Graham Hancock

Faith said:
The mentioned debate has been released just recently at the JRE #2136.
Click to expand...
I watched the first 2 hours of the high res version on Joe Rogan's Spotify channel (https://open.spotify.com/episode/3rsD5v3sFlZOmck7oNrZJL)

Some thoughts on the first 2 hours:
'
  • Flint Dibble makes the case that in the 1000s of excavations they have made on land and underwater, they have yet to find evidence of a lost civilization (traces of food, footprints, artifacts).
  • Flint Dibble attributes the underwater structures explored by Graham Hancock to be natural formations for the most part.
  • Hancock highlights right in the beginning on how researchers with anomalous findings have been ostracized and attacked by mainly some powerful figures in the American archeology scientific community - he brings up how he has been attacked.
  • Graham Hancock pushes the fact that the mainstream archaeological excavations are too few to rule out and dismiss the idea of a lost civilization - emphasizing that only 1% of the coastlines, Amazon forest region, and Sahara has been excavated.
    Dibble does try to portray that they have enough excavations, food traces, and artifacts to support the current theories about the progression of human development.
  • So far Graham, Joe and Flint attribute and assume any anomalous findings to "human-made" structures and have not touched upon the idea of an alien technology.
  • They both maintain that stone age hunter-gathers and more advanced civilizations could have existed at the same time on earth.
  • Joe Rogan interjects at key points, one example at about the 2 hour mark Joe puts into question Flint Dibble's use of the racist card when commenting on Hancock’s work (Dibble here exposes a bit of libtardness), as Dibble wrote: "This sort of "race science" is outdated and long since debunked, especially given the strong links between Atlantis and Aryans proposed by several Nazi "archeologists". The point Joe and Hancock make is that this is totally unnecessary and it associates this kind of lost civilization (e.g. Atlantis) research with "racism" and "exploitation".
I'll have to see how the next 2 hours when I get back to it. One thing that does come to mind is the assumption during this podcast that there would be or needs to be signs of human livelihood and activity. From what we have discovered on this Forum, the cataclysmic effects during some extinction events could have destroyed all signs of human activity, and only left the monolithic structures, or that is how I've understood it. And these guys focus on the last ice age - some of this lost civilizations could have been from 25, 35, 50 or even 100 thousand years ago, and that really hasn't been brought up in the first part of this podcast (Hancock may have mentioned in passing some earlier dates).
 
I have watched some parts of the “debate“ between Flint Dibble and Hancock. If it is true that Flint Dibble is the main guy that defamed Hancock recently by calling him a “white supremacist“ and similar stuff (as Hancock explains at the end) I think that this quite likely tells us something important about his character! I found the beginning also a bit strange: Flint presented pretty much “Pornograhic“ ancient art as an explanation for what Archeologist do for laypersons. Strange. I also noted that Flint is exceptionally articulate and glib. Good with words and very fast at that. He has an answer for everything and very fast.

So, in summary, I don’t trust that guy one bit, unless proven otherwise. I bet he went in with a specific agenda. And maybe he was even hired by “the PTB“ in order to spin the whole thing in certain ways.
 
Jefferson said:
I watched the first 2 hours of the high res version on Joe Rogan's Spotify channel (https://open.spotify.com/episode/3rsD5v3sFlZOmck7oNrZJL)

Some thoughts on the first 2 hours:
'
  • Flint Dibble makes the case that in the 1000s of excavations they have made on land and underwater, they have yet to find evidence of a lost civilization (traces of food, footprints, artifacts).
  • Flint Dibble attributes the underwater structures explored by Graham Hancock to be natural formations for the most part.
  • Hancock highlights right in the beginning on how researchers with anomalous findings have been ostracized and attacked by mainly some powerful figures in the American archeology scientific community - he brings up how he has been attacked.
  • Graham Hancock pushes the fact that the mainstream archaeological excavations are too few to rule out and dismiss the idea of a lost civilization - emphasizing that only 1% of the coastlines, Amazon forest region, and Sahara has been excavated.
    Dibble does try to portray that they have enough excavations, food traces, and artifacts to support the current theories about the progression of human development.
  • So far Graham, Joe and Flint attribute and assume any anomalous findings to "human-made" structures and have not touched upon the idea of an alien technology.
  • They both maintain that stone age hunter-gathers and more advanced civilizations could have existed at the same time on earth.
  • Joe Rogan interjects at key points, one example at about the 2 hour mark Joe puts into question Flint Dibble's use of the racist card when commenting on Hancock’s work (Dibble here exposes a bit of libtardness), as Dibble wrote: "This sort of "race science" is outdated and long since debunked, especially given the strong links between Atlantis and Aryans proposed by several Nazi "archeologists". The point Joe and Hancock make is that this is totally unnecessary and it associates this kind of lost civilization (e.g. Atlantis) research with "racism" and "exploitation".
I'll have to see how the next 2 hours when I get back to it. One thing that does come to mind is the assumption during this podcast that there would be or needs to be signs of human livelihood and activity. From what we have discovered on this Forum, the cataclysmic effects during some extinction events could have destroyed all signs of human activity, and only left the monolithic structures, or that is how I've understood it. And these guys focus on the last ice age - some of this lost civilizations could have been from 25, 35, 50 or even 100 thousand years ago, and that really hasn't been brought up in the first part of this podcast (Hancock may have mentioned in passing some earlier dates).
Click to expand...
Mega cringe moment lasting 4 hours. 2h mark Geophysics is garbaged in public! Archeology declined into pattern matching without thinking reducing everything to hunter gatherers! Thank you Frank Dibble!
 
