The debate wasnt exactly about the sphinx though now was it? It seemed to me like it just kept getting broader and broader and even started to cover things other than what they were initially arguing over. @sensi7476
Usually. One exception I've seen is my boss. Didn't see him without a ballcap for the first year we worked together, and I always assumed he was bald up top. One day his hat got knocked off when he was looking under something, and he has a pristine head of hair.
@@rhysm.5915😂 the fact you remember that. You’ve forgotten things from your childhood but you’ll remember seeing your bosses hair for the rest of your life 😂
We all know (according to Kong vs Godzilla) that the pyramids were made using anti gravity technology underneath the ground in a secret city. It must be true, it’s in a Godzilla King Kong movie.
@@DuckFart I dont think people who didnt seriously work in academia can empathize with what he said. I had well, we'll over 100 references in my dissertation. I could not, gun to my head, recall every single one even on the night I finished writing or the day I defended it to my committee, at the height of how much of that I had in my active memory. There are many things which 'i know' when thinking or explaining some concept or specific hypothesis/analysis to someone, but aside from maybe several papers which are my favorites or stood out for one reason or other on a given issue, I cant just rattle off every source for a given bit of knowledge. But I'm fairly, if not completely sure the literature exists. So when asked about something while teaching in the field (geology) or casually, I will often say 'its in the literature'. By the same token, if I were having a convo on a podcast, I'm not going to come with hundreds of sources printed out/in a database and pause the whole conversation to look up a specific reference that nobody is going to look at, and 99% of the audience cant read for understanding.
Graham used the phrase “his truth” when speaking about the theories he based part of his ideas on. Which is what you say when your ideas are bullshit and you have no way to back them up. From this clip, Graham evidence is “oh well some geologists confirmed it but then didn’t want to be associated with it” which is like me saying I have a 20 inch cock but none of my girlfriends will confirm it. Flint had scientific evidence.
You cant be serious… flint only has evidence based off of the extremely small amount of excavation that’s been done. They’ve excavated less than one 1% of the Sahara desert and the amazon, and less than 5% throughout all regions, but yet pushes a conclusive narrative based off of the very little surface that they’ve covered an excavated… and denies the possibility of any possible lost civilization within terrain that remains unexplored. And the complete lack of willingness to acknowledge that graham’s findings from his self funded explorations were very much likely to be man made was just painful to sit through. How the fuck could any objective minded person think that those underwater findings were created by nature?
I watched this video by Stefan Milo, where he calmly debunks grahams TV show and theories. And it started me down a path where I started realizing Graham has zero evidence for any of his claims. I hate that Joe is so up grahams ass too - he barely let flint make his points without him and Graham trying to refute every statement.
The whole point in this debate is one side has a theory and the other is trying to disprove it. It's hard to prove a negative so I doubt anyone's gonna change their minds in this discussion.
@@XViTNgThat vid is such a vibe haha, just a calm conversational exposition regarding just how little Graham really has to offer to support his wacky hypothesis
I've listened to the whole 4.5 hours. There were some harsh moments but damn it was fun to listen. I wish Joe to bring more debates like this one. No time limit, 4.5 freaking hours!
Graham was really upset with this guy, I didn’t understand until it was brought up Flint was correlating Graham with very bad stuff like “white supremacy” like wtf no wonder Graham really doesn’t like this guy
@@Mugetsu2021 yeah, i kinda liked Flint until that woke shit of white supremacy came up. Still, seems like a nice guy but you can't take the woke out of a scholar. He had some good points and did not try to answer over his expertise field. It's a bit like Aliens, i want to believe Graham, but science has not proven anything yet.
The dating problem seems to centre around how much weathering occurred within the layers of limestone through groundwater action before the sphinx was carved and how much occurred after it was carved when both groundwater and surface rain water action weathering took place. This difference alone makes accurate dating impossible. What should be also considered is that around 7000 to 5000 years ago, when the Sahara was green to when it became desert, there would likely have been higher water tables in this area and these would have been getting lower and lower. This would have enhanced and deepened the groundwater erosion. I write this as someone who worked as an engineering geologist.
@@vato4917 A scientist should be able to hold all sides and all theories in mind on a subject until they can be disproved. The advanced lost civilization can actually be considered in a different way to these two sides presented and a way which is substantiated by the observations presented by both of them. We have to take all observations into account, not ones that just fit a particular narrative.
If I were to go into public and make claims opposing a geologist, when I am not a geologist. I would turn up with convincing evidence, not long shots that were not particularly clear. I rather like Flint Dibble, but he is trying to argue an unprovable case. "I got this information by reading, man!" He is arguing with hearsay, which is not very convincing. "The one time I went to Giza, it rained!" It's just not an argument. If you went to the quarries and MEASURED the depth and length of patterns of wear - and then matched it against the wear at the Sphinx, then you have an argument.
It’s funny because this is literally the opposite of what happened the entire interview, where hancocks only point is that he is the subject of an inquisition and repression by archaeologists despite being more famous than any archaeologist. He’s a total grifter than Flint proved doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I think Flint is disliked without reason. He’s made pretty solid arguments, even the thing abou Graham being racist is not exactly untrue. The nazis used extremely similar arguments and resources as Graham to prove an Aryan origin of worldwide culture. Graham is similar to a Christian trying to defend god. He argues in a dishonest way, working by feelings and vague intuition more than actual evidence. Further, he asks the opponents to prove him wrong even though he has very little evidence supporting his hypothesis. One example that was very frustrating was his insistence that we have only actually dug up a tiny portion of the Sahara and the South American rainforests. While this is true, it is in no way evidence for his claims. We have found very little in areas we have dug, so saying that “we need to dig more” as some sort of point that his evidence lay elsewhere is disingenuous. While I agree more archaeology should be done, Grahams argument is purely that we have MISSED the magical key to his hypothesis. Even if we do more, I predict this key will remain missing.
I think Graham assumes people know some of his background (books & shows). So, if you were to investigate the work of both men, you'd get a better sense of their theories. Dibble is a classic bully & should not be trusted. In my experience, bullies put up a strong front to dissuade further investigation bc they know people are lazy & won't go deeper. My biggest red flag is the way a bully belittles their opponent: personal attacks, laughter, short & dismissive rebuttals, always wanting to move along rather than stay on an issue & get to the heart of it, moving the target, behaving in a unique way to stay top of mind (weird name, clothes, & speech). Everything a bully does is on the surface, which is this debate. I bet very few have examimed Graham's work and fewer even know who this Dibble guy is before his appearance on the JRE. Rogan gave Dibble the once-in-a-lifetime chance to debate Hancock for hours & the fact he sticks to his bully script shows there is nothing below the surface except the agenda of his establishment & the preservation of their narrative.
@@petrpumpkineater Hancock and his supporters are peak victim mentality thinkers. Just because the grift that is your life’s work is exposed in front of millions doesn’t mean you are being bullied. It’s just what happens when your ideas are wrong. Dibble doesn’t care about the man, he cares about the ideas and the evidence. And again, look how many more people here are bullying flint based on his appearance.
Actually the big issue is, when you are recovering material to be dated. And that area for millennia has been reconstructed and repaired, the date you will get is the more recent work dates. The problem is if you don't dig deeper or do a more comprehensive investigation, those are the dates you are stuck with.... And stuck by your own doing. A prime example is the Clovis first, view... Thank goodness there were those few, that dared to dig deeper and blow that paradigm out of the water.
What puts me off thinking of Flint Dibble as an honest actor in this debate is his constant smirk. “How do you know that?” “I don’t know, man!” Peak academic integrity there!
There really is no objective and verifiable data to suggest the Sphynx is 12000 years old (and that age is completely arbitrary and chosen only because it fits with another unrelated hypothesis, borderline aliens eating Taco Bell in Atlantis stuff). The erosion is not an accurate form of dating something. Its speculation at best. It DOES rain In Egypt and it has been for "thousands of years". He is also right that because of the climate and material used the weathering effects from water are increased, especially from acidic rain. Dating the wood in the pyramids is as close as we can get to an accurate measurement of their age. Saying the wood was put there by aliens thousands of years later doesnt add anything to the conversation or offer any solutions to anything, its pure fantasy and speculation. The wood they dated came from seal off areas and between rocks, the only way to put it there would be when doing construction work on the structure itself. The ancient Sphynx theory is an interesting one, but it is not substantiated by anything or any other evidence suggesting a civilization engaging in megalith construction lived there 12000 years ago. You are making extraordinary claims based on a few lines in sand. It is far easier and likely for those to have occurred within the known lifetime of the structure, which is also consistent with the structures around it. For example severe acid rain (caused by volcanic eruption) would cause decades or centuries worth of weathering on limestone. And there have been several large known eruptions in relative proximity. Flooding is another aspect, especially if preceded by drought. We also dont really know what the weather patterns were that long ago. The precipitation might have been significantly higher then than it is now. Again, just speculation, but likewise a viable solution to the suggested excessive weathering. Hancock himself as attributed far more significant geological weathering of rock to a singular event, and yet here it needs "thousands of years" to achieve a few lines in rock that is actually made of water soluble minerals. As for the claim that it is "out of proportion".. Clearly ignoring the numerous other examples of sphynxes in Egypt with similar proportions. You undermine yourself there immediately because you demonstrate textbook cherry-picking data points, which does nothing but destroy any credibility you may have. If you want to prove a theory correct start by addressing the aspects that contradict it instead of just pretending they dont exist. This is why no one worth of note actually takes this theory seriously. It could well be true, but the way they go about is basically flat earth levels of ridiculous.
Civilisations tended to exist around coast lines, especially around the Mediterranean. When the ice melted 10'000 years ago all the coast lines were submerged. So any archeology will be under the sea.
@@Jordi_Llopis_i_Torregrosa96 There would obviously be humans inland but the people around the eastern Mediterranean were more advanced in building stone structures.
@@davec5153yeah prob true eating a healthier balance of fruits and food such as fish on so on leading to a healthier stress free brain development. Which probably led them to be a lot smarter then those inland commoners 😂
I hate on Reddit when pseudo-scholars demand a source in a conversation. I've never been asked for one but whenever I read that BS it makes me think I am not posting in MLA or APA, so screw your source.
@@mattmmk Yea hilarous comparitively. Graham just making up citations a few times indrectly except for an occasional reference to Jon West or Mr. Shock. He makes many references with no evidence. You listen to this arguement and you think Dribble is a total idiot except he shows similar pictures as Robert Shock and Graham and immediate dismissed. Then he asks for independent dating... no response. Just sad and shows a huge gap in Graham's thinking. He is well spoken but that's about it.
Guys, local geology shows that 12000 years ago the sphinx area was under a raging Nile river because of the all the rain they mention, so it cant have ben built at that time.
Whether you agree with Flint Dibble or Graham Hancock or not. Both deserve respect for having this conversation. Especially Flint for coming on as a mainstream archaeologist
Dr. Rohl states (if memory serves) that the Sphinx was from either Dynasty 0 or Dynasty, 1 (the pyramids were 4th dynasty) and the erosion on the Sphinx was due to several centuries of Flood plain erosion, before the Quarry to the North west was used for the Pyramids,and the creation of that quarry acted as a water sink stopping (or vastly slowing) the future erosion process. That makes sense to me. A couple hundred of years of annual flooding, would be similar in effect to several thousands of years of gentle rainfall.
Those aren’t weathering marks out of respect on the granite facing blocks. Those are from how the broke the blocks down. They would pick holes along the block put wedges in then hit them till it splits the block. You can find many videos of old Italian stone masons doing it. But my reference comes from a 90’s documentary I watched on how they built the pyramids and they showed how they did it because they still do it the same way today
@@DemonAWregardless of what you think of the debate, Flint looked and acted like a pompous asshole. I mean, a fedora? Really? It's just way too perfect.😊
As an undergrad student who started her bachelors in geology and then transferred into anthropology for archaeology, minoring in geology (I’ll get that damned geology bachelors one day) I think it’s awesome that theories can be argued for and against using geological processes it’s awesome seeing that the two disciplines have such a cross over and impact on each other!
Im thankful for Graham's work. His work is opening up the dogma of mainstream science. My question is why are they fighting his theories? Calling him dangerous.
Bc a lot if his theories are really out of thin air ! He often knitpicks data he deems as evidence and disregards everything that shows another picture. Greatest example the Sphinx ! He talks an awful lot about water erosion and thats pretty much the only leg he stands on. But then we have the quarry that looks exactly the same in terms of erosion bc its the same type of stone. but we know for a fact that its around 4700 years old, which Graham doesn't deny. Which pretty much concludes that the Sphinx cannot be almost 3 times as old as the quarry.
@everything.for.a.reason agreed about his theories. Although arnt they all out of thin air. The fact mainstream Archologly is shunning him so much disturbing. Science is supposed to accept all theories. Not attack the individual. As far as the sphinx I haven't done much research other than this video. I'll get back to you on that.
@everything.for.a.reason 2 things we know. The kings plateau wasn't always a desert and we know we don't really know who built the sphinx. The Egyptians or did they stumble upon them as the incas did in Mezo America. I mean the decendants in the area themselves said they didn't build the foundation and mainstream suggests they did counterdicting the people in the region.
@everything.for.a.reason then there's the technological aspects too. The size of the head as well. As Graham said the masons at the time were good at proportions
@@user-yp3qg3km7s yes they were good at proportions, so they often used the correct ones... a human head on a lions body looks small. And there are a lot of paintings of sphinx's with small heads of humans, eagles and even crocodiles.
I used to enjoy graham but I’ve just watched to many things debunking his claims. I think he’s a smart and brilliant guy but even he says he’s not an archaeologist. I think to many take what he says as matter a fact.
I visited Egypt for a few days while on holiday in cypres when i was 14, and to see these things in person, the shit is impressive the pictures don't do justice to how big they actually are
Not really, atleast I don't think so. He bends to whatever position is more convenient. First he says things basically last forever, then at other locations he basically says things deteriorate to quickly. He uses whatever line is more convenient for the current segment. Also almost no one cares about seed.
@@Blackstone175 no one cares about seeds is the problem. Things like seeds, fragmets of pottery, animal bones, shells and worked stone are the core of archeology for most of human existance. If you want to say anything meaningful about human development you gotto delve into all of that. The problem things like indiana jones and the publicity of the find of king tuts intact tomb have had is that so many people believe that what archeology is; big finds spectacular revelations. The most spectacular thing right now is they found a way to decypher those charcolled manuscripts they found near pompeii in the 18th and 19th century, which is another mark of archeology, going back to earlier finds with new tech, new insights and experiences
@@Ktmfan450 at least Graham goes to the sites, and EXPLORE. Unlike the kid in oversized clothes, who only seen pictures and think he is an expert because of that.
This was quality Flint Dibble is awesome right out of south park, I have changed my position a bit now on the lost city but still open to it, we do need to hear both sides so we can make a decision on the topics at hand
I listened to this full podcast and I can't tell if Hancock is missing crucial information by not having a formal education on these things or if Dibble is so formally trained that he is too captured by the parameters of the paradigm causing him to be too close minded and dismissive. Either way, great conversation
It's the second case. The whole field is petty like this. If anything Graham is caught up in belief system when it comes to his preference for the comet impact hypothesis for the YDB. It is more complex than that. But Graham has done a lot to move the field by talking about the subject. Even the guy that created the original hypothesis for the YD climate change - Wallace Broecker ended up changing his mind a few years ago, shortly before he passed away. None of these people will cite Graham hancock. But he is coting the same papers that Graham does in his Magicians of the Gods book
@@azmainfaiak8111 Actually listen to the fucking podcast where he presents all his evidence in the debate if you want it, lol. What do you want me to do? Transcribe the fucking podcast in a comment for you? If you want to hear his evidence just listen to the pod.
@@azmainfaiak8111 well friend, many distinct indigenous nations tell us they have memory of coming from a technically advanced civilization that lost touch with nature and experienced a downfall as a result. The Lakota say this is like the 7th or 8th cycle, or something like that. With all due respect, sir or madame, it is only the western mind and its psychotic nature that is able to ignore all the evidence available that shows us that we are lost, and that in the past it seems a humbling fact that humanity has always chosen to destroy itself
Hahahahah yeahhhhh I know! I imagine most of the people who are commenting about his name haven’t actually listened to the entire video. Just speculation
@@michaeltaberner4079 I’ve got about 30mins left to watch. Definitely needs to be watched all the way through. I love Graham and have been trying to watch this with a more critical openness to what he’s saying…….BUT I’d say within the first 30mins you can tell how “main stream archeology” has no interest in any other ideas. It’s like telling someone that an orange is in the shape of a circle but they say “ohhh no no that’s too far of a stretch” I’m not sure if it’s people’s own pride or just straight ignorance because they’ve been taught by texts books and what other people have told them is true their whole life 🧐 Overall awesome interview and really appreciate everything Joe and Graham have done
@@BrandonTheBoyWonderare you joking? All he brought into the argument was quotes and speculation while Dibble brought scientific data to prove his points…you guys just want to believe bullshit so bad sometimes including Joe🤣
Flint dibble spent 20 minutes introing how he takes archeology seriously through observing patterns, and then he busts out his cute little Indy hat. Can’t take you seriously brah 😂
@@Anfa18 as does Flint, he doesn’t read hieroglyphs because they have been studied, deciphered, translated and printed by professionals in THAT field which he has read. I don’t read German but I’am able to read Das Boot. What’s hard to understand?
Im all for hearing both sides of the argument but Mr Dibble laughing at he consideration that it could be water erosion and not even entertaining the other theories is just disingenuous . He assumes he knows more than both of them but speaking with authority on something you also aren’t 100% sure about is both rude and disrespectful to anyone who doesn’t agree with him.
This exactly the point that Graham and Robert Schoch talk about. The authority and arrogance these people come off with is aggressive and dismissive to conversation.
He laughed so many times through this, I just turned it off because this is still not the guy to actually debate Graham. Just another guy gliding through life off his dads achievements that wears a ridiculous hat.
Im actually really glad Dibble came on the show. His hate and laugh are unbearable but he is asking important questions that Graham and co can now work on refuting. Listening to parts of the interview were paaainful, but this is the first step towards a real debate and the exchange of information instead of two separate sides nitpicking about the specifics of who said what.
I've just found a channel called Podcast Cringe and its comment section to a video about this podcast is 100% attacking Hancock (apart from my posts, which will probably be deleted). Even the narrator of the video sticks the boot in. Dibble behaves like a child in much of this podcast, but the comments in the Podcast Cringe channel say crap like "Hancock doesnt know what he's talking about" then also admit "I barely know this Hancock". So they havent read any of his work, but say he doesnt kniw what he's talking about? Lol.
Well, he was countering the other two guys who dearly wanted Schoch to be correct. The could have started as well by presenting a source other than - Man, this looks like water to me - repeated ten times. And asking for sources in a live conversation is a cheap move to derail your opponent.
Meaning you yourself can instantly recall the origin of every bit of knowledge you posess in regards to your field? If I asked you where you got the value of Pi from, would you be able to cite a source? "It's in the literature" is a perfectly valid answer that can be substantiated later. The only people who have a problem with that are loons like Hancock, who want to make people believe that the literature is made up.
Dibble's condescending attitude makes me want to not listen to him, which sucks. Are all archeologists egomaniacs? I wish a more amicable person had come on to debate Graham
@@josh-kf2rd I watched all 4.5 hours on Spotify and Dibble was condescending from the very beginning. It's also very telling when these professionals feel the need to attack ad hominem non stop.
Joe already he decided he wanted to side with Graham before it even began. I get it. His beliefs are much more fun and interesting, but its wild to me to see joe arguing with a professional when he probably got all of his knowledge on this stuff from Hancocks books and interviews.
