How Joe Rogan Was Fooled by Graham Hancock 

I fell down the Hancock rabbit hole a long time ago. After many interviews I found that all he does is ask open ended questions followed by accusations that are unfounded. He always plays the victim that is being targeted by a group of rogue archaeologists. I like facts and that's not what you're gonna hear if you listen to him or read his books. My opinion.

So all the damage found on these ancient sites are faked, younger dryas also? Either you people are actively trying to hide the truth or just refuse to accept the real fact and evidence left behind. Crazy that people like you actually exists even tho there's tons of available data. You study people and cultures not rocks or physics, stay in your lane you old quackademic.

Love your work, don't stop please, we need you so bad right now! Save the truth!

Yooo thanks for the links. Ive been dying to hear the argument for the water erosion on the sphinx hypothesis.

already watched and shared your "When Fake Archeology Uses Fake Science" Today video is another amazing tool for enhancing the critical thinking skills across the fellow humans. THANK you!

He’s the opposite of humble.

Yes he came off a bit arrogant because of years of shit from Flints peers, but none of this matter or debunks nothing lmfao.

He cries about how people misrepresented him, well he misrepresented archeologist, he's a scumbag

@@randylahey1822if by “years of shit from Flint’s peers” you mean years of having actual archaeologists present scientific evidence that make his claims laughably obvious as sensationalist mumbo jumbo, I’d be inclined to agree. There’s plenty of evidence against Graham, both within academia and readily available on RU-vid, but I guess all it takes is a smug, well put together old man with a posh accent to convince anyone of anything lol

​@randylahey1822 hancock isa dishonest manipulative hypocritical grifter, not some hero fighting for truth, don't defend him, his Atlantis fantasy is absurd to any person with a basic knowledge and understanding of history

You just dont understand how the mind works. We create reality... Eventually, we will create these achient aliens at this point. Just like we believe the twin towers was done by terrorists.

You can always just become Santa clause and give selflessly and anonymously whenever you can

But it is obviously true. You got punked by this channel. Time to reevaluate.

Yh I went down the rabbit hole for a while, I knew very little of archaeology, but then you start to read up on stuff and you soon realise this guy has been pedalling this nonsense for years and become wealthy from it 🤔

Aww look... it's babies first RU-vid comment ​@Dziaji

Yep, hes had evolution-deniers and flat-earthers on and didn't seem to push back at the lies a single bit, so it kinda seems like he believed them. 😬😵‍💫

Forgot to mention: the evolution denier was ... hope you're ready for this, lol ... Tucker Carlson!

@@MaryAnnNytowlyou do know that evolution is still a theory? Neither evolution or creation have been proven to be true, they are both theories. So you can’t say that a person that doesn’t agree with either is lying.

Theory doesnt mean its not proven its just a name to not take it as ultimate thruth. In order to be flexible. Dont be ignorant please

Ha, ha, ha: good one.

More specifically, he is happy to act oppressed by the 'authority' of an 'ideological establishment', and then offers his own narratives and explanations as 'revolutionary' and 'objective' antidotes, when really such a narrative of martyrdom is to promote his own grift, and that the expertise and competence of a field is a threat to his own aim of subordinating and centralizing public influence to himself, at the expense of the populace's understanding of reality and much to the exasperation of genuine experts, for the sole purpose of his ego - this is most often why he conflates authority and expertise, because he cannot for the life of him acknowledge experts are more likely more competent than him, or else that would damage the claim to legitimacy he often asserts on topics of which he himself has little to no credibility to speak to, and therefore MUST dismiss expertise that delegitimizes his grift and powergrab as authoritarian - overall he is a rabble-rouser.

That's the thing that turned me off Hancock. When he was introduced on Joe Rogan I was at first interested because his idea about that lost civilization sounded awesome and I wanted to hear more about it. But instead, Hancock barely talked about it and went on and on instead about how mainstream archaeology was being mean to him. He seemed mostly interested in talking about himself, not his ideas.

Good point, well observed.

Read to filth

Good point.

Yes he does this with everything! He talks about Gobekli tepe the same way, as if he alone discovered it to prove archeologists useless and wrong. He keeps saying “we.” “We discovered it. We uncovered the lost city. We revealed it.” Who is he talking about? Him and his wife? lol

Clowns

Reminds me of the time I discovered a giant yellow ball that keeps appearing in the sky every day. It's clearly always been there. Figures that only I would be brilliant enough to notice it. I call it "the sky bright". I believe it to be the source of our planet's heat and that it was put here by ancient dwarven architects. If only they hadn't vanished mysteriously without leaving any physical trace save for my personal gut feeling. If only we could ask them why they built the sky bright. Alas we haven't the luck. No fear though, for I am here and you are all in luck for I shall be the conduit through which the world's truths shall be revealed. Drink upon the secrets of mother earth, for my cup runeth over.

@@CoperliteConsumer You're a genius!

Discovered by Graham Hancock, and located on the beautiful East Coast Road in the state of Tamil Nadu, Mahabalipuram is one of the most stunning destinations to go to during the winter season from October to March. Summers are extremely harsh, and it becomes extremely difficult to go around as well. - UNESCO 😂

I appreciate hearing that!

I’m not sure if that’s the best example to make that point.

@@michael_rthat’s the controversial claim about naledi burying their dead?

@@maau5trap273 yes

And then after the interview Dr Berger blasted Dr Greene into space.

While it’s an absolutely awe-inspiring find, Berger has been criticised a lot in recent years by the paleontological community for overselling some of his claims. If you have time I’d highly recommend watching any of the following videos on RU-vid: - Flint Dibble’s “Homo Naledi Burial? A Public Peer Review of the Evidence” - Flint Dibble’s “The Homo naledi Controversy! With Jamie Hodgkins and George Leader” - Gutsick Gibbon’s “New Update on the Homo naledi Situation” - Gutsick Gibbon’s “A Deep Dive into the Scathing Homo naledi Peer Reviews” (this is my favourite)

Implicitly therefore his answer is, as long as you haven't excavated every square centimetre of the planet, there's still room for his claims. In other words, you can't prove the existence of Narnia wrong as long you haven't checked each and every cupboard in the world.

A piece of evidence that humans didn't build stuff 250kya. A piece of evidence that aliens have never been here inspite of 100's of millions years of potential times.

He indicated that if archaeological stepping stones between the Upper Palaeolithic and Gobleki Tepe could be found, it would make his fantasy of an earlier advanced civilization unnecessary. The Natufians, anyone?

@@gregorynixon2945 there is no reason to believe dozens of advanced civilizations could not have existed, whether aliens or not. aliens have had at least 50 million years to work with, and modern humans as much as 500k years. No one has a clue

@@gregorynixon2945I think a lot of Graham’s point and stance is the very real discount of American history and civilization.

“Every is wrong and I’m right, I don’t have evidence but my gut tells me other wise so until you don’t dig up every single piece of sand, search every single area in the ocean and excavate the whole amazons you can’t prove me otherwise”

Oh dude, no one went there and dug into it... so there is still proof of both sides to be shown... but of course, stone tools made the pyramids! 🤣😂🤣

Good comment. Just adding that you're over-confident in debate as a format. If you google "why you don't debate creationists" you'll get a lot of scientists answering questions about why they don't do debates like this. They have good reasons, & it might change your mind on the value of "show debates", or at least give you some reasons as to why many experts avoid those kinds of public confrontations.

Does archaology bend over backwards?

My road to astronomy was much the same. I read that the Andromeda Galaxy was a million light-years away and wondered "how in creation could they say that with such authority and confidence?" So I took a college astronomy course. I learned about Henrietta Leavitt and Edwin Hubble. I saw the photographic plates they took and measured them myself. I used Henrietta Leavitt's period-luminosity relationship for Cepheid variable stars to determine the real luminosity of of Andromeda Galaxy stars on those plates and did the math to yield the distance myself on stars Hubble did not pick. My result? One million light years. But after Leavitt and Hubble in the 1930s and 1940s came the discovery that there are several kinds of Cepheid variable stars and that the brightness of the progenitor star, Polaris, is not the same as the other types. Then I found that Hubble had identified Cepheid variable stars all right, but they were one of the brighter variety. Knowing the real star was brighter than supposed in Leavitt's day meant that the calculations would have to be done over, resulting in the modern consensus that the Andromeda Galaxy is more on the order of 2.3 million light years away. I applied the new period luminosity relationship, changed the math I was using, and with a photographic plate Edwin Hubble himself took 90 years ago, personally verified the distance for myself. I no longer say "How in creation could these eggheads say this preposterous number?" Because now it's my number too. Lesson learned. It changed my life for the better. Evidence is king. It doesn't care what you think about it or whether you believe it. The truth is NOT within. It is without, waiting patiently to be discovered and that's positively thrilling.

Yes! Exactly what happened to me in regards of the Netflix show. The first 15 minutes threw me off so hard that it made me Google this snake oil seller. I never heard about him nor I wasn’t interested in archeology so after that it made me research and now I’m in love with ancient and pre history. I hate how he pretty much sets his conclusion since the beginning of each episode. Instead of building the episode slowly up to the conclusion he just tries to set an idea in your mind so that everything that he explains makes you go like “ ohhh just like what he said in the beginning, it’s so obvious it’s like that”. Of course conspiracy theorist absolutely love this type of approach.

Two generations of academia were bozo dunce cap WRONG about Clovis first and gobekli. Hancock is of your own stupid making

Have you read hotel of mysteries? It's fantastic

I am not an archaeologist, but I do have a Ph.D. in Geography, so it is a similar path. I also lapped up Hancock's work in the 1990s and it did inspire me to dig further. As I dug, I realised it was mostly nonsense. He is certainly part of why I became so interested in archaeology/anthropology/geography. I take the claim he is 'dangerous' with a pinch of salt. There has been an explosion in archaeological content on RU-vid in recent years, and Hancock is definitely a contributing factor in that. I highly doubt he is a net positive, but I also think that people might overstate just how terrible he is. Having said that, I fully support the Mianos and Dibbles of the world challenging his nonsense! That should absolutely be the objective.

@@wodenravens it's nice he's introducing interest but it's wrong in it's a false story with no physical proof, and gets people that have no knowledge believing a false story and he's making profit off this it's so wrong

@@drummerdad80 I didn't say he was correct in any way. I agree that what he is doing is 'wrong' in various ways. I just think that people overstate and even use 'scare stories' about his negative impact.

A generation older than you, it was the innkeeper von daniken and 'chariots of the gods' that hooked me. I remember working my way thru some real study of Stonehenge from a book in the library. It was eye opening, but the last chapter blew me away. The author gutted vd like a fish (the ufo parking lot picture in chariots was in reality like a a square yard, not parking lot sized for example). Pseudo science can start a lifelong journey into science, you are right. I wonder though about it combining with anti-science to do more harm than good. A whole lot of 'smifsonian stole the jiant skelliton to hide da troof' might be laughable, but Q type conspiracy is almost a religion to a large chunk of the population.

Aka an appeal to ignorance while failing to abide by Hitchen's Razor. Hence it is not for academia to prove Hancock wrong as science does not prove a negative. It is of course for Hancock to demonstrate what he asserts in a manner where others can seek to validate that. His simply making claims of *ASSUMED* validity to decry others must then prove him wrong = is backwards....... - as the onus has always been upon him.

Exactly. It's like he comes up with this wild idea that while having some mushrooms and his girl giving him a jerk, a magical unicorn appeared. So your only evidence is his claims, and the only way to test it is to give the guy jerkoffs until it happens again.

The problem is no one has any evidence for any of thier points on either side. The industry wants someone to bring proof but fails to bring any proof he is wrong. Then when theu do present proof if you pause the videos at the pics and stuff the information they show doesn't even pertain to what the conversation is. Just like if you ask people to take ice cores as a job all say there is evidence of metallurgy in the ice age but any archeologist you ask will swear the opposite. Just like all the proof they show doesn't even date back to the time people think there was a civilization. It goes back like 2-3 thousand years not 10 thousand. We are stuck where either person doesn't wanna be wrong so they both tell tall tales and everyone is confused. In the end all it breeds is distrust for everyone and destroys everyones reputation and the respect anyone gives them.

Dr Miano said he isn't out to attack Hancock, but he should because Hancock is so incredibly vicious and harmful. The harm he and his movement have done is incalculable.

@@cattymajiv As the first section of this video addresses, and as sad as it is, I think that having a good, welcoming attitude while disproving pseudoscience is almost if not more important than actually being right on the fact. It seems to me that most of the anti-academia folks like Hancock are popular precisely because they play to a wide sentiment among laypeople that academia is just a snobby ivory tower that not only looks down on others, but refuses criticism as well.

Hancock says THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY

Next, check out simulation theory

@@mustardgenesmost sane Rogan viewer

Same here and I think that there’s a lot we don’t know about ancient civilisations but do I think that there’s a lost advanced global civilisation, probably not. But there’s definitely more than what archeologists says it’s clear, unchartedx is a very good channel for this

@@j.nilsson5362 lmao you've been fooled by grifters into thinking "mainstream archaeology" is performing a big coverup. That's embarrassing.

As someone with a passing interest in archaeology and anthropology, I remember watching one of his clips from JRE years ago and agreeing with his messaging. I was so dissappointed when I heard the rest of what he had to say.

Slow clap.

Thank you for your service!

@@KevinJHutchison - But an enthusiastic clap!

and...?

I don't believe what Hanncock says is true, we can't accept something without evidence. On the other hand, I'm aware that there is a lot more to uncover. In light of this, is there a reason to hate people for making a suggestion ? We should just be nice and ask them to prove it. We believed the earth is flat for tousands of years, some people still do and no one has a problem, why is there such a big problem if Hancock suggested a theory of lost civilization, even if it doesn't exist ?? I don't understand why is it so imbeded in human nature to try and be offensive to each other. People are strange, just try to do your job and leave others alone. If you don't like Hancock's theories you don't have to watch him and that's it. If all people on earth believed his false theories that's not the reason to attack him, that's people's fault. He wrote a few books are we supposed to hate anyone who writes something we don't like ?? When discussing these "theories" it's important to remember, what people believe is their business not yours. People believe all kinds of stuff and always will, we can't stop that, but we can leave them alone and we can all live in peace together. Using "non existent Ancient civilization" for his ticket to fame, and using "diminishing someones work", for drawing viewers to your channel. What's worse on moral ground ?? I must say it once more, people are strange.

1 - for supposedly being "suppressed" = LAHT seems to have little difficulty getting their narratives out to monetize upon that...... In that they are no different than say the anti-vaccine industry etc. who play the same "persecution" game. 2 - why do fast-food meals targeted to children have cheap toys in them?? Answer: it is a marketing gimmick to make the product appealing to the target audience - so it is here. Moral: LAHT like most businesses is not engaged in the pursuit of knowledge as academia is. They rather are marketing = _"disbelief."_ Thus their whining about being persecuted and other conspiracy allusions = your happy meal toy........ Part of their customer base is simply uneducated in the subject-matter and are drawn to their hyperbole and fantastical claims. Part however represents people who hate/fear all things "government/mainstream." Accordingly appealing to that paranoiac worldview as Hancock et al routinely do is merely a marketing schtick to make their product line more appealing to a _"niche market."_ Enjoy your day.

Exactly he's a writer that's why he makes fiction stories and he's a narcissist too

​@@hi-et1oqbasically gen z's L ron Hubbard lol. Let's hope he doesn't start a cult

Damn, it is really refreshing to hear that. It's good to know that the work of people like Milo and Dr. Miano does have some power to change minds. I think it's great to have an open mind, challenge narratives, ask questions, and all that kind of stuff, but at the end of the day, we've got to adhere to the evidence and use that to inform our ideas and confirm (or refute) hypothesis. And of course, when new evidence comes along, we update!

I think it is surprising that Joe Rogan has been so fully taken in by GH approach to the past. I have engaged with Archaeology and Archaelogists for the last 35 years or so - they are like other people, interesting, gossips, egoists, caring, kind etc - they are people. I think that GH has been successful with his very clear narrative for the following reasons: 1. Its fun to think there are secrets and we like to hear and be on the “inside track” especially if simple narratives - to try and understand the actual evidence and actual FACTS which can be supported in complex sites with multiple periods of occupation is hard. 2. His narrative is counter cultural and engaging - its exciting to hear a story about lost ancient civilisations rather than the gradual climb climb slip of humanity 3. He is en engaging speaker, has learnt story tropes and uses them effectively - with a very simple to understand thesis with a few unusual words thrown in 4. He frames himself against the establishment and as we move to positions of distrust with establishment organisations (as we are) this is compelling to people who don’t reflect much 5. The stoner arguments - psychedelics, better people from past, aliens, gateways, consciousness, initiation - all are classic “stoner” fodder and purpose made for internet propagation I thought this was an interesting video and made some very good points. I think there are many many new things to discover and I suspect that we have certainly not found all of the answers to ancient peoples. I have seen the saw marks, cuts in hard stone etc - talked about and this interests me (as its physical evidence) and is hard to easily explain. does it point to aliens or ancient engineers with diamond saws and drills - probably not. It does need to be explained at some point as much does. The fact some,thing needs to be explained does not denote that we should then adopt a large counter factual, evidence lacking thesis from a Journalist.

@@toadyuk8391 people who were in charge of investigating UFOs, which US congress recently had a special investigation about, have said that some of the things the stories they heard were credible, and that what they saw can't be explained by a potential secret jet. essentially, they believe that some of these UFOs were not built by humans. you have to dig deep to hear these people speak out, and most dont because they are sworn to secrecy. we know a lot less than we think we know about reality. i think its time to open our minds to the ideas that not all of these crazy stories are fully fictional.

Exactly. Academic researchers "speculate" all the time. The difference of course is that when they do it is done based upon = known facts....... Conversely proponents of pseudoscience - which coincidentally Sagan spent the last decades of his life combatting - also routinely speculate. In their case however what is posited as supposedly plausible represents assumptions based upon = unknowns. Moral: the former can give you plausible deductions supported by evidence - evidence others can review and agree upon. The latter comes to represent = _"whimsy"._ Pseudoscience at its' core is stereotypical "arguing from ignorance" supported by assumptions/inferences/innuendo and in some cases cherry-picked facts usually taken out of context and thus incorrectly applied. It represents a subjective paradigm of assumptions so as to support more assumptions - at which point Occam's kicks in. LAHT = _"sophistry."_

That's what he needs. His whole theory is based on holes in the standard historical narrative of the 1980s plus some conspiracy theories, of course he doesn't want to pay attention to what we have discovered in the 3-4 decades following that.

And what's amazing to me is that all of the facts and information he uses to prove his points is from these same mainstream archeologists 😂 Never, *EVER* trust a journalists interpretation of science. Graham is a perfect example of why.

@@cajunguy6502 Graham is a researcher and a writer, not a Journalists.

@@LadyLeda2 Journalists *ARE* writers and researchers. At least they're supposed to be in theory. Graham was a newspaper writer and editor for almost 20 years before publishing his first book. That's about as journalistic as you can get

Clown

aahh that's funny.

Yeaaaaa ok

Yeah its a nice blind but they're making sandcastles and are nowhere near digging the truth up. Its a lot deeper . Maybe research a bit like Breashers had time to do to get some gems instead of fools gold.

Enough with this slander! His *son* is a netflix executive, not his *friend*!!!

Clown

@@waltherstolzing9719 Soooo... nepotism?🤔

@@myhnea15 No! It's his *son*, not his *nephew*. 'Nepos' is a *nephew* in Latin. When will this wild persecution end!

@@waltherstolzing9719 rofl🤣🤣

Yep, three decades. If his ideas were at all correct, there should be museums filled with fossils and artifacts that have been recovered from this lost culture.

I bought and read the book 30 years ago, that was enough for me to realise that he was full of crap

@@jaybe2908 HAHAHA

@@jaybe2908 I did the same in the late '90s. Having been through an ancient aliens phase with books like The 12th Planet, and Chariots of the Gods, and then having learned some critical thinking skills and scientific method, I viewed his book as fantasy with a side of poisoning the well against the supposed academic establishment. Once I got on line and realized how many are led astray by this old (I'm his age) fellow, I became fascinated at him as a phenomenon. Now I find his misrepresenting of the work that millions of good people (and a few assh+les) are engaged in to be tiresome at best, harmful at worst.

It’s mad how many people just bent over and lapped what ever dribbled out of flint. You should probably fact check before you make a muppet out of yourself. Dribble lied about the ice core data failing to mention lead spikes going back tens of thousands of years. He lied about the glyph in the pyramid. He failed to mention that current flows and constant water changes would have made in next to impossible for any ships to preserve during the ice age. They say humans have used boats for 100,000 years but the oldest boat found is 9000 years old yet academics tell us they go back 100,000 years have a wee look into why. Ohh and don’t forget to look up the amount of crops that went extinct during the ice age and the evidence we have for plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be redomesticated. Or you could just bent over for you next dribble

it was pretty funny when he was kicked out of Egypt and banned.

One of the most embarrassing moments of Hancock on Joe Rogan's podcast was an episode where he came on and said I think there is an advanced lost civilization in the Amazon! Cut to a few years later he is back, and Joe and Graham are very smug as they bring up an article about a research group finding a lost civilization in the amazon. He puffs up his chest and acts all proud, says mainstream archeologists didnt listen to me and i was right! Then I go and click on the article and it says a group of researchers who have been Living in the Amazon for the last 5 years have found evidence of a never before discovered civilization. Yes you guessed it, the first time graham was on being a blowhard about how he thinks there is a civilization but nobody believes him the grad students and the archaeologists from that college were being bit by mosquitoes and walking through swamps actually doing the work. Yes graham while you write abojt a tall group of 7 foot tall blondes you call the Nordics teaching the dumb brown people, actual study was being done.

​@@margaretwebster2516 Egypt has more closed minded old thinking losers that you might recognize if you looked into them

But, but, but ... taking psychedelics makes everybody better people and solves all problems! I think enough people have smoked week, dropped acid, taken mushrooms, tripped on peyote, drunk ayahuasca and ingested ketamine to show us they don't actually have the great miraculous affects some have advocated. You don't get more out of drugs than you bring into it.

Thanks

You took the words right out of my mouth!

All that MMA competition, you just know Joe got clocked just one too many times. It's kind of sad, really.

Pretty sure his brain fell out YEARS ago. He's just to the point where he lets anyone shovel whatever they want in there lol.

Harold T Wilkins was the Graham Hancock of his day, as well.

I read Ignatius Donnely and found him very convincing.... I was in elementary school at the time

​@@BSIIIthey follow the footsteps of profit, it's sickening

Yes. Yet Donnelly serves as an example of LAHT because he never attended what we today recognize as "higher education". He went to High School as many did not at the time - but he pursued = _"literature."_ Moral: there is nothing wrong with literature of course - this coming from a self-admitted _"bibliophile"_ who has read many-many books in my life. Simply that at that time anyone could write a book and if published it would simply be sold _"prima facie."_ Hence back then publishers did not discern between _"fiction & nonfiction."_ They simply printed books to be sold to the public and = _"Caveat Emptor - or let the buyer beware"_ as far as believing it or not or if what it contained was accurate or not. As such a person with a rudimentary education at a period in history when many-many fantastical claims were being published in news papers and books were printed with no regard as to content accuracy would be "amenable" to claims of Atlantis etc. given the general culture at the time. By the late 19th Century fantastical claims and patent nostrums were all the rage and what we today recognize as _"science fiction"_ was on the rise. Just a bit of historical perspective. Enjoy your day folks.

Yup, a century ago one of the first big archeologists in my country was literally a superstar, the press was coming to his university classes...

Is he? Or is it his audience that is easily fooled? See Joe started his whole thing with bozos but he also had a fair amount of time spent talking to actual scientists now what is more interesting to the audience some nerd rehashing things from college text books or a dude with a crazy story. Money money money

🎯 That about sums it up. Think about Google etc. and how people frequently become misled by supposed "self-research" using such. Those are *SEARCH* engines = not necessarily an *ANSWER* engines....... Hence they will feed you back information based upon pattern searches that others also searched for. That however may not always be - and frequently is not - the correct answers in areas of _"esoterica."_ This is why so many get into trouble seeking out what is often misinformation and incorrectly ascribing validity to what they find. Moral: the internet can be "an adjunct" to education = but it does not educate nor replace the same. You still require a background conducive to searching out and verifying what you find = hence education. Dunning-Kruger is the bane of humanity today in our world of the internet and social media. 🤷

I agree. This was so well done.

Unfortunately the people that still believe him even after his complete destruction at the hands of Flint will likely never change their minds

Really good video indeed. I love daydreaming about GH ideas. And i know too well we don't have real proof and probably never will. But pointing the fact of not having proof does not validate the official story either. The truth is surely not GH theory, and probably not archeologists stories either

😂 and to which period of time would you for example date the caves or better chambers of barabar in india ??? ,,,, and the making??? ... and you still agree on the building time of the cheops in 25 years???

@@hannesseebacher He puts enough factual information in-between the bullshit to fool the uneducated.. THAT SUMS HIM UP !!! he is a GRIFTER . IThe ONLY thing that i question is , does he believe his own BS or is it a grift . . . .?

yes , the last line you wrote sums him up !

Right, I went down a rabbit hole and bought into what he was saying for a time. He throws just enough kernels of truth into what he's saying for it to seem credible if you don't scratch the surface. But the more you listen to him, the more you see the obvious misinformation, until it's impossible to see anything else. I came to realise that I believed what he was selling because I *wanted* it to be true, not because he was producing compelling evidence.

It's about the money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money money let's make a fiction story😂😂😂😂😂

Exactly, the UFO entertainment complex is a multi billion dollar per year market... it existed before Daniken, pyramidiots have been around for a long time, but he gave it a big push... from time to time though they have to invent new products to sell, as they tend to recirculate the same entertainment products for decades... Some of the popular products now are ancient lost ancient high technology and precision... UFO's renamed as UAP's are a national security threat... megalopic ruins actually being tens of thousands of years older... GH's exciting new product that he introduced to the entertainment market is to actually refute the UFO fan bois ancient astronauts schtik, and refer to actual real historical and archaeological research, to make his ancient civilization ideas appear more valid... Clever businessmen, one does have to give them credit for that...

I would say convincing gullible people not to trust legitimate sources is harmful to the field

It's not harmless.

There's a certain likelyhood that von Däniken and Hancock DO beleive the nonsense they write about, at least to a degree. Faking it completely for 30 years of "Career" is pretty hard and exhausting.

Well he's obviously doing something right. He's not living in a shed.

​@@cjod33 That's proof there's plenty of bigger fools than JR 🤷

​@cjod33 well yeah, he's a fantastic UFC commentator and is genuinely a pretty good host (he is why Fear Factor tool off). Doesn't necessarily mean he's a great stand-up comedian. I personally think he's average and it isn't nearly his best talent compares to The Fight game and just generally being a fun host/guy to bounce ideas off of.

That seems to me like a baseless claim with no evidence to support it. Who do you think you are, Graham Hancock?

Hey, Joe Rogan is a great comic but a bad archeologist. Let's not get too deep in the mud, you can't fault someone for having an open mind, there just needs to be evidence.

speakpipe.com/DavidMiano

These guys bring a ridiculous amount of evidence to the table are laughed at shoot off dig sites a banned from potential archeological sites and for me that's enough evidence of a cover up right there and if that's not enough for you tell me truthfully that your public education didn't push the clovis first hypothesis about 40 years after it was disproven.

In his Orion book he has a very sound analysis of the Westcar papyrus. Which only shows more clearly the method of those type of people - mixing nonsense with pinches of reason here and there.

A fun drinking game would be to take a drink every time they use the word "mainstream." You would be falling down drunk in 15-30 minutes...

Prove who wrong? The Mainstream Academics or the "Alternative Theories and Facts Perspective" Reasonable request either way. The "Mainstream Academics" are actually inaccurate on a number of points. Beth Bartlett Sociologist/Behavioralist and Historian

@@bethbartlett5692 Inaccurate is a purposefully chosen word, right? In as much as it suggests they're wrong to people wanting to believe that, but gives you plausable deniability when confronted because inacurate does not mean wrong. Good to see the sociologist claim has some merit.

Yes, you did miss something.

Add a new profile picture that's not a letter and delete the numbers on your username. Then suspicions will be silenced. Also echo chamber algorithms is whats profitable not just for ad revenue but for improving the code that is competing with Tiktoks short attention span/personal trends code.

@@memorydrain7806 lol this was weeks ago... Have a good one 🤙🏻

Nah. Don't give his channel any credit. It should be ignored, shunned, then eventually shut down.

​@lococomrade3488 I give credit rogan had Dibble, but, they teamed him, and didn't let him show all his proof, profit over truth, and gram brings the bucks off the fools

Joe Rogan couldn't adequately host a tapeworm.

@@garros I mean he fed people bull balls... x factor

​​@@lococomrade3488 idiot. How do you expect to change anything? Joe isnt a host, he is a platform. Of course a debate that would educate millions of people would be worth it.

Hancock certainly is directly inspired by Von Daniken.

@@Evan102030 Quite possible.

Charles Berlitz and the Bermuda Triangle was my entry drug hehehe.

My parents had this older tome from Readers' Digest that was like 800 pages of spooky "true" stories + crime mysteries. I have no idea why I was allowed to read that; but I was a precocious reader so I'd read anything & read everything in the house. It gave me nightmares & was full of BS. Spring-heeled Jack terrorized my dreams for years.

@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 I did read some Reader's Digest stories when I was a kid. My uncle did leave them. Very few of them were interesting and none of them spooky.

One side is saying that.

You should probably listen to what science really says and not what Hancock tells you it says.

if you have little ressources or knwoledge of physics but LOTS and LOTS of people it's easy to just throw work at a problem and make it go away SLOWLY ... with painstakingly tedious minute work and brute force exhausting effort at the same time. Still better for the populace than dying of the next plague or in the next war... so it's not surprising they were willing to help out...

I agree with you to a certain degree on your opinion about time. If you have massive amounts of time and workforce you could accomplish a lot by grueling work. BUT please explain to me how they could create advanced machining such as the drill core bits such as core number 7 or the high precision granite vases. Given the only tools available as we know where copper tools!

@@noahallvall8562 I am by no means an expert; But in 1983 Leonard Gorelick and John Gwinnett conducted experiments and successfully recreated the famous "tube drill" or "core drill" marks using copper tube saws. There's a RU-vidr called World of Antiquity that delves into these things: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n_NguZUDku4.html

​@@noahallvall8562 this has been explained numerous times not only on this channel, but many other archeologist channels. It's not impossible at all with copper and stone tools to do these things. Just because we don't have the expertise now, doesn't mean it didn't exist with stone workers being multigenerational practices lasting entire lifetimes. Does it actually make more sense that they had power tools and didn't document them even once? We have stone workers buried with their tools, and not one DeWalt was found amongst them. Ask questions, sure. But actually ask a question, don't just speculate on possible things. An example: Did the ancient Egyptians of the old kingdom have electricity? Now we have question, so let's test it for an answer. We find no mention of such technology, nor physical evidence for it. Do we find perhaps examples of principles for using power of any kind outside physical labor and physics? You can ask any question, ask a whole lot. But be prepared to face the facts as they come. Not as you want them, but as they are. So when you ask "Did they use highly advanced tools?" And the answer is, "we have no evidence for that, but it's not impossible they had better tools we just haven't seen yet. It is however, possible with what we have seen so far, so it might not be likely they even needed better tools. As always though, we keep looking with each new mural in a tomb being studied." Instead of saying "but this clearly looks too good for that! Only a perfect machine could do this!" Consider that maybe they were just really good at their job, and that this exceptional and unique artifact was in fact, the culmination of life long multigenerational craftsmen doing their job and making a once in a lifetime masterpiece. The huge lack of uniformity in vases is a dead giveaway that they lacked the repeatability of sophisticated machines.

I remember his 2012 End of the World Mayan Calendar stuff as well.... 😂

Right 😂

Exactly...

This is why David and Flint etc are important to be available and public with better evidence and messaging than the graham types for normal people rather than ivory tower looking down on and speaking poorly of people like some here. Doing that doesn't reach people. In fact it is a disservice against the evidence. Ego both ways.

also important to point out that when shown indisputable evidence, joe did change his view. he needs to have flint on by himself

very sad isn't it that absolute buIIshi is so damn lucrative

Hancock even says they have more influence over popular culture, while he has his own fucking Netflix series

@@erikhendrickson59 "friends in the media"? Like Joe Rogan?

As someone who doesn't really take a side either way on this I will say right now, these comments sound like just straight jealousy. I have no idea how much Hancock makes and I would say his stuff may be a little out there but there's other's in this space that make hardly anything and still just show their research. Randall Carlson gave up a very successful career in construction and engineering just to research his theories. It seems to me the institutional people are the ones who have the most to lose if we find things are different than we once thought. At least they act like they have the most to lose. I get a lot of "Hancock is not in our little club" energy from some of these people. I didn't watch this video and probably won't because like I said I take Hancock's work with a grain of salt but I think we should at least do more research and just say we are not sure yet what if anything happened at the end of the Ice Age. That's the real truth.

@@a1b1c184 yah you got me. im super jealous of that old kook

never going to happen, JRE doesnt invite actually well educated people unless they're famous, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

@@Cara.314 Well, he did break that trend and have Flint Dribble on which is part of what is behind this video now.

@@JH-pt6ih i would love to eat my words. but really doubt it.

I don't think Dr. Miano can take enough quantities of mind altering drugs to get on JRE. . .

That’s a scientific principle I’ve never heard of. But it certainly makes it easier. Less thinking required.

He does actually talk about one topic that seems very strictly forbidden for academia to speak about. That topic is the criticism of Graham Hancock and his theories. He speaks extensively about this forbidden topic, in fact it's one of his most common talking points. Ironically, it's not academia that's forbidding this topic from discussion, it's Hancock himself.

It’s his job to rely on certain parts of fringe, ethnocentric books that question why scientists don’t accept the innocent possibility that vibrating giants were in control of spacefaring aliens that were obliterated by vindictive comets and vengefuls tsunamis.

"The most *dangerous* show on Netflix"

You cant say that you cant learn anything

How else he is going to explain how only is dumbass noticed all this 😂

Kent Hovind has got all his peaches on blue ray as well. Oops, was I meant to say "preaches"? Dogs breed dogs and no peach trees. We've never observed otherwise. Period. And ancient lost civilisations breed pyramids. We've never observed an Egypt breeding pyramids. Period.

Nah, He side-eyed Graham hard a couple times like 'wtf bro? you said there was evidence before'

​@@taylorroos4414yeah i think rogans catching on. Like a lot of people, myself included, who started buying into hancocks knowledge, the more you look into things the more you realize Hancock is spewing excrement. The more rogan has hancock on the more likely the whole con will fall apart. I hope anyway. Rogan talks to people for a living, he will figure it out if he has more people debating hancock or just people who disagree.

Joe Rogan doesn't strike me as the kind of person who reflects much on what his guests say.

Anyone who listens to joe rogan and takes anything he says is seriously mentally deficient. He is a spineless, worm of a person, who forms his rhetoric to appeal to whomever he is speaking to at the time.

I don't think Hancock will appear again on Rogan's show.

Yeah... Alex Jones has said some wild $h!t too!

paulis--Maybe he's silent on the monolith because he charged his mind the same way David keeps saying people should?

He also believed that the earth's moon is an artificial construct

@@chiznowtch The moon is artificial is a David Icke thing, isn't it?

He doesn't want to talk about the mars mystery for the same reason he no longer brings up hapgoods earth crust displacement idea and Antarctica being host to atlanteans- it's so obviously absurd that even he would be embarrassed by it and he'd prefer we forget he ever mentioned it

Because all the others are arrogant. Unlike me, the only one with an open mind and psychedelic visions from a parallel universe.

It's this same approach that has made people like Donald Trump so popular amongst his voters. He's thoroughly convinced his people that he and he alone, is the one lone protagonist and everyone is out to get him specifically as he holds all the keys, all the evidence. He's a master of everything and no one else can be right. Other people have used this same grift to moderate success such as Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and a whole host of other similar media personalities. Their main taglines boil down to "don't listen to the eggheads, I'm right, they're all wrong, here's some evidence from those eggheads that I have decided means the exact opposite of what they stated, but my interpretation is actually rational, they just don't understand." When people are trying to sell you on an opinion with no basis, it's always "they don't want you to know..." "they" "THEY" "they'll never tell you the truth, only me."

Just like "trust the science" behind Covid right? You still telling yourself there was science behind masks and lockdowns? The establishment got that way wrong, and you got ancient civilization way wrong as well. You are blind to your own worthless degrees and ignorant how money drives narrative.

@@caodesignworks2407 I love asking conspiracy theorists & my Mom who they think "THEY" are. So awkward lol.

You mean like the covid experts?

The mainstream don't want you to know where your phone is, you see...

Aliens took it! (obviously)

It’s up your bum

That's because you've been trained to not think with actual scientific curiosity. Just the curiosity others told you you should have.

​@@JROD082384My curiosity will skyrocket as soon as evidence of lost tech is found. Until then, I can't entertain every single possibility of what might've happened. Almost anything could've happened. With no evidence, this is all just intellectual onanism.

Graham Hancock has never said Archaeologists aren't Scientists, nor has he ever claimed to be an Archaeologist. He merely offers valid points of subjects that call for a Broader Perspective, Alternative Possibilities to the ("Mainstream Academic" 19th Century Theory based Paradigm and Linear Timeline.) His points have validity and are sound, they point out the need to gain a greater value of multiple Science venues to participate, allowing a greater value of accuracy to the History. It is not intended to offend anyone, it is a reasonable point of perspective, there are a vast number of observable elements that Mainstream ignores. Read his material, you might be surprised at the real evidence. Beth Bartlett Sociologist/Behavioralist and Historian

Thank you for defending Graham's message, I was about to type a similar comment but you have put it so clearly and honestly I don't need to.

@@bethbartlett5692don’t bother with disingenuous ‘intellectuals,’ they don’t understand how the process of science works hahahaha. Asking questions is imperative to the field, but let’s keep pretending we have all the answers. None of these cowards will debate him though, this creator rides the fame of Hancock every time he releases new media. It’s the typical clout hungry strategy with no courage to debate.

"For more than 3,000 years, mercury and its derivatives have been used as anti-parasitic drugs, anti-syphilis, antipruritic, antiseptics, anti-inflammatory drugs, diuretics, dental amalgams, and substitutes." Also, mercury is used in glass thermometers, silver dental fillings, and button batteries, and mercury salts are used in skin creams and ointments. This comparison is kind of ridiculous anyway. With chemistry, an observable and verifiable reaction takes place, there is no narrative other than describing a process and outcome that can be easily repeated. History on the other hand is 99% narrative and can rarely be proven. You would have been better choosing something like evolution, which is extremely narrative driven.

@@bethbartlett5692 I've read his stuff, years ago, long before Joe Rogan's podcasts. I found it interesting but I dismissed it because he offered no real evidence. Being open minded doesn't mean I have to accept all new ideas. It means being willing to listen, to evaluate and from that come to a conclusion to the veracity of those new ideas. That's my experience with Hancock. Interesting ideas but until there's real evidence to support them, that's all they are...ideas. An idea is as good or bad as the evidence behind it.

What hole? There is a lot of archaeology being done in Africa.

@@WorldofAntiquity I apologize if the comment is a bit long. But I beg to differ. Some local archaeology has always been performed in Africa. But relative to the crucial information that the continent hides and is poised to give up - information that we now know is fundamental - current African archaeology is nothing to write about. Egyptology has been in possession of the information. But it has yet to bring itself to terms with it. Africa is the taproot of the archaeological issues that in recent times have populated RU-vid. They talk about Atlantis, they talk about Gobekli Tepe, they talk about Karahan Tepe, and many other places. But none of these videos addresses where the people that settled them came from, and in the case of Atlantis, where it "is". The prehistoric people that pooled in the Levant and the Black Sea-Caspian Sea region, and dispersed west through Anatolia, and east from the Iranian Plateau during the latter period of the Ice Age all streamed out of Africa, in one occasion en masse. None of the videos even mentions that. Concerning Atlantis, they all gloss over a key point. It is important to reread Critias, who stated that Solon changed the place names that he learned from the priest of Sais in the Nile Delta into Greek. According to Critias, Atlantis is a name Solon converted into Greek. But Critias does not mention what the original name of Atlantis was. Africa has a good answer. That said, I do not share the exaggerated achievement they claim for Atlantis, because they do not support their claims. In any case, the common viewer would strain to cite a single archaeological breakthrough that they can correlate with Africa. Archaeology is a conflicted discipline, and it has no one to blame for the spread of the pseudoarcheology and pseudohistory that is in vogue now but itself. The discipline has yet to understand that Africa is the taproot.

@@bircruz555 *Some local archaeology has always been performed in Africa. But relative to the crucial information that the continent hides and is poised to give up - information that we now know is fundamental - current African archaeology is nothing to write about.* I am sure you are right that there are more archaeologists working in other parts of the world than in Africa, but there still is work being done in Africa. I get the impression that you are saying this because you are wishing something will be found that hasn't been found yet. Am I right? *Egyptology has been in possession of the information. But it has yet to bring itself to terms with it.* I thought you just said that the information has yet to be found. I am confused. Do you mean that archaeologists have already found this information and that there is a conspiracy to hide it? *Africa is the taproot of the archaeological issues that in recent times have populated RU-vid. They talk about Atlantis, they talk about Gobekli Tepe, they talk about Karahan Tepe, and many other places. But none of these videos addresses where the people that settled them came from, and in the case of Atlantis, where it "is".* Every channel that I have seen which deals with prehistory and the development of humans says that humans came from Africa. The Out of Africa theory is the consensus theory among anthropologists. It is true that many channels cover these other places, but you are talking about pop channels run by members of the general public. Anyway, no serious scholar cover Atlantis, because all the evidence suggests it is just a made-up story. I have several videos on this. *In any case, the common viewer would strain to cite a single archaeological breakthrough that they can correlate with Africa.* Egypt is in Africa. *Archaeology is a conflicted discipline, and it has no one to blame for the spread of the pseudoarcheology and pseudohistory that is in vogue now but itself. The discipline has yet to understand that Africa is the taproot.* I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that you believe no one talks about Out of Africa enough, or about how Egypt was one of the earliest complex societies in the world, and that this is the reason for the spread of pseudoarchaeology? I don't agree with the premise, nor do I see how one leads to the other.

@@WorldofAntiquity If I had a way to contact you outside of the comment section, like a personal email of yours, I would gladly copy you a 3-page letter that summarizes the findings of a three-decades long research that I have disseminated to a select group of academics. I do not believe in conspiracy or that sort of a thing, but you will understand where I am coming from.

As someone who occasionally partakes of the funny mushrooms, want to say that they can't make you into a Hancock if you aren't already kind of a Hancock. It's true that the very rare person with genetic or other predisposition can trigger psychosis via psychedelics, that's not what's happened with Hancock.

Okay but what about the point that the establishment clung onto Clovis First for so long and was wrong? The point is the archeological establishment has been wrong before and will be wrong again, and that this should be built into our reasoning about historical claims.

This. Next Hancock will say, "We don't know what Dinosaurs called themselves"!!

@@ESS284 History (and science in general) has been wrong countless times, and embraced it. That's the nature of science, it's constantly correcting and updating itself. The Clovis example you cite is a perfect example of the established history needing to be updated, and academia making the necessary updates. When faced with skepticism, a scientific mindset follows the evidence, not the most confident or scathing voice. The supposition "if the establishment" has been wrong before, couldn't they be wrong about this" is a manipulation tactic, and is very one-sided. Correlation does not equal causation, and history could be wrong about literally everything - the statement "your wife has lied before, couldn't she be lying now" is used specifically to plant seeds of doubt into a person's head, to draw a conclusion before evidence is found, therefor evidence is not needed. The reason academia feels confident about the current narrative is corroborating empirical data, it's the best story we have so far. The reason Hancock feels confident is because he and his friends believe strongly that they are correct (i.e. faith). I would ask you, which institution responds more favorably to scrutiny, the scientific community that is built on the principles of extensive peer-review and repeatable results... or the journalists who say "doesn't it look like it could be this, what if it was this" without substantiating evidence, who suddenly become victims when their ideas come under scrutiny? It also stands to say... in 30 years of making "educated hypotheses" about ancient history with little to no physical evidence to back it up, surely Graham Hancock has gotten *something* wrong. I mean, to err is human, right? It's highly improbably that he would have a perfect track record, that's just... extremely statistically unlikely. So... when has Hancock been wrong? When has Hancock revised any of his claims? Before you trust a source, and turn your back on replicable empirical evidence, make sure the source who is telling you to dismiss this data doesn't have a horse in the race... and is practicing what he preaches.

​@@ESS284an idea that was considered the most likely for a long time is now no longer the idea that is considered the most likely That's what science does, eternally corrects itself. What Hancock does is never admitting he is wrong, always saying he is a martyr etc

@@ESS284 the point should be that it took evidence. It shows that our understanding does change with the weight of evidence... Something Hancock himself said he can't provide.

Perhaps if he was being genuine

Critical comments are always welcome. I do feel like a reply is merited. *I am compelled to address the fact that Graham Hancock has always stated that he is only offering an alternative hypothesis based on evidence that gives an opportunity to anyone with an unbiased eye and an open mind to ask questions of mainstream academia.* Since this was pointed out in the video, I am not sure why you feel compelled to say it again. *We must never forget that academically 'settled' history and science has inevitably given way, generally reluctantly, and too often psychologically and/or physically painfully, to new concepts* History, just like science, updates. That is its nature. This also was said in the video. And who is that brings the new concepts? Other scientists. If you know of a case where a journalist brought a new concept that overthrew 'settled' scientific concepts, please share it. *i.e. Galileo Galilei, was put under house arrest for life for daring to hypothesise that the earth orbited the sun, and Bruno Giordano was burnt the stake for hypothesising the earth was round.* Both of these are examples of Church persecution, as you say. So I am not sure how it applies. *As such, gatekeeping by any person, organisation, institution, government, etc., must always be questioned, specifically in terms of what agendas are at play.* Sure, but fortunately, archaeology is not an institution. It is very decentralized. So really the main problem would be individual. And problems have been pointed out all through its history by insiders. They know a lot more about it than people who write fantastical books for profit. *You don't have to agree with Graham Hancock, however, I strongly suggest that we be grateful that there are still people such as he willing to fight and take an increasingly difficult stand in simply questioning the mainstream narrative as they are the ones who later down the line of history may very well be recognised as the harbingers of change, hopefully for the better.* There are people who do it much better and for far less selfish reasons.

Please stop comparing religion to science. You're just shooting yourself in the foot without knowing it.

@@WorldofAntiquity "Both of these are examples of Church persecution, as you say. So I am not sure how it applies." Can you venture a guess as to who might have founded the earliest universities in Europe tho? hecking sciencerino so epic!

@@jozsuabeleelvezo9059 If I were talking about medieval science, you might have a point.