's okay to be Norman

[@673AWSF]

Gods real chosen.

[@moshambles]

In your analogy of the Roman Titanium, I would say that the finding of Roman Titanium would be considered an extraordinary find by many, given how seemingly impossible or unlikely its existence was considered to be. After some time, if more finds and more evidence were found, its extraordinary status would surely diminish, but that initial discovery would still have been extraordinary. For me, the expression still holds, in this instance at least.

[@kevinhale628]

But the difference between ordinary and extraordinary could be influenced by your pov. One would need omniscience to properly classify that without bias

[@moshambles]

@@kevinhale628 I'm talking about academic consensus, which doesn't require omniscience

[@bassax7045]

@@moshambles finding of Titanium could just as well be evidence of time travel if modern science holds on to their doctrines and refuses to adapt to findings

[@moshambles]

​@@bassax7045 It could also be evidence of forgery or anything at all for that matter, it's entirely hypothetical. The example that Metatron gave, was clearly meant to be taken as legitimate evidence of the Romans having knowledge and skill with tooling Titanium. What doctrines are these? By "science" are you referring to Archeology or Science in general? Do you mean Academia more broadly?

[@MCharlesPainting]

@@moshambles Just wanted everything to be on the same very serious page about this (more so, these days): 'science' means 'academia', almost entirely. This is true, since it dictates what is studied in the first place, and then second, what is actually published, and how (the exact conclusions, biases, and methods). At this point, most of science is completely corrupted, from history to biology. Sure, maths is still maths -- but the educational system is teaching children literally that 'maths answers are racism', and more and more schools are using so-called 'other ways of knowing' (i.e. anti-science, in the context of science and beyond). Of course, maths itself is not science, but is its own field. Psychology is completely corrupted, along with so-called media studies, and just about every other field or element ending in 'studies'. Likewise, physics is completely biased towards atheistic and liberal thinking, and has been at least since the 1960s, and to lesser degrees, the 1920s. I read a book about dinosaur displays in museums (for diorama/painting purposes), and it instantly opens with a diatribe on why the entire science and all museums should be geared in the direction of 'educating children on climate change' and how this is the highest moral good, and the true purpose of museums. And this was a very serious, respected book, and was directly attached to some major museums. Of course, many museums today promote transgenderism or Black Lives Matter, and other anti-reality, anti-science, anti-truths. Not just untruths, but anti-truths. Richard J. Evans wrote in 2015 that 'for the last 15 years, Nazi Germany has been seen through the lens of post-colonial studies'. He said that it was understood in the framework of being nothing more than a natural extension of white colonialism and conquest. This is clearly exactly what you hear in general across the 2010s in relation to history and so-called 'whiteness' and colonialism. In fact, it's now to the point where the 'official' science tells us that white people invented slavery, and in biology, genes don't really exist in any classical sense. I know one African History museum in America literally said that 'being on time' is 'white supremacy'. Of course, the entire enterprise of healthcare and medicine is completely corrupted and far-Left at this stage. I was at a hospital in England the other way, and there was a sign, talking about the issue of X-rays in relation to pregnancy. It used the phrase 'chest feeding' -- as in, a man breastfeeding a baby. That was an actual sign in an actual hospital. Of course, these are the same people who claim that babies don't exist until they're outside the womb, and they cannot even readily agree on the exact nature of post-womb life. Dozens of people have been fired for trying to study sex and genetics. The peer review system is largely dead/corrupted/untrustworthy at this point. The number of papers I have read stating that 'sex isn't real' is remarkable, yet Google struggles to actually offer me PDFs of papers claiming that transgenderism isn't real, or at least that sex is fundamentally real. Some fields are doing better than others, and you can find experts anywhere, of course, but we're talking about science as a whole and academia as a whole, and the educational system as a whole.

[@DarknessProphet]

Carl Sagan's quote should be seen as: Anything that forces a paradigm shift must be backed up by sufficient evidence to justify said change. As the change to one's paradigm becomes larger, the evidence to back it up must also become more substantial. If we use your example, the titanium found must come with additional finds (tools to create/manipulate it, documents describing its existence and how it's processed, etc.) The titanium being found by itself wouldn't prove anything beyond its existence.

[@Ewil.Bluetooth]

Like Göbleki Tepi being dated to have been made thousands of years before humans were even supposed to have been making huts?

[@hogowar]

Which dating was this? Aren’t current dates supposed to be a couple thousand years after humans first huts (hand built homes, generally from naturally grown materials)? Considering there’s evidence for Neanderthal homes made from mammoth bones from around 45,000 years ago I feel there’s a lot of room here still in need of more study before trying to tie these sites to a world encompassing Ancient Civilisation. Gobleki is believed to be as old as from 9000BC and human first hand created settlements as old as 15,000 years ago. Supposedly.

[@YaBoyYeti]

Finally, the great battle for the HDMI cable!

[@deaderthendead041]

They do wear out fast

[@Cruuzie]

Too bad they only had a PhD there and not a PhDMI. I'll see myself out.

[@DeDunking]

If you can't convince them to reply with brilliant argumentation, use your thumbnails 😉 Hope you had a good Christmas Metatron. Just settling in to watch this now.

[@MandyMoorehol]

Stop crying

[@ManicRay]

Love your channel. Hoping Metatron does a react to your video.

[@someone-w9n]

Oh look, the guy who doesn't know what is Neoltic revolution

[@MandyMoorehol]

@ isn’t that the same guy who was confused about the difference between “Studying” and “collecting” lol

[@MoneyShot127]

The extraordinary(outside of the norm/ordinary) claim that Roman's made titanium would require extraordinary evidence. . . Which would be finding titanium tools that date back to the Roman empire. As unextraordinary as titanium is today, it would be VERY extraordinary for that time period. Like a lot of things that you discuss here, you can't judge the norms of yesterday by the norms of today. This is no different. Like if it were claimed that ancient Roman's had cellphones, we would need to see those cellphones. That would be EXTREMELY extraordinary.

[@derekfume8810]

Such a relief in life to have some ordinary explanation to things 😌. A one good set of ideas about how things go by naturally, almost like there's some intelligent thought behind it.

[@KT-pv3kl]

we have found extraordinary evidence all over the place. take egypt for instance. the pyramids itself are pretty obvious and nobody would describe those structures and their construction as ordinary. on a smaller scale we have construction methods and tool marks all over ancient Egypt that do not match the mainstream narrative of egyptian technology and tool capabilities like the numerous tube drill marks and drill cores. we have not found a single tube drill nor a depiction of a tube drill in the entire field of egyptology for instance. its a huge gap in our knowledge. you think in terms of 20th century technology with your cellphones and advanced metallurgy examples but try to go the other way. think of the eegyptians as described byx mainstream archeology with scarce wood resources. copper tools and a handful of extremely valuable bronze tools being able to carve and transport 500-1000 ton stone blocks and drill meter long absolute straight holes in both hard and soft stone and not just that they did it with tube drills a technology that was unheard of even in medieval Europe. when thinking of "advanced technology" don't think of cell phones think of roman concrete that was so far ahead of its time it took the rest of the world 1800 years to recreate or improve on the technology

[@inigo9000]

@@KT-pv3klthere’s plenty of evidence of them using a bowdril or lapidary drill, even today there are still people who use hand driven lapidary drills for the coring rocks and minerals, they’ve also found residue of copper and bronze in core holes plus quarts what they used to drill in hard rock. People have allready demostrated they were Able to do this with this technique while having no previous experience in working with stone. This mysterious fantasy machinery is absolute nonsense made up by some grifters

[@101stub]

@@KT-pv3kl only if you are completely ignorant of what evidence exists would you regurgitate Hancock's (and similar journalist) assertions. Stop just watching ancient aliens to get all of your information and actually read or watch the up to date and real archaeology and what they have evidence of. There are even good youtuber archaeologists and historians who provide really good detail while citing real sources and evidence.

[@KT-pv3kl]

@@101stub I don't regurgitate Hancock and I haven't referenced ancient aliens even once in my statement. How about you engage with my arguments and not with the straw men you made up in your head for once?

[@partizan3539]

This debate was my first introduction to Hancock, and I have to admit, I found his arguments entirely unconvincing. I suppose part of my disappointment with the entire debate was that at least half of it was based on feels and vibes, rather than hard data and evidence. I know this is Joe Rogan episode, and I should have tempered my expectations, but my mind is so hungry for genuine intellectual debate that i couldn't help but want more out of this whole thing. Instead, it went largely like this: "Look at this picture i brought. Isn't it weird??" "No, it doesn't look weird at all to me" "Well, my buddy thought it was weird, so let's agree to disagee. Anyway, here another picture"

[@fabienpaillusson7390]

Well. Graham's whole point is that tons of stuff are left unexplored or forcefully tied to standard (perhaps not too convincing) explanations, and he is simply asking people to look into it. He is only one man and archeology is a very expensive endeavour. There is only so much you can do on your own. Yes, he is speculating, but at the same time, the level of arrogance and dismissiveness displayed by Dibble, even on things he had never heard before, is not to his credit at all.

[@viljamtheninja]

Graham Hancock is a thoroughly unscientific con artist, so your first impressions are correct. Don't waste your time on his nonsense unless you're looking for a good laugh.

[@partizan3539]

@@fabienpaillusson7390 a couple of points I have to mention. Being skeptical isn't necessarily the same as being dismissive in this case. Flint doesn't just disregard the hypothesis because he doesn't like it, or because it challenges the established paradigm. The issue is that Graham isn't providing any evidence for his claims at all. There's nothing to debunk, because nothing has been put forward except for a, perhaps intriguing, word salad. You wouldn't be mad at an astrophysicist telling you that a flash you saw in the sky as a kid probably wasn't aliens. Even if you *feel* otherwise, feelings aren't evidence.

[@spracketskooch]

​@@partizan3539 Flint was being dismissive, and arrogant. There are no two ways about it. It's not true that Graham is providing no evidence. Archeologists who think like Flint just don't accept what he's put forward as evidence. Flint wasn't even willing to admit that Yona Guni looked weird. Also, how many sites has Graham been refused access to now? Why is the censorship necessary? I wouldn't be mad at the astrophysicist because he said the flash _probably_ wasn't aliens. Flint literally said that Graham's proposed civilization _can't_ exist. Flint is just a bad faith actor, and one of the worst possible representatives for archeology.

[@sup1e]

@@fabienpaillusson7390 Why does he need other people to do the work for him? He could do the work himself if he wants to prove it. If Academia entertained every crackpot they'd never get anything accomplished lol

[@KoaFidCZ]

45:45 I feel like Hancock is just moving his argument to the point, where there can't be any arguments for or against it. "They didn't do any of the things you said that would be proof of their existance we lack" 50:00 How should Flint react to Hancock's story of disrespectful archeologists? Does that effect Flint's arguments in any way? no... It doesn't at all confirm or destroy any argument in the debate... 1:03:00 again, he talks about parts where no excavation happened, but the civilization should be global, and I think there isn't much else to find in Europe for example... So the civilization moved from global to deserts and rainforests?

[@donovanmccampbell6767]

Civ of the Gaps

[@WhoNeedsRogaine]

@KoaFidCZ pull up a list of fallacies and watch him while checking off each one as he goes, lol Makes for a great drinking game or bingo card

[@jesseritchie9282]

​@@WhoNeedsRogaineUnfortunately Flint Dibble made some mistakes here that has left him questioning if he was truly being sincere as well

[@Rrang4]

@@jesseritchie9282 like what?

[@WhoNeedsRogaine]

@jesseritchie9282 ehh even if I grant that to you it's still far less or as academically sinful than Graham

[@AnarchAngel1]

I knap a little bit, and "the chipping at the end" that Metatron mentions with a tool like antler is called "pressure flaking". It's a much more precise method of removing material than "direct percussion" done with a hammer stone or a larger piece of antler (this is called a "billet"). It's often used at the very end to "sharpen" the edge of the stone tool by creating serrations essentially, or for other situations where precision is required and/or the piece is getting thin and fragile (this is pronounced "frah-jē-lā", it's Italian 😁). The smaller bits of antler can also be used for "indirect percussion", which is essentially precisely placing the tip of the antler tool exactly where you want and then striking the antler itself instead of the stone to remove flakes. Often copper is used in place of the antler by modern knappers as it provides better grip on the stone, is easier to shape, and is more available

[@drackaryspt1572]

Glad to see you making this video, I appreciate you at least giving it a look since you've been checking so much of one side of this online convo in-between the sudo archeology and the archeology community!

[@jennagriffith9016]

Flint has a brother named Chip. Their father was an archeologist who knapped stone tools. He purposely named his sons based on knapping stone tools. It's the cutest, dorkiest thing I've ever heard. A+ child naming technique.

[@LibertarianGalt]

Flint is a tool for sure

[@PeteV80]

Now imagine someone like that having to admit their entire industry is corrupt

[@LibertarianGalt]

@@PeteV80 Imagine how vengful you'd be if that was your familial lineage and you made almost negative influence in your academic field beyond arguing with someone you view beneath you... No wonder he resorted to calling Graham a white nationalist.

[@LM-oi3sf]

Thank god their dad wasn't a proctologist 😅

[@DæmonV86]

That is pretty awesome.

[@BoanergesTWELF12]

Archaeology has changed drastically since the first excavation; we now use shovels instead of dynamite

[@deaderthendead041]

it's actually a lot more of a delicate process than just that.

[@shinobi-no-bueno]

They also just don't do anything in a lot of cases

[@FirstLast-wk3kc]

We actually often scan and etc by high tech, always try to module 3d of the site to preserve the context in full scope... Ot has SO much more. I'm a student from Europe, I'm speaking only on our archeology yet.

[@misanthropicservitorofmars2116]

@@shinobi-no-buenono they use laser and sonic measurements…they’re not trying to damage anything. So I take it you’re a devotee of Hancock?

[@BoanergesTWELF12]

For those that dont know, my initial post was a joke because of the guy who excavated the city of Troy popularized modern archaeology

[@axxessdenied]

The thing with this debate wasn't that Flint Dibble was very convincing on his part. Graham was just not convincing enough and spent too much time trying to convince us he's under attack by mainstream archaeologists (even though thats what he's not saying apparently) instead of just providing data. I used to be really interested in his stuff. He is clearly a great writer and tbh he should embrace the sci-fi aspect of his work and actually produce some cool movies.

[@bigzed7908]

I was in the same place with Graham's work. And I 100% agree, he should sci-fi, that'd be really cool.

[@22RedEyeJedi22]

The movie 2012 was loosely based on his work. Fun movie with obvious flaws but still great. Unfortunately he convinced me his theory didn't work when I watched his netflix series Ancient Apocalypse.

[@johnjones8888]

But Flint wasn't convincing. He used fake data lol.

[@Jordi_Llopis_i_Torregrosa96]

Cool but Flint delivery lied.

[@PhyrexJ]

@@Jordi_Llopis_i_Torregrosa96thank you for your stupid statement without any explanation or objectivity

[@ItsSeanTheProducer]

41:35 "sitting in the hot seat" Graham is poisoning the well from the start, by putting forth the idea that Flint is the outsider on the subject, when (in the world of archaeological history) Graham is considered the outsider. So he's basically saying that *Flint* has to prove the facts.

[@partizan3539]

Not just prove the facts, but to prove a negative. Hancock wants concrete irrefutable facts out of Flint, forcing him into a position of "proving" the hypothesis wrong, while himself having only his own feelings, anecdotes, and blurry pictures.

[@KiSUAN]

@@partizan3539 Yup, absolute lunacy.

[@SpaceMarine113]

@ItsSeanTheProducer bro this is just an expression to show he is there to present his argument. Do not project your sick schizo ideas on an inoffensive word.

[@justineczarnobyl9987]

If there is no proof, it's not a fact, it's theory. Or hypothesis. That's how science works in general.

[@DanielMWJ]

​​@@justineczarnobyl9987You clearly don't understand science. It does not involve proof, it involves evidence. Further, you don't even need science to establish the facts, just observation.

[@brandotheone]

50:00 it’s a well known tactic of Hankock, Biglino and other pseudo scientists. “You see, this person was treated like a charlatan even though he was right, therefore you must accept my stupid ideas based on nothing”.

[@lawrencetrujillo7365]

Based on nothing…. 800 ton stones carved, moved and stacked 30 feet high having identical techniques and signatures with other megaliths around the world that’s far from nothing you goof.

[@brandotheone]

@ “identical techniques” is a huge statement. You didn’t mentioned that those buildings were built in a huge span of time one from the other. Those buildings just prove that people in the past working with stones developed excellent technology to work with stone. That’s what humans do. You know what those stones don’t prove? That Atlantis really existed. Like they don’t prove we were created by aliens or that giants walked the planet.

[@Michel-7.7.7]

"Well know tactic" to pull a strawman, destroy said strawman and gaslight in one sentence.

[@fillyfresh]

He is a fiction writer, not a scientist of ANY description. Certainly not a pseudo scientist. You are a pseudo KZbin comment writer.

[@brandotheone]

@@fillyfresh oh I didn’t know you had to be a scientist in order to be a pseudo scientist.

[@InternetRat]

Flint Dibble is a living cartoon character. From the name to the fit.

[@Theboxingobserver]

He has a drag alter ego; Clint Dribble.

[@quantumfairing2216]

Yeah, the guy that once read the scienfiction work of William Scott Elliot and after considered it as fact, even using the same "evidence" as William Scott Elliot in his scienfiction "documentaries". William Scott Elliot scienfiction book was heavily based on race and the ground pillar of Atlantis being some kind of "advanced civilization". Hopefully one day Graham will be able to accept the fact that the nobelman/banker/theosophist was wrong.

[@daltonreed7939]

Graham hancock is a living cartoon character. From the name to the fit.

[@mbsnyderc]

Not really.

[@swirvinbirds1971]

He can't help his father named him that and it's nothing but a fashion. Why do people attack his name and appearance instead of his arguments?

[@GeekNewz]

1:01:35 Flint said the Sahara was surveyed, not excavated. It's not an etymological problem. Flint just thinks they searched enough while Hancock disagrees.

[@someone-w9n]

Graham is just poisoning the well.

[@mf8279]

Indeed, Hancock clings on to the hope that since we havent found any evidence for his claims yet, there is still a chance that he is right.

[@misanthropicservitorofmars2116]

Graham will sell his snake oil regardless. We could have dug to the core in 99% of the Sahara, and Graham would still say “we don’t know for sure!” So he can sell you his books.

[@wintergreen2.073]

@@misanthropicservitorofmars2116 Except we haven’t even come close to a small percentage of exploration in the Sahara so your point and dibbles point is irrelevant. Your sheer arrogance to think you have the entire world and human history worked out in your heads. You think the archeologists who disagree with Graham aren’t selling books? You realize he has to make a living and have money to do what he does. Stop the cherry picking bs

[@misanthropicservitorofmars2116]

@ my point is irrelevant? Who tf uses “irrelevant”? My point is Graham is L Ron Hubbard, who’s selling you fables. I’m not trying to debate any actual archeology of the Sahara 😂 you goofy goober

[@joebeatty7961]

Liked it a lot. Please continue with episode 2.

[@Ladikn]

Extraordinary claims are claims that are outside of or contradict ordinary claims. Because ordinary claims already have evidence, extraordinary claims require a greater level of evidence to override them, thus extraordinary evidence. For example, the Roman Legionaries were 9 foot tall super soldiers is an extraordinary claim. The standard evidence contradicts it, therefore it would require extraordinary evidence to contradict the existing evidence.

[@Tang-qi6zw]

15:46 finding a titanium blade or nails or the like in a Roman shipwreck would be exemplary! Compare it to claims that the Romans discovered America, and people claiming the artwork has pineapples to prove that. Art is common, but it could be a pinecone. Nothing restricts it to only being a pineapple, and you need something more unique to prove that.

[@nickwells20]

The anecdote about the south Indian fisherman was hilarious to me. You got Graham and his wife in awe studying this possible lost city underwater and then you got a bunch of local people that completely don't care and want the structures gone lol. That difference of perception is what's hilarious to me.

[@Bognostrokulum]

An argument that Mr. Flint used to attribute greater value to his position was that " Archeology has studied this and that for several hundred years". But due to very non-linear, perhaps even exponential development of technology, I suspect that what was researched in the last 15-20 years provides greater volume of information, than the previous 700 years, especially if one choses to ignore, let's call them "non-traditional" claims, like the ones Mr. Hancock mentioned, especially if those new very expensive tools are in the financial reach of very few "thrust worthy" archeologist. So, I do agree with Mr. Hancock that if there is the proper will, in the next twenty years a lot more can be discovered. And yet I cannot neglect the fact that in human history it is not uncommon for knowledge to be hidden, suppressed and even deliberately destroyed.

[@bewawolf19]

The fundamental issue with that though is that such logic only works as so far as saying it is possible for the current conception to be wrong. It is not positive (As in, additive) proof of anything he himself is proposing to be true. Likewise, if someone is backed up by evidence for hundreds of years, then ignoring all other context it is simply more likely to be true than someone backed up by less amount of evidence.

[@longshadowinquisition5030]

Finally caught one within five minutes. Three minutes to be exact.

[@lordsomber]

WOW

[@steinarvilnes3954]

One issue with such "common myths" is that in many cases, they are really the same. It seems a lot of myths spread out of Mesopotamia, and others came with the Indoeuropeans. Generally, most ancient cultures neither Indoeuropean or from the fertile cresent seem to be mostly lost for us by now. Also, I feel that people that believe in common heritage often claim things are are really quite different are the same. One reason everyone have flood myths is that all pristine civilizations have been lookated on rivers, and many of them did flow over from time to time. But Chinese flood myths seem very different from Sumerian and Egyptian ones really.

[@LibertarianGalt]

@@steinarvilnes3954 Yes but that lends credit to the age of the story - and the isolated nature of these flood events is validated by the research I've seen from Ben Carson who really argues hard for a Younger Dryas flooding event as evidenced by science, which is cool.

[@swirvinbirds1971]

​@@LibertarianGaltHere's the problem. Sea level rise SLOWED during the Younger Dryas.

[@williamjenkins4913]

@@swirvinbirds1971 "OH no it's coming right for me" *2 Years Later*

[@deaderthendead041]

in your opinion, because it is your opinion that graham is wrong.

[@darkcow7of9]

Can't wait to see what you think about the rest.

[@taylorwashington2270]

The episode we’ve been waiting for 💪💪 thx metatron

[@rosifervincent9481]

One thing that everyone can agree on is that no one could mistake Hancock as either a scientist or an archeologist.

[@WhoNeedsRogaine]

Lol, sadly, this is not true. People do it all the time, and in this very comment section

[@rosifervincent9481]

@ Then they are disagreeing with Hancock himself.

[@DanielMWJ]

​​@@rosifervincent9481Because he presents himself as someone who knows the truth. He doesn't reveal that he's just making it up in most of his presentations. He does whine about professionals and defame them, though.

[@LibertarianGalt]

I wouldn't because he doesn't exhibit the same limited ideological dogmatism present in archaeology. Questioning the mainstream belief shouldn't induce a visceral reaction yet it does.

[@MelvinCruz]

​@@DanielMWJif you are saying that about Hancock you never watched one of his interviews

[@IceGuadian]

something nice my country does is that every renovation, every demolition, every construction that happens has to have a archeological survey

[@Lord_Ivoundy_Creood]

All claims need the appropriate amount of suffecient evidence is what is actually being pointed out...

[@MorbidMind123]

So Graham presents zero evidence of his theory nor directly addresses the two main points Flint made?

[@Manbearpig4456]

Hancocks has multiple books with his lines of evidence.

[@usergiodmsilva1983PT]

😂 lol "evidence" ​@@Manbearpig4456

[@grapetonenatches186]

Ya, everybody should have read all of Grahams books before watching or participating in this debate. He cant be expected to present evidence during the dabate. That would be ridiculous.

[@jiggy410]

@@grapetonenatches186 Maybe he needed a few more 3+ hour episodes of this debate to provide any evidence 😂

[@101Mant]

​@@Manbearpig4456read some of his books but there isn't any evidence in them.

[@Kvint-kh12345]

Hey, Metatron, i think you'd enjoy watching Billy Carson vs Wes Huff debate. Especially the first part of it. The entertainment value you'd get from it as a historian would be unmatched.

[@michaelroberts3898]

Actually I have a copy of that codex. And I was dead lol

[@Kvint-kh12345]

@michaelroberts3898 same, lol. Especially how Wes was saying pretty wild stuff as just a matter of fact, like "oh, this one? Yeah, i ordered papirus from Egypt and copied this thing from the original myself" as if it wasn't a big deal. I mean, who does that? Well, Wes Huff, apparently, but it seems crazy to me, and i studied archaeology in university. Never thought someone would outdo our 70yo professor casually carrying around probably 20-25 kgs of fossilized wood in his suitcase, but Wes kinda did it.

[@ErikaSnowdon]

I unsubscribed from both Billy Carson's channel and Wes Huff's channel. I found them both ingenuine to my liking. I will do my own research and find info on those subjects elsewhere.

[@Kvint-kh12345]

@@ErikaSnowdon for some reason i doubt that you were subscribed to both Wes and Billy at the same time. It's like being subscribed to Kent Hovind and Richard Dawkins at the same time. Kinda seems improbable.

[@Kvint-kh12345]

@@ErikaSnowdon also, outside of being from an Orthodox or Catholic Church, where you'd disagree with Wes theologically, what did you find ingenuine about Wes? And even if you theologically disagree with him, why you think he isn't genuine about his beliefs? Even ones you think are wrong? That's a pretty serious accusation to make.

[@mrh4900]

“Extraordinary” is literally just “extra+ordinary” meaning like outside of the norm or unusual.

[@Mike_E_DeShaman]

What did u think it ment until you had this epiphany

[@kevinhale628]

Sounds like just "more ordinary" to me. I never order extra cheese and get half the amount even though its outside the normal amount

[@mrh4900]

@@Mike_E_DeShaman “ment”

[@spracketskooch]

How do you establish probabilities for something that is outside the ordinary?

[@Madonnalitta1]

​@@Mike_E_DeShamanwtf is "ment"?

[@Grimhead]

Nice to see a "long form" episode, I want more of that!

[@reneed6954]

If Graham could simply prove his theory instead of just insisting people blindly believe it, he too would be vindicated.

[@Arkantos117]

Graham has literally never insisted that you blindly believe in his theories lmao.

[@julesknight1511]

Considering the blowback he's still getting for the lies he told in the vain attempt to win, of course he couldn't provide evidence

[@Bognostrokulum]

That is true, but as we saw in this very debate, sometimes it is not easy to prove you theory, even if it is true and later is generally accepted. Especially if some of the evidences are ignored and questions left unanswered. Perhaps we should give it more time and see how it goes.

[@julesknight1511]

@@reneed6954 At least Graham didn't get caught lying like Flint did - go look up the aftermath when several Flints claims were proven not to true, he just needed so desperately to 'win' a debate against Graham

[@endzhere1638]

Well, if he proved it, it would no longer be theory. And there's a massive difference between blindly following and asking the question . Do we know all the past.? Seems to me your the 1 blindly following since Graham is asking for an open mind. And it's far from unreasonable since we don't know 100%.

[@donovanmccampbell6767]

This “debate” was agonizing to watch, largely due to Flint actually making positive arguments w/evidence while Graham essentially puts him on trial for the sins of every dogmatic archaeologist in the global community? Graham basically admits he has no truly compelling evidence and instead leans on the Civ of the Gaps, and constantly invoked the possibility that maybe one day we might kinda prove him almost right. Like it’s not a truly good faith debate, it’s dunking ammo for Grahams continued crusade against “mainstream” archaeology.

[@Leeside999]

_"Graham essentially puts him on trial for the sins of every dogmatic archaeologist in the global community? "_ As do Hancock's most vocal and toxic fans.

[@MotherofMycroft]

Did you see the video following on how Flint lied about a large portion of his 'facts'?

[@maxm3522]

LOL dibble lied thru his teeth the whole time

[@bluesh0es]

Also, Flint is an expert in a very specific field, so much of his information is gathered from other experts that he then has to relay here in the middle of a debate watched by millions, on top of which he is just out of heavy and intense chemotherapy and surgery. Of course he fumbles a few numbers here and there. It’s obvious he is not a liar. Ignore Flint and focus on Grahams arguments and it’s obvious he is saying absolutely nothing the entire debate. It’s tragic because he only accomplishes driving away people from actual knowledge and academia. Which only hurts everyone.

[@viljamtheninja]

"Civ of the Gaps", excellently put. His thinking is indeed very religious - he already has his "truth" and choses to interpret every observation as confirming it, no matter the strained logic it requires, nor the more plausible explanations available. He refuses to let the dogma at the core of his thinking be challenged; he's not actually searching for truth, only for confirmation of his belief, and any evidence to the contrary is conveniently ignored.

[@handsomelyditto4215]

lol no way people support hancock in these comments

[@Gonzo850]

Happy holidays! Thanks for your content!

[@Varangoi]

In modern academia, the professors often refuse to use the term "civilization" because it means that other societies are "uncivilized". One of my history professors called them "complex societies" instead. To me, it seems like liberal politics. But, hey! That's modern academia...

[@Rensune]

All one has to do is see how quickly Cities have decayed around the world over the last 100 years to see how possible it is for advanced civilizations to not really have many (if any) remnants left after hundreds of thousands of years.

[@williamjenkins4913]

Even after the decay there are still bricks or other detritus. For a supposed advanced civilization with electricity to leave not even a single wire would be highly unusual. Not impossible but you would need other very strong evidence to prop up that weak point. Evidence that isnt there itself.

[@andreaarchaeology]

Omfg 🤦🏼‍♀️

[@parlamedia]

Not really, such civilisations would leave behind quite a lot of evidence, the same kind of evidence that the hunter gatherers of that time have left.

[@Ewil.Bluetooth]

​@@parlamediaLike Göbleki Tepi? Cities that the Flints of the world were adamant couldn't exist?

[@FirstLast-wk3kc]

​@Ewil.BluetoothGobleki Teppi is specifically an amazing site which is impressive specifically because it changed our views on said age. Why people keep ignoring that it drastically changed the paradigm of global archaeology? Not all paradigm shifts mean "super ancient civilizations". We know that at that age the plants are still wild, we see it through dna. We know that shown technology as well as the one needed to built is very cool, impressive and important. That was one of the big shifts in paradigm, because it made us realise how capable hunter gatherers are. They didn't need aliens for that. They didn't have domesticated plants. They just had time, dedication and base human cunning. Archeologists don't think that hunter gatherers are pathetic in amy way, they were just as smart as we, just as smart as ancient Egyptians. That's why hunter gatherers could build Gobleki Teppi. Because they were still highly impressive humans, instead of cave men from films. People tend to think people during middle aged were stupid. Or ancient Egyptians. Or such hunter gatherers. That's why Gobleki Teppi is important it was an absolute paradigm shift to fully instill the fact that they WERE capable, just like other people. Lack of extra efficient economy doesn't mean lack of impressive results.

[@kevinhale628]

The value a piece of evidence is given is determined by the audience. We all have a different benchmark for extraordinary. Anyone saying something like that sounds like they're trying to prove a fact with opinions

[@psycomutt]

Graham's argument quickly shifted from a very reasonable "we have probably missed something, up to and including a whole civilization" to the wildy improbable "an advanced civilization that seeded technology to the rest of the world".

[@derekfume8810]

Wildly improbable! Humiliated! Debunked!

[@nikolaspanzella2584]

Keep it coming Metatron!

[@NebulaNXN]

There is a controversy about Göbekli Tepe because they built concrete pathway and planted olive trees on top of unexcavated areas.

[@seanbeadles7421]

The trees were planted by the original land owner to get more money from the Turkish government when they bought the land from him. It’s fairly common for landowners of archaeological sites in the Mediterranean region to do that, because they know the land is going to be taken by the gov’t.

[@guneytopal1713]

It must be aliens and transcontinental ancient civilisations. No other explanation for the controversy, the lizards are hiding the truth 🤣🤣

[@ProfessorToadstool]

@@seanbeadles7421 the answer to ninety nine out of a hundred questions is: money

[@usergiodmsilva1983PT]

​@@ProfessorToadstoolwhy would anyone insist on unproven theories, just because it allows them to sell a ton of books and have TV specials on NETFLIX?... Money.

[@TheMoneypresident]

Concrete and trees can be removed very quickly.

[@giants2k8]

Happy New Year. I hope you had a great Christmas. I’m excited to finally see you hit one million subscribers in 2025. That milestone is more than deserved. I’ve been watching your content for years and it is always stellar.

[@popcorngenerator1925]

And this is why Graham Hancock shouldn’t be taken seriously. If you want more of a good time, go to flints channel and watch flints rebuttal to Hancocks follow up to this interview.

[@ronwiesel5120]

And if you've seen Grahams Rebuttal of Flints Arguments, it is clear that Flint is also not to be taken seriously. You Tube should classify this as entertainment

[@Michel-7.7.7]

​@@ronwiesel5120entertainment by a bad face, salty actor with a couple followers and a too large long sleeved shirt, at best

[@binniparis8024]

Happy New Year Metatron - bless you and yours and I hope you had a Merry Baby Jesus' birthday. Xx

[@MrBatraaf]

I am inclined to agree with the ¨traditionalist¨. I remember visiting an exposition in a local museum about the ancient Sumerians, and being impressed by the transition from people living among the crocodiles in the wetlands and using reed as their main building material to an advanced civilisation. I don´t really see a missing link there. Another thing that impressed me is how similar they were to us in certain ways and the level of artistic achievement they possessed already in such an early stage of human development. For me that is testimony to the extraordinary creativity that humans posess, rather than some alien or advanced intervention.

[@KT-pv3kl]

the Sumerians supposedly turned from people living in small family structures in reed huts to living in multy story buildings in reinforced cities with writing , systems of law, administration, mathematics as well as other scientific and social achievements far beyond anything that any other culture in the region achieved in the same timeframe. all of that happened in a matter of 2-3 centuries according to mainstream archeology. you might not call it a "missing link" but the development was extraordinary and requires an extraordinary explanation.

[@101stub]

@@KT-pv3kl go and actually look up what "mainstream" archaeology says before asserting timeframes. You are incorrect.

[@KT-pv3kl]

@@101stub so what are they saying? I just stated what I read on Wikipedia if you have information to the contrary you are more than welcome to present it.

[@azchris1979]

What about the 250,000 years before that? Human had nothing but sharp sticks for a quarter million years?

[@101stub]

@@KT-pv3kl you are the one asserting incorrect things, such as the timeframe of 2-3 centuries. But keep reading ancient aliens and other pseudo archaeological sources instead of diving into actual evidence. Wow, you are a Wikipedia scholar? Good for you. Keep using that instead of real scholarly sources and I am sure you can assert anything you want that hasn't been explicitly told to you by the scholars who are too busy to fill in a Wikipedia page.

[@Perktube1]

It belongs in a museum!

[@TheBrewjo]

To all the people picking on Flint's appearance, remember you'll meet plenty of people like that. Some of them will be people you love, they look rough because- they're recent Cancer survivors, Flint was barely out of heavy chemo and surgery. The people you care about or see in the mirror after going through that will look rough but you'll be overjoyed they still exist.

[@ozzie444]

Interesting. And I did comment on Flint"s appearance. Cancer treatment effects or not, he's still weird and sketchy.

[@petternordberg2883]

@@ozzie444 Weird and sketchy? How then would you describe DeDunking who was also on Joe's show

[@thecreweofthefancy]

@@ozzie444 unlike the British guy who grifted his way with his son's help onto Netflix.

[@napoleonfeanor]

I just saw people making fun of Indy knockoff outfit.

[@Manbearpig4456]

I could not care what the lying rat looks like. A liar is a liar

[@daltonreed7939]

I think the story of jacq is a very good reason and example of why archeologists don’t act that way today

[@tmmccormick86]

“I have proof- check out this 2 megapixel underwater photo took of a rock.”

[@nickwells20]

I just realized why a good portion of people enjoy Metatron videos besides the content aspect. His voice and accent is very pleasing to the ear especially to Americans. He is also a pronunciation snob; so his perfect delivery of his vocabulary words just flows nicely lol.

[@Intranetusa]

Graham Hancock claimed in the 1990s that Mars had an advanced civilization with connections to Egyptian pyramids (and wrote books on it). IIRC, he recently shifted his claims from Egyptians being incapable of building the pyramids because they were "too primitive" to Egyptians only not building the foundations of the pyramids.

[@jr1648]

you probably also thought some wild things 35 years ago. Do you still believe them now?

[@Manbearpig4456]

Flint dibble things you can change your gender. 🤷‍♂️

[@spracketskooch]

It's called being wrong, and then adjusting your claims according to new evidence. Why on Earth would you expect anyone to dogmatically hold a belief their entire lives? Is it possible that your standard for credibility is unchanging dogmatism, and Graham has violated your standard?

[@unbabunga229]

@@spracketskoochyeah but believing Mars had advanced civilisations 😅😅

[@psycomutt]

​@@spracketskoochIt shows he has a tendency to believe wildly outlandish claims with little to no evidence. What could've even started to be his evidence for a civilization on mars, lol. Even in this he uses "it looks like something" as a freaking scientific argument.

[@macdmacd7896]

if you can proove ancient human are dumb, you win a bigass funding.

[@snyden23]

The main problem with this whole debate is that the focus being on if there is anywhere we haven't yet checked is a waste of time. We need to be talking about what we can show, and what there is not currently evidence of. It was a pretty neat trick by Mr. Hancock to immediately shift the focus to debating if it's possible that we've checked everywhere in the Sahara, for instance.

[@Sheppo42]

It would only be an invalid argument if he wasn't being told "We know you are 100% wrong" by the archeologists when you can just rebut "How can you say that when absence of evidence is not evidence of absence we haven't looked everywhere"

[@williamjenkins4913]

@@Sheppo42 No archeologist is say he is 100% wrong. They are saying "neat story, back it up". Then when he cant they move on. Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Hancock is the one making a claim and it is on him to provide something for that.

[@jordanthomas4379]

@@Sheppo42 burden of proof is on the responsibility of the person making the claim, Hancock has no proof, yet he won’t stop publishing content claiming he is correct, while attacking actual experts

[@darkomen42]

There's nothing academics love doing more than claiming they know all there is to know that's worth knowing, because if they admit to how little we actually know about almost all subjects they have to admit to being basically worthless.

[@darkomen42]

@@jordanthomas4379 Graham comments on his OPINION, and the OPINION of many other people. He speaks on being correct when it comes to actual evidence that is discussed. The issue is the assholes with the degrees like to pretend they know everything while it's glaringly obvious they're barely scratching the surface.

[@buckit099]

As a fellow academic I appreciate your channel. Thanks for the entertainment. Well said.

[@arachmakalk]

I haven't found a million dollars yet, but only 10% of my garden has been ploughed,so it probably is hidden in the 90% left.........

[@scottbright595]

That is just dumb. It wasn't that long ago that the first civilization was Ancient Mesopotamia and that agriculture started in the Nile valley. Now Gobekli Tempe was built 1000s of years before Ancient Mesopotamia and even had agriculture. No matter if you believe in an ancient civilization before or not it is a possibility and lost technology exist but maybe not to our level of technology. Why did ancient have sewage but New York City took 60 years to dig a ditch down the middle of the street. Romans could use needles to remove cataracts from people eyes

[@SupremeGrand-MasterAzrael]

This is why I am not a fond of Hancock. It is very possible there could be some cool things to find buried in the sands of the Sahara. That doesn’t not mean that Atlantis is real and MUST be there. Hancock says something reasonable and then immediately makes a ridiculous conclusion from it. Again the idea that qncient peoples might’ve had more advanced technology than we know about right now. That doesn’t mean the pyramids are Psychically powered electrical generators lmfao Hancock would be a good alt-history fiction writer. But I don’t think he would be a very good archeologist.

[@wangusbeef86]

Literally no one in history has ever written about anything interesting happening in your yard, so of course you don't expect to find anything, no one went looking for the city of Troy because we thought it was a made up place, if it wasn't found we'd have no reason to suspect any other ancient. pieces of literature

[@willyb92]

But archeologists have excavated A LOT of different places and haven’t found anything even remotely close to what graham claims is most likely out there. We have so much archeological remains during that time period and there has yet to be a single shred of evidence of this supposed sophisticated and global ancient civilization

[@scottbright595]

@@willyb92 So you think there are no unknown ruins that havent been found. What would be left of New York City in 10 thousand years?

[@OrtarVladimir]

my opinion, the lack of evidence for pre-Ice Age civilizations is mainly due to the absence of traces of iron processing in the Antarctic ice. This fact has also been acknowledged by Graham Hancock.

[@ianblackhall]

lol no, who's looked for this?

[@misanthropicservitorofmars2116]

It’s because it doesn’t exist 💀 There were no civilizations before the ice age. It’s a myth sold to gullible people by a snake oil salesman. You have heard of Scientology, right? It’s the same thing 😂

[@RogerDeelaw]

Hancock's reasoning, sounds to me a bit like: "Well how much of the Universe do we have closely observed? It should to be around 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. So why are you saying with such confidence, that there isn't a Disneyland in another Solar System? We got quite a few strange signals coming from outer space, could be very well radio signals from another civilization and if they have radio, they might as well have a Disneyland." His claims and "evidence", seem convincing or at least thought provoking only on a superficial level imho.

[@LibertarianGalt]

@@RogerDeelaw It's fair though. We made the first radio in the late 1800s and Disney Land was established in the 20th century.

[@Dreamhaxor]

The extraordinary part would mean how critical you'd have to be with the evidence. For instance, if you find scroll that shows romans could do basic math, you wouldn't think about out much, and accept it for what it is. If you found a microchip in an old roman tomb, you'd go and make sure it wasn't planted by someone, whether someone had access to the tomb before you, carbon date, etc etc before you'd ever say ok, there might be a chance this actually is a roman microchip, even though all could be the same with the basic math scroll. It's essentially confirmation bias, which while sometimes bad, is a type of logical razor that lets us function without investing a hundred hours investigating every claim. Though, there are cases in science where confirmation bias was used to "augment" data so it fits more with accepted norms. I could be misremembering, but it might have been with the electron charge or mass, where there was an accepted value, and a few confirmation studies excluded a few data points or extended the error range so it fits in the accepted values, but it was later confirmed that the accepted value was wrong after enough evidence accumulated.

[@fabienpaillusson7390]

Yes. You are right about the Milikan experiment. The charge to mass ratio of the electron was set for a while by an experiment done by Milikan despite other researchers finding different values and trying to explain away (with various stories) differences with Milikan's value considered the "real" value at the time. It's a well known problem in the philosophy of science that theories cannot actually be refuted experimentally. That is because one can always come up with a model or story within the theory that can still explain the data. This strategy is sometimes called compatibilism.

[@spracketskooch]

The problem I have with what you said is that what Graham and others are proposing is more akin to finding a long distance sailing boat at a hunter gatherer site. Also, in your example you did spend a hundred hours investigating the microchip, precisely because it was so out of place. Many archeologists regularly just throw the microchip into the garbage and say it couldn't have been Roman. That is what Graham is complaining about. I know people like to ignore it, or downplay it, but look at the Clovis first hypothesis. The entire timeline and definition of civilization was changed by the discovery of Gobekli Tepe, as well as the definition of hunter-gatherer. Despite many archeologists claiming that hunter-gatherers weren't capable of such feats. I think it's time to admit that the "extraordinary evidence" phrase is wrought with deep flaws, and is mostly just a way to dismiss evidence.

[@HiberNAT]

He really flinted the dibble

[@andrewbenner6349]

And dibbled the flint

[@stvbrsn]

Oh. This is definitely the one we’ve been waiting for! At least I have.

[@andrewvanorden2336]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence isnt hard to understand at all

[@endzhere1638]

All claims require evidence. Extraordinary or otherwise

[@bygoneera9521]

Evidence will suffice, doesn’t need to be extraordinary.

[@lapearl521]

The extraordinary parts of the sentence are extra. They are the opinionated embellishments to the point.

[@daltonreed7939]

Beautiful video metatron, i may not agree with Graham or his practices but i appreciate how neutral and open minded you are and show yourself to be. I hope to see your reactions to dibbles videos on his channel along with grahams videos on his! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and hoping for an episode two as well.

[@noborderssports5434]

39:51 Flint is misleading about this, his own father was fought tooth and nail when he said the scrapers weren't different but in different stages of life and that they would be sharpened over time. Ego!!!

[@misanthropicservitorofmars2116]

So the man selling lies to gullible people isn’t the egoist, the man whose dedicated his life to archeology is the egoist? See this is why I can’t take you cultists seriously. Youre clearly high 😂

[@misanthropicservitorofmars2116]

Youre the small town folk in the old west buying snake venom from a man with a waxed mustache.

[@itaybustan9026]

Do a 2 part, this was awesome

[@SeFreaCweth]

1% of the Sahara is pretty extensive. I'm not sure what percent Hancock is expecting. We cannot excavate 100% of anywhere. We don't just dig up the whole surface of the earth in order to see if there is something there. If Hancock would suggest a place to excavate I;m sure he could fund the dig with fan/media backing.

[@endzhere1638]

He's expecting ppl not to says we're 100% sure when 1% is searched. Pretty clear.

[@jorndebello7317]

Hancock has more money than 90% of most architectural sites. The fact that he's not digging up evidence makes it clear he's just playing on people hopes for money

[@SeFreaCweth]

@@endzhere1638 To his point, that stone-age people were doing amazing things with stone, I wonder what he was expecting? Where/What exactly should we be excavating for?

[@Docrock-z9k]

Methinks Hancock is playing word games. Excavation is just one of several techniques for investigating. Excavation provides concentrated in-depth coverage in very limited space. Other techniques provide broader coverage in terms of covering much more space. By emphasizing excavation hancock can better play the god of the gaps game with a gotcha moment about how little excavation is going to be done in large areas like the Sahara or amazon.

[@George__Parasol279]

If I'm not mistaken, 1% of the Sahara would be approximately the size of the state of Maine.

[@holderheck]

Dibble's response to this is a harsh yet calculated refutation.

[@ektran4205]

dbble is a product consensus

[@SirCoran]

- mermaids exist - no is a myth - did you explore the entirety of the see for state that?

[@jr1648]

comparing prehistoric civilizations, which we know existed, to mythical beasts of which theres no evidence is not a 1 to 1 comparison.

[@cipherstormwolf14]

@@jr1648 Except it is, both are things of fiction/misunderstanding.

[@Madonnalitta1]

*sea Education is failing the children.

[@spracketskooch]

You have the claims backwards. - there are myths about mermaids, maybe mermaids exist - mermaids don't exist, and can't have existed - did you explore the entirety of the sea to justify that absolute statement? At least be honest about who is claiming what.

[@jr1648]

@@cipherstormwolf14 prehistoric civilization is not fiction. The fertile crescent and the interconnected temples and communities from 15-12kybp are proof enough of that.

[@Perktube1]

Ppl crossing the Bering Strait lived in different spots before they eventually settled near Clovis. So all those ppl and places were before Clovis. 😊

[@kmaher1424]

Agriculture did not arise identically and simultaneously everywhere. This guy is an expert We can trace how those living in what is now Mexico bred numerous types of maize from a plant with each grain enclosed in a husk. Grains in the middle east, potatoes in south America and rice un China all evolved in different paths and schedules Graham has done NO real work. He travels, films and "theorizes".

[@jr1648]

Dibble isnt an expert in paleobotany. He actually misrepresented evidence regarding feralization rates of ancient grains multiple times in the debate. So either hes an expert who doesnt know what hes talking about, or hes an expert who is willingly giving false information.

[@kmaher1424]

@jr1648 Hancock is an expert at mo part of archaeoligy

[@jr1648]

@@kmaher1424 hancocks credentials dont make dibble any more or less credible. Especially after he lied about seed feralization, ocean shipwrecks and metalurgical signatures in the pleistocene.

[@grapetonenatches186]

But but but, he always says stuff like "the work Ive done".

[@KT-pv3kl]

@@kmaher1424 thats not a rebuttal thats a whataboutism. we know hanckock is not scientist and he plays it fairly loose with evidence and claims. the problem is the supposed scientist was caught doing the exact same and worse despite his status as an "expert"

[@mrsirwesterwester]

Would love more of this

[@j.lingle4713]

Fwiw, I don’t have a problem with Hancock or anyone else questioning the status quo, asking questions in general, or even positing “what if” scenarios. What I have a problem with is him and/or others making claims/assumptions without evidence, grifting off these wild “what-if” scenarios, and weaseling out of every request to provide concrete proof of his ASSERTIONS.

[@captaintoyota3171]

Yeah except Hancock never said he was an expert. He is a historical fiction writier. I.m.o. he will inspire more ppl into history archeology etc than any teacher. He inspires ppl in this modern time of "we have internet we know everything" that no we do not have all the answers. Go find them

[@j.lingle4713]

@@captaintoyota3171 - I didn’t say that he claimed to be an expert. He IS, nonetheless, making claims without evidence, then, when challenged to provide evidence, makes excuses - all while grifting off of the fact that he has made these claims. I don’t know if he’s inspiring anyone to be interested in ACTUAL history, but he’s certainly inspiring a lot of science fiction/fantasy.

[@Idealist_Metaphor]

@@captaintoyota3171whether or not it be outright says it he presents himself and was presented as an equal in the field.

[@tritone11]

Life is an uphill battle when your legal name is Flint Dibble.

[@infinitesimotel]

Damn Mets, your ability to stay cented, unbiased and hold to the truth is thus far unmatched. 5:57 - 6:23 in particular.

[@conjuremama444]

Part 2 please! :)

[@toptester301]

To this day people are debunking flat earth. It doesn't mean there is something to it. It means people still hold bad ideas. Hancock didn't spend one second substantiating his premises. His entire argument was Big Archeology, and not yet. You haven't dug up every bit of the entire earth, isn't the point Hancock thinks it is. Everything that has been excavated points against Hancock premise. Hancock is participating in a god of the gaps fallacy. What we do know hold precedence as prof over what could be. If that weren't the case. We could never justify knowledge of anything. If I study the Big Boy character, would I be justified in claiming he isn't affiliated with hamburgers. Maybe if you're unaware of the character I can convince you. But if you know who the Big Boy is. You know I'm lying. That is where Hancock lives. As a lair.

[@Paul_305]

Hancock relies on the von daniken postulate that a question needs to be asked but ignores the empiricism. And i am a fan of hancock.

[@littletreasure1999]

Flint presented evidence against Hancock's argument; questioned his theory; raised questions for Hancock to answer, leaving his presentation open for questioning. Hancock ignored the questions raised; didn't present evidence to support his claims; went on arguing that "archeology" is pretty much against new ideas, using the suppression of someone else's idea to imply that his would be under a similar attack (even if not against him in particular); effectively claimed that because the whole Sahara hasn't been excavated, there is a chance that we could find evidence there, which could prove his theory, although he himself presented none (This is what eventually led Flint to mention "perfect coverage," since is easily understood that Hancock implied that they'd have to search 100% of the Sahara to discard his theory, for the evidence could be in the last 1%); and finally presented pictures (half of them rather blurred) of supposed artificial structures solely because, in his opinion, "look man-made." He didn't even present evidence, as Metatron pointed out, of the tool usage to make them, yet he claimed that their appearance *must* mean those structures are not natural. How unserious of a thinker can he be? Just for one example, google Pyrite or simply "mineral cube" and you'll find pictures of a natural occurring mineral in the shape of a near-perfect cube. Of course there are strange things in nature and some of them might appear unnatural, but where is the evidence to support your claim? All he gave us are opinions. Period. His theory, from what he presented, has as much value as literally any thought. Here is another one: in the past, Earth was a land of Orcs and Elves. What, don't you agree? Have you excavated the whole fucking planet to tell me that there isn't some elvish bone buried somewhere? Come on!

[@Manbearpig4456]

Flint lied, cope.

[@MandyMoorehol]

@@Manbearpig4456stop crying

[@ExessiveGK]

People should read up on the whole Wiki scandal that creator "Bryan Lunduke" covered in a video, as it doesn't mention names we all know who is a big part of it "John Hoppes" is involved with one of the organizations in question.

[@brianmurphy4702]

One might give a 'recent' example of extraordinary theory/proof is Gobekli Tepe and even older Troy ... extraordinary claims conjectures that turned out to proved without 'extraordinary' proofs .. in the case of Tepe not a specific claim but a conjecture that civilizations of that level existed that long ago

[@sneedfeed3179]

5:25 those cuffs 😂😂😂

[@Theboxingobserver]

😂 I wanna scrub the desk!

[@infinitesimotel]

The problem I have with looking at long perionds of time is that it becomes exponentially more difficult to piece together corroborating things becasue of natural decay and chaos setting in. We have trouble correlating things from years ago let alone THOUSANDS of years ago. This is why police have 48 hours before the natural turn of evens then spread out inverse square and become more and more remote to each other.

[@Carlo1629-b3e]

The difference between Flint and Hancock is the difference between a scientific method and a "magic" analysis. Metraton should not have a doubt who to support.

[@LibertarianGalt]

Flint lied a lot and resulted to desperate character assassination to salvage whatever ego he had left. Pretty fragile personality.

[@KT-pv3kl]

dibble lost all his credit in my book the moment he stated outright falsehoods to get a few gotchas in on hanckock. that's not what a scientist does that's what a dogmatist does.

[@JoseMartinez-qg4dp]

I don't know what you mean, history of humankind has been connected to science for like 1% of its entire existence period, it seems that for some people like you science is a god or something, only a dead brain could ever think like that, true science how can you have that claim, you're just a slightly superior designed chimp what makes you think science is absolute?

[@davidsenra2495]

@@LibertarianGalt The fact you are a libertarian speaks volumes about your hatred for science. Grow up, you dolt.

[@karlarden6260]

@@LibertarianGaltyou didn’t realize what you were watching

[@nicolasdaigle9137]

Finally! The vidéo i wanted you to see Metatron

[@inktitan]

Hancock has been so thoroughly debunked since his first book that he now always opens with cases of archaeologists being unreasonable instead of opening with the evidence of his claims. He is so annoying about it. Then he wants to quibble over semantics and derail the whole things with non-sequiturs. Hancock has so much money he could fund his own expeditions instead of always waiting for university funded excavations. He absolutely could put his money where his mouth is. His argument is "Because you haven't searched and looked under literally every rock, my idea about a lost globe-spanning advanced civilization doesn't need to have evidence."

[@Manbearpig4456]

Your completely out of your depth. Spamming nonsense to feed your ego

[@FirstLast-wk3kc]

He also validates the Dedunking's attack on Flint and his job and students. That's actually uncouth.

[@Sinhz-ke4fd]

Luv ur videos hope u reach a milli subs

[@101stub]

The archaeologist that Graham Hancock said was ruined did not have anything cancelled, nor did he have his reputation destroyed, nor did he lose funding due to this event. He got laughed at during a presentation. Was that poor behaviour by those archaeologists? Sure. Is he making up nonsense to try to make out that archaeologists are all dogmatic conspiracy nuts? Absolutely. He (the archaeologist) had a long and prestigious career. Graham loves to lie, twist truth and extrapolate to the extreme without any evidence, whilst going up against massive piles of evidence that goes against his interesting assertions. Entertaining thought bubbles not backed up by science is just science fiction. He is a journalist out to make a buck. If he wants to prove his assertions, he needs to spend the money to go dig up his evidence. He has made many millions of dollars, so how about he spends some of that to go prove his assertions correct?

[@crushinnihilism]

He been refused at archeologist cites because of this... what the hell are you talking about

[@101stub]

@crushinnihilism please list out all of these places that Tom Dillehay was refused BECAUSE of his position against Clovis First. Even if he was refused because of unprofessional rivalries, nothing I stated is incorrect. He was NEVER ruined, cancelled, nor his reputation tarnished. The main reason why he was initially shot down was that the amount of evidence he had at that point was only small. As he escavated numerous sites, he gathered enough evidence to prove his hypothesis correct.

[@crushinnihilism]

@101stub watch his content. He explains it

[@101stub]

@@crushinnihilism Tom's content? The interviews, books and documentaries? I already have. Was he ruined? Was he run out of archaeology? Was he cancelled? Did any tarnishing (if any) of his reputation by those idiot archaeologists back in the 1970's because of their positions stop him from proving them wrong? No. Is he salty about that whole saga? Yes, and rightly so. But was he ruined? NO. He had had a very prestigious career, even during those 20 years where he was gathering the evidence and not taken seriously by that crowd.

[@Bioarch125]

@@crushinnihilismYup Tom Dilihay was salty but guess what he got over it. In fact he told a lot of his haters to duck off. That being said he was never cancelled like the other commenter said he is in Vanderbilt teaching and is actually well respected in the archeological community. I speak as an archeologist. Sorry Graham is misconstruing information.

[@billyskinner9382]

Its evident that a good chunk of the coast's were swallowed up about 13,000 years ago. People happen to like to live in these locations right. Not crazy to think these options right. Check out Randall Carlson also

[@misanthropicservitorofmars2116]

You’re a cultist

[@peterg9729]

Don't bother. He's also insane. You know that we have millions of archaeological sites excavated from those drowned coasts? You know that the massive sea-level rise was inches a decade? You know any advanced civilisation would have moved somewhere else?

[@gregkral4467]

Dude, this Man's energy and intensity is awesome. Rock on Flint.

[@ilttheDude]

good stuff dude!

[@azzy9358]

Problem with Hancock is that his position is basically we don't know enough to disprove it and he agrees there really isnt much evidence for his theory. There isn't enough knowledge about what's inside Earth to disprove inner Earth completely, could be a wormhole inside Earth to a different place etc. We can make all kinds of theories if we just say "we dont know enough to disprove". Flint even says he would love to find those things, but so far there is no evidence for them. If there is, they will agree with Hancock.

[@DanielMWJ]

Um, do you not know how seismic waves work?

[@MyraTalisen]

That was really interesting! I skip most Rogan episodes, will def check this one out.

[@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube]

I am an Evolutionary Biologist. I talk about this all of the time. Extraordinary claims require *sufficient* evidence.

[@billdoor3140]

I love joe rogan but when handcock is on its always 2 va 1. Joe is an expert in martial arts but will argue with an expert on archaeology trying to explain why Grahams underwater structure absolutely isn't man made with "but..but..those stones look like steps" it's the equivalent of joe trying to explain why a fake martial art Is nonsense and someone who's never trained in martial arts saying "but..but..it looks real joe" 😂