Jefferson said:
Joe Rogan interjects at key points, one example at about the 2 hour mark Joe puts into question Flint Dibble's use of the racist card when commenting on Hancock’s work (Dibble here exposes a bit of libtardness), as Dibble wrote: "This sort of "race science" is outdated and long since debunked, especially given the strong links between Atlantis and Aryans proposed by several Nazi "archeologists". The point Joe and Hancock make is that this is totally unnecessary and it associates this kind of lost civilization (e.g. Atlantis) research with "racism" and "exploitation".
Click to expand...

So, Flint really has done this! That alone suggests to me that Flint is a shady character with little to no scruples.
 
Graham summarizes his position or “thesis” starting 02:20:38 of the podcast:

Let me summarize in very brief what I am actually saying. I'm saying that there was a cataclysm at the end of the last ice age. It's called the Younger Dryas.

There are arguments about whether this cataclysm was caused by fragments of a disintegrating comet. This is the Comet Research Group. This is the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. But I'm saying there was a cataclysm at that time. There was a civilization. Now, it's you, not me, who say that that civilization was an empire.

It's you, not me, who say that that civilization, you know, had temples and was highly advanced. I don't say that. I don't say that.

In my view, what we're looking at is a civilization like all others that emerged out of shamanism, but that went a little bit further than some other shamanistic cultures that developed a highly advanced knowledge of astronomy that was able to explore and map the world. And I'm saying that at the end of the ice age, that civilization was largely destroyed, that a very small number of survivors settled amongst hunter-gatherers as we would today. I've made this point before, but if there was a cataclysm on our planet today, people from our so-called advanced technological civilization would not survive it.

We have absolutely no hope of surviving a global cataclysm like the Younger Dryas because we are spoilt children of the world. We do not have the survival techniques. The people in the world who know how to survive are the hunter-gatherers in the world today. And if I were a survivor of this civilization, I would head for hunter-gatherers, and I would try and make my home amongst them so that I could have some hope of surviving. And that's all that I'm suggesting, is that a civilization which had quite advanced astronomy, which was able to map the world, had a knowledge of longitude. I'm not saying they had machines.

I'm not saying they had motor cars. I'm not saying they sent a spaceship to the moon. I'm saying that they were destroyed at the end of the ice age, that there were a very small number of survivors, that those survivors settled amongst other hunter-gatherer peoples and benefited from their knowledge and exchanged knowledge with them.

I am not saying that they introduced agricultural products to those people. I'm not saying they brought agriculture from where they came from. I'm saying that they helped to nurture the idea of agriculture amongst those people.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder why Mr. Hancock focused so much on the underwater site of Yonaguni to make his point about the possibility of an ancient lost civilisation, since it seems to be the least convincing example in terms of visual material. The pictures are blurry and the structures rather look like natural formations in many cases. It's an example that can be dismissed more easily which he also did. Why didn't he focus on more obvious examples like certain sites in Egypt, where you have many out of place artefacts and much more obvious material to work with? It was also a bit unfortunate that Mr. Hancock didn't have the proper pictures at hand, when he compared the Yonaguni structure to a particular megalithic style, that is carved right into the bedrock and looks similar in certain regards. I believe it was an example from Peru, Hanan Pacha architecture, as it is sometimes called. To me he seemed a bit ill-prepared sometimes.

It might have been fun if he had confronted Flint more often with the inconsistencies of the mainstream narrative in regards to Ancient Egypt. There are many good examples of sophisticated artefacts that are highly suggestive of lost ancient high technolgy and the idea of inheritance like the hard stone vases, that Ben from Unchartedx talks about, or the amazing diorite statues that are also displayed in the Cairo museum. These hard stone artefacts have been processed and polished to a high degree of precission and detail, where you even find straight saw marks on one of them. In contrast the hieroglyphs on those statues are not only oddly placed within the overall design but also crudely chiseled into and not polished at all, which indicates two very different levels of technology and also suggests that those hieroglyphs are most likely later additions.

There are also many heavily damaged megalithic structures like those you can find in Tanis and unfinished megalithic projects like the unfinished 1000-tons obelisk from Aswan that suggest some sort of catastrophic interuption.

Anyways I'm sure Flint Dibble would have found a way to justify the mainstream narrative in all those instances, no matter how obvious the counter indication might be. After all he seems to see himself as the protector of the mainstream narrative. But in some cases it might be very difficult for him to avoid silly explanations/rationalisations. Hopefully there will be more cage-matches like this.

EDIT: Sentence added
 
Last edited:
Graham is usually good at showing the most convincing arguments and examples, but not in this case.

He even scaled down his Atlantis theory to "a slightly more advanced maritime culture", sort of like early European colonialism level of technology.

This may be a good approach: first you prove that at least something like that existed, without going into "Atlanteans on the Moon" or ancient nuclear war.
 
Puma said:
What is found next to one of the "suns" could well be an animal or a hand as mentioned by others who have compared pillar 43 with other hands holding bags found in archaeological sites. I believe that for the moment few have dedicated themselves to explaining what these bags or artifacts are about.
Click to expand...

I found a possible explanation of the bags:

As we debated the symbolism of the reliefs, a museum guide entered the hall with an assembly of approximately twenty visitors. The group was heading to an adjoining room and I could not help but notice that the guide was lecturing with great assurance, if not bravado, as they hurried past. I was aware that British Museum guides were required to be subject-area experts and so I seized my opportunity and unabashedly leapt between the guide and his group. Without thinking, I blurted, ‘Excuse me, I don’t mean to interrupt, but this is important.’ I gasped before continuing, as I had succeeded in gaining his attention. ‘What do they keep in the bag?’ I asked, pointing to the eagle-headed relief in front of me.

I waited for his reply, expecting sarcasm, followed by visual condemnation, if not verbal abuse, from the group. Luckily, he seemed pleased with my question and looked me over, as though I would appreciate his answer. ‘Pollen,’ he replied, with his unique brand of understated swagger.

I reacted with a fist pump, as though I had just discovered that I had matched six numbers on the weekly lottery. ‘Thank you,’ I said with gratitude. Not only had the guide offered an explanation to the mystery, but he had confirmed our hypothesis: the symbolism involved bees.

‘But what about the other hand – the one gripping the pine cone?’ I feared I was now tempting fate, but fortunately the guide was unfazed by my persistence. The tour group, on the other hand, was clearly becoming restless. ‘It’s not a pinecone,’ he said tauntingly, pausing for dramatic effect, ‘it’s a date palm.’ I nodded, while patiently awaiting his full explanation.

‘The King, or Spirit Guide, is dipping the sacred date palm into the bag of pollen and symbolically pollinating his kingdom,’ he said.

andrewgough.co.uk

THE POLLEN GODS

andrewgough.co.uk
Click to expand...

I could also give another explanation. What they may be holding in another hand is not a date palm, but a male inflorescence of a date palm. So the image may represent collecting of pollen of a date palm into a bag. Or taking a collected pollen from a bag to pollinate something.

 
In the following video Hancock reflects on the debate between him and Flint Dibble.


While he admits shortcomings on his part, as well as strength on the part of his opponent, he also shows, that the scientific papers and graphs, that Flint used to back up his counter arguments, are not what they appeared to be. After close inspection those "counterproofs" turned out to be pretty weak or unrelated to the specific point he was making, or in one instance rather suggesting the exact opposite of what Dibble claimed to be unquestionable facts. Further Mr. Hancock convincingly debunks the continuing smear-attempts against his work by quoting the relevant passages, that express the exact opposite of what he is blamed for and also by referencing the works of mainstream researchers, which his work is based on. Although Hancock never claimed to be a scientist, Dibble calls him a pseudo-scientist - a label that seems to suit himself much better.
 
Thank you Faith for a very interesting podcast. It's nice to see Mr. Hancock defend himself publicly after so many years of muffled grumblings against him. Like he said the Science of Archeology needs a few mavericks to shake things up a bit.

He gives humanity a chance to look outside the box and try to go where we are not supposed to look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom