If you liked this video, you might also like: When Fake Archaeology Uses Fake Science czcams.com/video/j0OMxE_D1pE/video.html The Age of the Sphinx czcams.com/video/DaJWEjimeDM/video.html Who Made the Pyramids? Giza Uncovered czcams.com/video/PHQkREcbcOE/video.html
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.
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!
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. 😬😵💫
@@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.
@@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 CZcams, 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
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.
@@GGA007Gamingso the decades of excavation research and findings of artifacts isn’t evidence? You know that writing has been around for thousands of years and most cultures said what happened.
First time i saw Hancock on Joe Rogan i was fascinated. I was like "why am i hearing this only now?". I was fascinated by the concept of an ancient civilization that nobody knew it existed and was far more advanced than the ones that came after. But then, at the second podcast, Hancock started to talk about how the pyramids were built with sound tools that levitated the rocks, and i was devastated. Right there i realized that i had been duped by a crackpot and started to recognize all the dubious rethoric and falsehoods. If you want to read an interesting book about this same subject go read Nightfall from Asimov. At least is properly marked as science fiction.
Hancock doesnt state that this is really something that he believed happened. He just raises the possibility. Seems pretty unlikely to me, to say the least though.
I initially thought there may be something to it all when Hancock's books were first published till, I thought to myself "why didn't this advanced, globally reaching civilisation have writing?" There would of been examples of the same writing in different parts of the world but that doesn't exist. By now we would of found at least some graffiti that was the same, also unknown all over the world but it doesn't. Hancock makes for a good history mystery fiction writer though.
So anyone who even suggests the fact that alternate theories are plausible and would explain more than what people are usually inclined to postulate... Or simply expose the systemic biases of mainstream thoughts and stubborn/conflicted interest teachings, should be immediately ignored, ad hominem & randomly labeled, censored ect just because you're resistant to widening your narrow inherently ignorant perspective? Not a psuedosmart, nor intellectually honest line of thinking (more like lack) by any stretch of the imagination. By doing this you lend further evidence to the very points that are made even more so than the criticism against said big archaeology.
@@scipio8866Sure, but lack of knowledge and awareness can make many things seem magical due to the difficulty in imagining possibilities with the inherent biases we start off with.
I bought into all the ancient civilization stuff until I found this channel a few years ago. Then realized, I’m too old to believe something is true because I’d like it to be true
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.
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 🤔
I think it was either you or Stephen Milo who said "One question I would love someone to ask Graham is, what would it take to falsify your hypothesis?" Graham goes on and on about how the lack of expeditions / coverage gives his claim credence. But I don't think he has ever once stated what it would take for him to admit he was wrong.
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
“We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.” ― Carl Sagan
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."_
😳Hancock says: "I strongly resist that archeology is a science. [...] "It's an attempt to interpret the past based on rather flimsy and limited evidence." Later on: "Then I start drinking Ayahuasca in 2003, and I encounter SEEMLESSLY CONVINCING parallel realms inhabited by intelligent beings..." So, he doesn't trust archeologists, but when he's high on psychedelics, then he finds something "seamlessly convincing?" 🤷♀️ Really?
I particularly enjoyed GH praising himself and his wife for "discovering" the Mahalbalipuram sites. I live there. Its a UNESCO site, the Indian Archeology Authorities are based there, have been for decades. The majority of the site is on land (Arjunas Penance, Ratha's etc), with a portion now underwater and clearly visible.. EVERYONE knew it was there and there's no mystery. Its a popular tourist location. GH completely misrepresented the site AND claimed to have discovered it personally, Bravo, seriously, that's next level!
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
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.
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 😂
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.
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.
Imagine if Graham Hancock just accurately portrayed himself as a fiction author who did a ton of research on ancient sites and civilizations in order to craft realistic FICTIONAL historic narratives. That would be really cool and interesting.
One additional thing about Khun's book, a paradigm only changes when a new paradigm does a better job at modeling our understanding of the world is available to replace the old paradigm. For example, string theory represented the possibility of a paradigm shift in physics, but there isn't a good version of string theory that does a better job of modeling how the universe works than what we currently have (it is also not really testable). The idea is that it's not enough for a current theory to have gaps or issues for us to throw it out unless we have an alternative theory/ model that can explain everything the old theory did plus more. Gram's very speculative idea does a worse job at explaining history when compared to available evidence, not better, and so it would be a step backwards to adopt it.
Forgive me this is said in the video, I’m still watching. Karl Popper counters Thomas Kuhn by saying that paradigm shifts are more gradual and societal, vs radical and from a single figure. You and the video (and even Graham) touch on this counter idea. 👍
The last few sentences really hit home for me. I dropped uni because I had lead myself to believe that the education system is spreading misinformation and became extremely untrusting of the so called mainstream perspective which spiralled into many years of depression and aliments linked to it. Only now that, years later, when I have come full circle, am I waking up to the true ramifications of my actions. I appreciate this channel very much and would like to thank you for helping me and hopefully many others to see reason!
You are being duped look into the finds of Wilson and blackett in the UK who who found king arthurs relics only to be targeted by the establishment in the form of a literal assassination attempt, does the mainstream even acknowledge that these things go on? No they lie and lie and lie and perpetrate freemasonic hoaxes, you are suffering from cognitive dissonance
I would give more cred to the scientist if they had the same fervor about pseudoscience in the academics (like all the humanities today) as on Joe Rogan. One is far more dangerous.. and no, not Rogan.. noone uses Rogan to back policy decisions.
Just want to say that is has been you and mini minuteman that have actually moved me away from the Graham Hancock stories and helped me see the error of it. I own two of his books. He is a good writer that is true. But a good yarn is different from facts and evidence. Thank you for your continuing work in this area.
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.
I must confess to having followed the same route as Joe Rogan. I read Fingerprints of the Gods in the nineties and became convinced of the "ancient civilisation" thesis, and followed it avidly right up until the TV series. Fortunately the books sparked my interest in archaeology sufficiently that I had opened my mind to other facts and historical analysis, so when I watched the series I could actually see Graham for exactly what he was - a chancer. His opening gambit was to set a tone of distrust in "mainstream archaeology" and to portray himself as some sort of a victim of censorship, even though he was hosting a major global TV series to promote his work. I saw right through his bullshit. It's one thing reading a book, where you can become taken with the narrative - suspension of disbelief is what makes all fiction work on us, so if a book is presented as well researched fact then we can easily be duped as to its authenticity. Its far more difficult to pull that stunt off on a TV series, and in my view that was Hancock's big mistake. I'm now completely free from the spell that he cast over me with his books, and it's thanks to learning from scholars like yourself that I've been educated to follow the real science and research everything far more thoroughly. I really think it would be amazing if you challenged Hancock to a Joe Rogan duel - I don't think Flint Dibble did such a great job of being convincing enough - there was a lot of obfuscation and distraction going on. I've only watched the first few minutes of this latest presentation, but I look forward to absorbing it all later when I have the time. I may add my response after watching. Thanks for taking the time to share it with us.
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.
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.
I love how he claim that his theory need inquiry, as if the many people that went through them and showed how they are wrong don't count as inquiry This alone is a massive red flag
“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”
All these people who criticize Hancock's ideas like to say things like "I have no problem with him personally, he seems like a nice guy..." I think these folks are being extremely charitable to avoid validating Hancocks martyr syndrome. I strongly suspect they find him at least as insufferable as I do.
I must admit I was already dubious of Graham Hancock and his findings when I watched the Netflix show but the Flint Dibble “debate” really opened my eyes. It may sound stupid but I was thinking of my children. My 12 year old son who’s interested in the Bronze Age and my 7 year old daughter who’s obsessed with the solar system at the moment and I started to think of how important it is to appreciate the wealth of knowledge we have gathered over the centuries.
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.
The title doesn't do this justice. You really get to the heart of what so many people get wrong when they misunderstand or misrepresent science. I will definitely point some of my more "open-minded" friends towards this.
Here's a quote from Graham Hancock from back in the 1990th: *"It is possible, we may have lost - from the record - an entire civilisation. And I feel that the evidence of this lost episode in human history is mounting."* -> BBC Horizon - s0000e37 - Atlantis Reborn We didn't see mounting evidence in his debate with Flint Dibble, only blurry pictures which didn't even convince his buddy Joe Rogan. Another quote from the same source: *"I avoid using the word "Atlantis" in books because most most people, when they here "Atlantis" immediately think that they're dealing with a lunatic fringe."* That's quite telling. No further comment to that.
i watched Dr Brian Greene interview Dr Lee Berger about his work at Rising Star cave and it was utterly mind blowing because tangible evidence being analyzed by experts in various disciplines is so much cooler than any unsubstantiated storytelling by a huckster like Hancock.
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 CZcams: - 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)
Listening to Graham Hancock on Joe Rogan and listening to his other lectures got me more interested in ancient history. He made me question whether any of his ideas were true. Once I started learning more about actual archaeology, genetics, geology, etc... I began to understand that Hancock's ideas were mere fantasy, but again, I do give him credit for weaving an interesting narrative that got me more interested in ancient history.
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
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.
This is what I hoped the internet was going to be. It was Kerouac who said about TV (paraphrasing) 'here we have the greatest ability to reach the greatest number of ppl with the greatest educational tool in history and its used to sell hemorrhoid suppositories.'
🎯 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. 🤷
This was a beautiful takedown of Graham Hancock. A firm, unrelenting roast of his ideas without making it about character. I can only hope that it changes some people's 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
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.
I will forever be grateful to my high school history teacher for (what then seemed to us) bickering on and on about proper source criticism. Over the years I've come to understand how valuable this teaching was, not just regarding history. People are rarely without motives. Mr. Hancock has built a career and a persona around his theories, he is financially and emotionally motivated to keep up the charade whether he believes in it or not.
It’s not like Joe Rogan is a particularly hard person to fool. I mean, someone, somewhere along the line has managed to convinced Joe his stand up comedy is good.
@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.
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.
I might be an interesting case in terms of this subject. I’m an archaeologist (I’m currently in a hotel because of field work actually lol), and when I was in high school I discovered Hancock through Rogan. I was always interested in history and prehistory, but the whole idea Graham proposed was incredible, and controversial, but everything my nerdy (yet rebellious) teenage brain craved. I went to college and quickly learned why it was so controversial and fundamentally flawed, but it remained good fun and a source of entertainment for me. I think Graham has his benefits in archaeology. I say this because, anyone who REALLY cares to educate themselves on the tropic, and truly pursue the science will learn the truth for themselves. Whether they did so because of his work or not, they will come to this conclusion, and potentially have a long and fulfilling career in the field that benefits archaeology as a whole. The best part about pursuing archaeology for me personally was that I learned so much about prehistory through my education, that I was well more than awed and appreciative of the complex ways our ancestors lived than I could have even imagined. Just because it wasn’t “high tec” in the way Graham is proposing, doesn’t mean our ancestors didn’t live in brilliant and unique ways that our modern minds wouldn’t consider due to our own circumstances. Archaeology is amazing and is always challenging itself. I’ve met the most kind people in this field, and I’m a part of it (at least somewhat) because of Grahams work. I’m not defending him, but I’m proposing an alternative outcome of his work that some people may not consider. Edit: Forgot to mention that I’ve even met Graham. Him and his wife were very nice.
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 CZcams 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.
I'd say it's not a mystery why Joe listens to Graham as a guru. He tells him what he wants to hear. He plays on his own preconceptions and justifies what he wants to be true. To most people, that's enough.
You know the funny thing is that GH ain’t showing new evidence. His first book came out 30 years ago and it’s mostly stuff that was on Unsolved Mysteries in the 80’s. His stuff is incredibly out of date. And when someone publishes a correction, he says “Well, the original paper was right.”
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.
@@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
I spent 25 years as an archaeologist hiking in rugged remote areas finding hundreds of prehistoric sites on survey and excavating many in the dust and heat. Or what Hancock calls engaging in philosophy.
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.
The simplest most basic structure there is to build is a pile of stones receding to the top. Why would an advanced civilization build such a simple structure and not something far more complex like we have today? Give a child a bucket of wooden blocks and ask it to build something, the first recognisable thing it will manage to construct with any height is a pyramid because it is simple and it is built by a child. Ancient civilization is the child that grew up to be today's modern advanced civilization. You could give these buckets of blocks to children all around the world, seperated by oceans with no way of communicating with each other, it will always come to the same conclusion.
You, among the rest of these assumptive people, know nothing about the mathematical complexities and precision of these incredible structures. The pyramids are not in any way comparable to the work of children. I think a lot of the people here were easily convinced by Graham Hancock’s theories by their own superficiality and lust for fun stories. I think the people here believed him without knowing any of the concrete evidence (there is a mountain of concrete evidence, that is undeniable) and therefore believed this opposed view of him just as easily too. You were superficially convinced with ease to believe him, so you are now just as easily pulled away.
The Graham Hancock debacle via Flint Dibble brought me to this channel. I wasn't really a hardcore believer of the predeluvian/atlantian story but I was reasonably into the idea. I simply never looked into actual archeology. And I realize I could have gone seriously deep into that cult. I've been watching your channel and Science aginst myths and it's amazing and actually more entertaining than the pseudoarcheology stuff. Appreciate you, keep it up!
You are just reassuring yourself following cognitive dissonance, mainstream academia is controlled by anglo American establishment as shown by Carroll quigley in his book the anglo American establishment and the Rothschild family just look into the life of Victor rothschild
Well, Ignatius Donnelly was a best selling author in his day. Von Danniken did fairly well. Simple accounts are much more attractive than messy uncertain reality.
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.
Got to laugh at the assertion of archaeologists' "friends in the media" from Hancock, whose own connections in the media definitely didn't help him secure a Netflix series.
I'd imagine being a legit archeologist painstakingly cataloging clay fragments in some heatscorched desert for weeks on end is a thankless career with mediocre pay and minmal chance for media recognition or mainstream fame. Your fundamental motivation is the pursuit of accurate knowledge. Graham's entire persona is the persecuted "truth-teller" championing forbidden knowledge, and tens of thousands of reasonably intelligent people believe every single word of it.
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.
What's sucks is that some of what he says could turn out to be true and he'll be there to say "I told you so" and didn't do any of that work and the news will latch on to him and we won't know who did the actual discovery.
As someone who's involved in Archaeology, i was out of the loop for 15 years , Carbon dating and gps etc were relativley new. When i returned to the subject it was amazing how much things had changed. i had to get revising and up to date pretty quick.
Graham Hancock: "If I only were humble I'd be perfect" Hancock is talking of archaeology and history as these fields were more than 100 years ago, and then only of some scholars who had it in for each other. He is also trying to turn these fields into a soap opera, creating drama where there is no drama. As a former student of both fields I can say without a doubt that there is no conspiracy, no hiding of facts, only a yearning to understand what happened, but with tempering of minds before the evidence.
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.
@@LoudWaffle which is foolish, at best. Archeologists publish their work for everyone to see. Museums are usually a cheap way of learning more about these subjects. I get what you’re trying to say, but that belief is just wrong.
@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
@@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.
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.
Ancient aliens is a good TV show, if the volume is turned off and all that you can see is the pretty artwork and images they use. With the volume on it feels like tuning into a tv show designed to annoy with its ridiculous "ancient alien theorists believe that....." Signature phrase.
I'd just like to thank you for challenging Rogan and Hankock. I worry we live in a world filled with misinformation. I'm not an archaeologist but I know enough about science to see Hancock's confirmation bias in the face of no actual confirmation
I used to think David was so pretentious….that’s because I was on Graham’s side until I truly listened and realized there’s zero evidence to back Graham. As much as I’d LOVE for Graham to be correct, I mean imagine our history goes back even further. I have to be realistic and understand there’s no physical evidence to support that claim. Just wanted to say thanks for making your CZcams channel and enlightening us on history. It’s my favorite topic and you do an incredible job teaching us. I’d love to be a fly on the wall during one of your lectures.
He is pretentious.....evidence is all nice and well but people like him denied gobekli tepi being possible......till it was found......and that there has to tell you enough
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
I got my first doses of alternative history from von Däniken back in my early teens. When I had read two or three of his books, I noticed this: all of those repeat the same stories, all full of astonishing claims like the Nazca lines, stone spheres in Costa Rica and so on. My opinion grew up to this: People used to have very interesting hobbies and ideas about art back in the old days. Hancock sounds pretty much like von Däniken, so I don't pay much heed to his stories either.
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.
I can't deny, I was drawn to Hancock's work in 1994, and followed his work (and then 'real historians') closely until I managed to learn enough to realise I was being misled by him. He deserves my back-handed thanks for starting me on the path of actual history. He puts enough factual information in-between the bullshit to fool the uneducated.
😂 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 . . . .?
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.
As a CZcams content creator, I must acknowledge that this video was not easy to make. To produce a detailed and fair critique of one’s position this way requires many MANY hours of tedious work to view and index the various videos in order to present a fair sample of Hancock’s positions. Prof Miano has achieved a comprehensive, fair, and just critique of Hancock’s views. This level of commitment to detail and thoughtful argumentation is uncommon. Prof Miano deserves every view and all the support he receives from his audience for this fruitful expedition into the facts. As a Christian in public ministry, I thank God for the great work of archeologists who dedicate their lives to the difficult, often treacherous task of telling the story of humanity and our amazing world and I honor Professor Miano for his love of truth.
I feel like a lot of people don't realize how much time and patience ancient Egyptians and other ancient folks had, or how certain methods of engineering and design are universal by common sense, not because of shared information. Peoples of ancient times could commit to projects that took generations, and just because it seems incredibly slow and improbable to us to transport those huge blocks, cut them with the finest precision and so on, doesn't mean there's a lost technology...they were just willing to work on those things their whole lives, because they weren't distracted by our modern ways of life. Ancient structures have similarities across the globe because they all figured out the same basic engineering principles. They're not that hard to figure out. With time and patience, you can do incredible things with very simplistic tools.
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 CZcamsr called World of Antiquity that delves into these things: czcams.com/video/n_NguZUDku4/video.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.
It is my personal belief, that this man is a "spin doctor" a professional propagandistic. Making a boat load of money from his philosophy. Thanks doc. for bringing fresh air to this subject.😊
One major problem with Hancock convincing his audience that archaeologists are set in their ways and don't consider new evidence, is that his audience is going to miss all the fascinating discoveries that actually are made every year, because they stopped paying attention to "mainstream archaeology".
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.
@@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
He doesn't "dismiss" established evidence nor does he claim that what main stream archaeolgy has found is incorrect. He only states that there is evidence discovered that doesn't directly fall in line with that narrative and thinks it should be explored. Again you yourself are being very disingenuous to support your narrative.
He does dismiss established evidence, and he does claim that what archaeology has found is incorrect. I have seen it happen many times. For example, he does not accept the the dates for many structures.
@WorldofAntiquity many structures are dated incorrectly. I have heard you say once: yeah we dont know how they built the pyramids (we actually do know, but I digress) and that it doesnt matter. Lol , it doesnt matter? Wtf? How can it not matter 🤡😂😂😂🤡
I feel like the world needs people like Hancock. His claims might be far out there, especially with the pyramids, but the world needs people who think very in depth to difficult ideas. I feel like if a convention was made between everyone on the spectrum of archeology with the purpose of finding answers, not proving why they are right and there critics are wrong, we could find deeper answers in the history of human beings.
People like Hancock don't make money from answers. They just want others to believe that their questions are valid and that experts are not good enough.
The only "Lost Technology" theories I'm interested in is whether my phone went down the back of the sofa, or if it's in my other jacket pocket, in the car.
@@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.
Fun fact; G.H. used to be a big proponent of the 'face' on Mars being an ancient monolith and that Mars used to harbor ancient civilizations. "The Mars Mystery: A Tale of the End of Two Worlds" (published in 1998). I wonder why he's awful silent on the subject now.
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
Excellent work here. Methodical, principled, fair, and concise work. Jimmy from Beight Insight could definitely use a humbling assessment as he is in essence carrying on Hancock's legacy, but with the caveat of "this thing on Google Earth looks like X, therefore X is validated." Additionally, a short span of years ago Jimmy was pitching how there would be "mass food shortages" so you should buy his product. These people have become clear charlatans. Liked and shared.
I'm so glad that a legitimate academic in the field of history takes the time to call out Hancock's bullshit. I'm a self-educated "history buff" so my critique carries no weight, but I have enough common sense to understand that Hancock and Rogan are both in the entertainment business. Hancock is a really a show-biz huckster in the tradition of P.T. Barnum, "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" and Eric Von Daniken. The "lost civilization" shtick is his gig. I give him credit for his sheer panache and for playing it to the hilt. He's made a good living from it. But it is not factual nor is it scientific. I suppose it's harmless, but it's irritating because real history is way more fascinating.
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...
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.
"It's my role to ask questions about subjects which are forbidden to talk about...". Except, none of them are forbidden: they are just stupid, old and presented better by others, who weren't good enough to be right either. Hancock is a salesman, with a dash of religious zealot. Great for making money, but useless for learning anything about History or Archeology. Great video. Again.
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.
Hancock saying "Archaeologists aren't scientists, they're just trying to control the narrative of what happened in the past" is like someone who thinks mercury is medicine saying "Chemists aren't scientific, they're just trying to control the narrative of chemistry"
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
@@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.
Robert bauval does the same thing in his lectures. At least a quarter of his talks are spent carrying on about how the establishment dismiss us boohoo. I find that such a waste of time and such a cop out. So prove them wrong then guys. PROVE IT! They never can or do.
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.
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.
Chronologist and author, Jason Breshears has meticulously picked Graham Hancock's work apart and comprehensively destroyed it, accusing Hancock of cherry picking dates and data that support his thesis, ignoring everything that proves him wrong and even outright lying. I strongly recommend Breshears work as he is very generous with sharing all his research material and entire bibliography.
You mention Gobeklitepe and how the narrative has changed, but if you look at the EVIDENCE of it, Archeologists say that Gobeklitepe was built by hunter gatherers that also like to build megalithic stone structures for fun 🤦♂️.
Exactly, the narrative hasnt changed thsy were proven wrong so they backtrack and then shove it in their wrong assumption and then call it a day. Also they force feed it to us and call us stupid 🤡🤡🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
How come those pseudo-archeologists never tell you that they make a lot more money than the average archeologist? And that they are more interested in their "business model" than in the actual truth?
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.
I Grew up in the early 80s and 90s with the idea that there was some secret being kept from us. Graham and others like hims work is what led me to have a passion for history, archeology and geology. If not for them, I honestly would have found no interest in the fields. So there is a plus side to the madness. And like you mentioned, "we" do and did tend to check for smugness, arrogance and elitist attitudes when watching opponents to Graham and others. Which is why people like Gutsick Gibbiean turns most off immediately. I've come around in the last few years after actual studies in the fields and now am on the opposing side, but still hold a fond place for Graham as the person who turned me on to history as a subject itself. But I must say, it was your Channel and videos that ultimately persuaded me to see the errors in the reteric of the opposing side. So kudos to you sir. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about disapproving somebody else's ideas, and you sir have done it right. 👏
I used to find Hancocks hypothesis’ compelling until I watched his Netflix series. The veil was lifted and I saw through his leaps of faith thin correlations and saw him as a petulant resentful narrow minded fictional archeological theorist pushing his dogmatic self righteous narrative.
@@Andrew-mv2qb I suggest watching Miniminuteman’s series on that “documentary”. He deconstruct it very well and demonstrate the dishonesty behind Graham’s claims and work.
@@AdriansCreatures Oh, he said some weasely double speak? Well certainly that excuses pumping out metric tonnes of misinformation to millions of people every day.
Meh - most people believe many things that are very untrue. He’s not alone in that. Myths are rife throughout history. But for those of us that value truth it can be frustrating. But Joe also points out lies and myths that the establishment does perpetuate and are also frustrating.
It's actually kind of sad how Hancock has fooled Joe Rogan. Joe's literally talking about all this 'correlating evidence' that Graham has convinced him of yet when Dibble was on with him Joe asks Graham if there is any evidence and Graham had to admit there wasn't. I wonder if Joe even realizes what that exchange meant?
@@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.
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.
Hancock is right people have been working on Mind Control devices 😮... I been trying to work one out for 20 years now, I'm getting really close too... 😮
This video really should have a million views. Thankfully, I'm not one of the comment writers on a Rogan/Hancock video thinking that it's a conspiracy perpetrated by CZcams to hide the truth or something really stupid.
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.
What it all comes down to is this. Hancock : 'They shouldn't be listing to thousands of archaeologist allover the world ...They should only listen to me .I'm the real expert ' .
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.
I really appreciate your neutrality, principled and honest approach, but Grifter Hancrock doesn't deserve it, he's a science fiction writer who wants to be more.
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.
Really imortant analysis of the way Hancock actually lies. Interesting how he says things about others, that actually describes what he is doing in that very moment. W video
Hancock is like a little boy playing a board game with his friends, constantly changing the rules so that he always wins. But in reality this game influences millions of people via Netflix who think it's fine to cheat and twist to win. Fostering the tin foil hat brigade
Im so glad people like YOU and Miniminuteman cover these fringe topics for what they are. Its annoying how much Graham is recommended and given credibility. Thank you for your amazing work!! This video is very well done.
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.
I love how pseudoarcheologists think we can find tiny flint tools made 20,000 years ago in relatively good condition, but completely hand-wave away the lack of any hypothetical supermaterials and tools that would have supposedly been used to build every single massive monument on Earth.
Are you aware that flint is a type of rock? Lmao. It doesn't rust or decompose. If you leave flint in a cave for 5000 years it's still gonna be relatively the same as when you left it. You really think this is hard to believe compared to "hypothetical supermaterials"? Like what, alien laser-rocks or some other nonsense? If you think supermaterials are real, then show evidence of them. Show me a glowing green rock that's harder than diamond discovered buried under the pyramids. Oh wait, there's no such thing, which is why archaeologists ignore you.
I wonder if Hancock's idea about archaeologists and historians thinking that we have history all figured out comes from a brief skimming of your average middle school history textbook. Because those books do tend to be like, "Oh, we know this this and this". But it kinda has to be simplified for the sake of teaching about the topic of history. Those textbooks are meant to be a brief overview of what is generally known with the expectation that, if you're interested, you'll go out there and learn more about whatever niche of history you're into. Even then, those textbooks do not accurately reflect the views of archaeologists and historians necessarily. At least, it's a major simplification of it for the aforementioned reason. Archaeologists and historians are always looking for new ways to interpret the past. Read literally any publication written by archaeologists and/or historians and you will find them constantly talking about what we don't know. The field of history, like all fields of science, is a constantly evolving discipline that is always open to new ideas, as long as you are able to substantiate to a reasonable degree whatever findings you come up with.
Hancock knows that the reactionaries (notice the rants on political correctness and canceling, typical buzzwords) and the conservatives (the idea of a golden age fallen to degeneracy is a popular one) and the anti-science people (they tend to be the big conspiracy people, and anything that challenges accepted science is a good thing for them) will love to hear him, so he appeals to their sentiments. It's marketing. And yet he's not a grifter- he believes what he's saying. It's just that he's frustrated at finding resistance. It's a big temptation for scientists to turn to media to gain visibility for pet causes- it's been done by even good scientists. And we have a media and a built in audience for pseudoscience, and he's using that to platform his pet theory. He's a persuasive speaker and skilled rhetorician. He's not stupid- he's wrong, but he's not stupid, and he's using every resource he has to its best effect. I remember when the Younger Dryas climatic event was proposed to be caused by an asteroid. It got big press, but without followup evidence, it faded away for a while in the public eye and ultimately became yet another unsubstantiated model. Right now it's sustained by Hancock Castrastophists. The big Toba eruption caused a huge stir when it was discovered, but eventually closer examination shows it had less of an impact than expected. I have a suggestion for a future video: the history of catastrophe theories in archaeology. There's a big appeal to connect disasters to phenomena, and people have been coming up with that for a while now. Even socioeconomic collapses like the Bronze Age Collapse and the fall of the Western Roman Empire have become framed as a single really bad, chaotic day of violence and death rather than something resulting from multiple gradual causes.
_"And yet he's not a grifter- he believes what he's saying. It's just that he's frustrated at finding resistance"_ That's pretty naive to think. He's ignored corrections for 30 years and pretending that evidence that counters his narrative doesn't exist. You don't do that by accident.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime I'm giving him the benefit of a doubt- it's all about his fragile ego. This whole thing is about him throwing a tantrum about his ideas not holding water when held to any sort of scrutiny
_I have a suggestion for a future video: the history of catastrophe theories in archaeology. There's a big appeal to connect disasters to phenomena, and people have been coming up with that for a while now._ That's a brilliant suggestion! I second that.
People underestimate how much weed Hancock smoked in his early life, even Mother Ayahuasca told him to put down the hash on a trip. Probably some of his paranoia comes from the hashness
Thanks so much for the link! I think this is a really important way to take a step back and look at the context of how pseudoscience works. Great video, as always!
I will say, about 5 years ago I stumbled across Hancock and was immediately drawn in by his story and the framing of his theories. It felt apart like wet tissue though when I started seeing archaeological evidence and videos rebutting his claims. And now I have a strong interest in the actual history of early humanity, the fascinating and important evidence that people doing the real work share through their work on CZcams. The truth, as ever, is far more powerful than a titillating tale of elites and deception about the history of our species. Thank you for work Doctor
If you liked this video, you might also like:
When Fake Archaeology Uses Fake Science
czcams.com/video/j0OMxE_D1pE/video.html
The Age of the Sphinx
czcams.com/video/DaJWEjimeDM/video.html
Who Made the Pyramids? Giza Uncovered
czcams.com/video/PHQkREcbcOE/video.html
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!
To be fair, Joe Rogan would be fooled by Wile E. Coyote painting a tunnel on the side of a mountain.
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.
Graham Hancock points out how arrogant archaeologists are while sounding unbelievably arrogant.
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 CZcams, 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
Hancock is a novelist. He proposes a theory and then challenges science to prove him wrong while having no evidence.
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.
No Evidence? this is not an opinion and you can have if you only have a surface level understanding in what he proposes.
@@GGA007Gamingso the decades of excavation research and findings of artifacts isn’t evidence? You know that writing has been around for thousands of years and most cultures said what happened.
First time i saw Hancock on Joe Rogan i was fascinated. I was like "why am i hearing this only now?". I was fascinated by the concept of an ancient civilization that nobody knew it existed and was far more advanced than the ones that came after. But then, at the second podcast, Hancock started to talk about how the pyramids were built with sound tools that levitated the rocks, and i was devastated. Right there i realized that i had been duped by a crackpot and started to recognize all the dubious rethoric and falsehoods.
If you want to read an interesting book about this same subject go read Nightfall from Asimov. At least is properly marked as science fiction.
I don't think he was saying the believed that happened , I think he was just refering to myths of how it has been explained in the past.
Hancock doesnt state that this is really something that he believed happened. He just raises the possibility. Seems pretty unlikely to me, to say the least though.
I initially thought there may be something to it all when Hancock's books were first published till, I thought to myself "why didn't this advanced, globally reaching civilisation have writing?" There would of been examples of the same writing in different parts of the world but that doesn't exist. By now we would of found at least some graffiti that was the same, also unknown all over the world but it doesn't.
Hancock makes for a good history mystery fiction writer though.
So anyone who even suggests the fact that alternate theories are plausible and would explain more than what people are usually inclined to postulate... Or simply expose the systemic biases of mainstream thoughts and stubborn/conflicted interest teachings, should be immediately ignored, ad hominem & randomly labeled, censored ect just because you're resistant to widening your narrow inherently ignorant perspective? Not a psuedosmart, nor intellectually honest line of thinking (more like lack) by any stretch of the imagination. By doing this you lend further evidence to the very points that are made even more so than the criticism against said big archaeology.
@@scipio8866Sure, but lack of knowledge and awareness can make many things seem magical due to the difficulty in imagining possibilities with the inherent biases we start off with.
I bought into all the ancient civilization stuff until I found this channel a few years ago. Then realized, I’m too old to believe something is true because I’d like it to be true
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 CZcams comment @Dziaji
I think it was either you or Stephen Milo who said "One question I would love someone to ask Graham is, what would it take to falsify your hypothesis?" Graham goes on and on about how the lack of expeditions / coverage gives his claim credence. But I don't think he has ever once stated what it would take for him to admit he was wrong.
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.
“We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.”
― Carl Sagan
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."_
Even a genius aks questions 🧠
😳Hancock says: "I strongly resist that archeology is a science. [...]
"It's an attempt to interpret the past based on rather flimsy and limited evidence."
Later on:
"Then I start drinking Ayahuasca in 2003, and I encounter SEEMLESSLY CONVINCING parallel realms inhabited by intelligent beings..."
So, he doesn't trust archeologists, but when he's high on psychedelics, then he finds something "seamlessly convincing?"
🤷♀️ Really?
I particularly enjoyed GH praising himself and his wife for "discovering" the Mahalbalipuram sites. I live there. Its a UNESCO site, the Indian Archeology Authorities are based there, have been for decades. The majority of the site is on land (Arjunas Penance, Ratha's etc), with a portion now underwater and clearly visible.. EVERYONE knew it was there and there's no mystery. Its a popular tourist location. GH completely misrepresented the site AND claimed to have discovered it personally, Bravo, seriously, that's next level!
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
😂
Hancock's primary thesis is that he's a martyr. The lost civilization stuff is secondary.
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.
50:55 "archeology has been proven wrong, time and time again..."
Yes...by other archeologists
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
You missed his point
@@BobbyBigalloyou missed the point of this comment.
Imagine if Graham Hancock just accurately portrayed himself as a fiction author who did a ton of research on ancient sites and civilizations in order to craft realistic FICTIONAL historic narratives. That would be really cool and interesting.
Its easier to be the martyr of “big bad archy boyz” and sell your vomit as clam chowder than to become a successful fantasy author.
One additional thing about Khun's book, a paradigm only changes when a new paradigm does a better job at modeling our understanding of the world is available to replace the old paradigm. For example, string theory represented the possibility of a paradigm shift in physics, but there isn't a good version of string theory that does a better job of modeling how the universe works than what we currently have (it is also not really testable). The idea is that it's not enough for a current theory to have gaps or issues for us to throw it out unless we have an alternative theory/ model that can explain everything the old theory did plus more. Gram's very speculative idea does a worse job at explaining history when compared to available evidence, not better, and so it would be a step backwards to adopt it.
Forgive me this is said in the video, I’m still watching. Karl Popper counters Thomas Kuhn by saying that paradigm shifts are more gradual and societal, vs radical and from a single figure. You and the video (and even Graham) touch on this counter idea. 👍
The last few sentences really hit home for me. I dropped uni because I had lead myself to believe that the education system is spreading misinformation and became extremely untrusting of the so called mainstream perspective which spiralled into many years of depression and aliments linked to it. Only now that, years later, when I have come full circle, am I waking up to the true ramifications of my actions. I appreciate this channel very much and would like to thank you for helping me and hopefully many others to see reason!
You are being duped look into the finds of Wilson and blackett in the UK who who found king arthurs relics only to be targeted by the establishment in the form of a literal assassination attempt, does the mainstream even acknowledge that these things go on? No they lie and lie and lie and perpetrate freemasonic hoaxes, you are suffering from cognitive dissonance
These gate-keeping charletons.. shame on scientists for dismissing alchemy and witchcraft
I would give more cred to the scientist if they had the same fervor about pseudoscience in the academics (like all the humanities today) as on Joe Rogan. One is far more dangerous.. and no, not Rogan.. noone uses Rogan to back policy decisions.
Just want to say that is has been you and mini minuteman that have actually moved me away from the Graham Hancock stories and helped me see the error of it. I own two of his books. He is a good writer that is true. But a good yarn is different from facts and evidence. Thank you for your continuing work in this area.
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.
I must confess to having followed the same route as Joe Rogan. I read Fingerprints of the Gods in the nineties and became convinced of the "ancient civilisation" thesis, and followed it avidly right up until the TV series. Fortunately the books sparked my interest in archaeology sufficiently that I had opened my mind to other facts and historical analysis, so when I watched the series I could actually see Graham for exactly what he was - a chancer.
His opening gambit was to set a tone of distrust in "mainstream archaeology" and to portray himself as some sort of a victim of censorship, even though he was hosting a major global TV series to promote his work. I saw right through his bullshit.
It's one thing reading a book, where you can become taken with the narrative - suspension of disbelief is what makes all fiction work on us, so if a book is presented as well researched fact then we can easily be duped as to its authenticity. Its far more difficult to pull that stunt off on a TV series, and in my view that was Hancock's big mistake.
I'm now completely free from the spell that he cast over me with his books, and it's thanks to learning from scholars like yourself that I've been educated to follow the real science and research everything far more thoroughly.
I really think it would be amazing if you challenged Hancock to a Joe Rogan duel - I don't think Flint Dibble did such a great job of being convincing enough - there was a lot of obfuscation and distraction going on.
I've only watched the first few minutes of this latest presentation, but I look forward to absorbing it all later when I have the time. I may add my response after watching.
Thanks for taking the time to share it with us.
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
I love how he claim that his theory need inquiry, as if the many people that went through them and showed how they are wrong don't count as inquiry
This alone is a massive red flag
“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! 🤣😂🤣
@@futureme8719 Aren't you embarrassed for showing your complete ignorance in public? Get an education!
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 😂🤣😂
@@futureme8719 With this reaction, you only make a greater public fool of yourself, congratulations.
All these people who criticize Hancock's ideas like to say things like "I have no problem with him personally, he seems like a nice guy..." I think these folks are being extremely charitable to avoid validating Hancocks martyr syndrome. I strongly suspect they find him at least as insufferable as I do.
I must admit I was already dubious of Graham Hancock and his findings when I watched the Netflix show but the Flint Dibble “debate” really opened my eyes. It may sound stupid but I was thinking of my children. My 12 year old son who’s interested in the Bronze Age and my 7 year old daughter who’s obsessed with the solar system at the moment and I started to think of how important it is to appreciate the wealth of knowledge we have gathered over the centuries.
Do you really mean to say a man who was convinced the moon landings were faked also believes other silly theories??? I’m shook
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
The title doesn't do this justice. You really get to the heart of what so many people get wrong when they misunderstand or misrepresent science. I will definitely point some of my more "open-minded" friends towards this.
Here's a quote from Graham Hancock from back in the 1990th:
*"It is possible, we may have lost - from the record - an entire civilisation. And I feel that the evidence of this lost episode in human history is mounting."*
-> BBC Horizon - s0000e37 - Atlantis Reborn
We didn't see mounting evidence in his debate with Flint Dibble, only blurry pictures which didn't even convince his buddy Joe Rogan.
Another quote from the same source:
*"I avoid using the word "Atlantis" in books because most most people, when they here "Atlantis" immediately think that they're dealing with a lunatic fringe."*
That's quite telling. No further comment to that.
i watched Dr Brian Greene interview Dr Lee Berger about his work at Rising Star cave and it was utterly mind blowing because tangible evidence being analyzed by experts in various disciplines is so much cooler than any unsubstantiated storytelling by a huckster like Hancock.
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 CZcams:
- 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)
Listening to Graham Hancock on Joe Rogan and listening to his other lectures got me more interested in ancient history. He made me question whether any of his ideas were true. Once I started learning more about actual archaeology, genetics, geology, etc... I began to understand that Hancock's ideas were mere fantasy, but again, I do give him credit for weaving an interesting narrative that got me more interested in ancient history.
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.
Fun fact, Graham Hancock’s Netflix documentary was produced by his son’s production company
This is what I hoped the internet was going to be.
It was Kerouac who said about TV (paraphrasing) 'here we have the greatest ability to reach the greatest number of ppl with the greatest educational tool in history and its used to sell hemorrhoid suppositories.'
🎯 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. 🤷
This was a beautiful takedown of Graham Hancock. A firm, unrelenting roast of his ideas without making it about character. I can only hope that it changes some people's minds.
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
Joe is a prime example of opening your mind so much your brain falls out.
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.
I will forever be grateful to my high school history teacher for (what then seemed to us) bickering on and on about proper source criticism.
Over the years I've come to understand how valuable this teaching was, not just regarding history. People are rarely without motives.
Mr. Hancock has built a career and a persona around his theories, he is financially and emotionally motivated to keep up the charade whether he believes in it or not.
You are doing a great service by calling people back to important things like facts and evidence
It’s not like Joe Rogan is a particularly hard person to fool.
I mean, someone, somewhere along the line has managed to convinced Joe his stand up comedy is good.
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.
I might be an interesting case in terms of this subject. I’m an archaeologist (I’m currently in a hotel because of field work actually lol), and when I was in high school I discovered Hancock through Rogan. I was always interested in history and prehistory, but the whole idea Graham proposed was incredible, and controversial, but everything my nerdy (yet rebellious) teenage brain craved. I went to college and quickly learned why it was so controversial and fundamentally flawed, but it remained good fun and a source of entertainment for me. I think Graham has his benefits in archaeology. I say this because, anyone who REALLY cares to educate themselves on the tropic, and truly pursue the science will learn the truth for themselves. Whether they did so because of his work or not, they will come to this conclusion, and potentially have a long and fulfilling career in the field that benefits archaeology as a whole. The best part about pursuing archaeology for me personally was that I learned so much about prehistory through my education, that I was well more than awed and appreciative of the complex ways our ancestors lived than I could have even imagined. Just because it wasn’t “high tec” in the way Graham is proposing, doesn’t mean our ancestors didn’t live in brilliant and unique ways that our modern minds wouldn’t consider due to our own circumstances. Archaeology is amazing and is always challenging itself. I’ve met the most kind people in this field, and I’m a part of it (at least somewhat) because of Grahams work. I’m not defending him, but I’m proposing an alternative outcome of his work that some people may not consider.
Edit: Forgot to mention that I’ve even met Graham. Him and his wife were very nice.
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 CZcams 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.
"We can't trust what authority figures say" says aspiring authority figure.
I'd say it's not a mystery why Joe listens to Graham as a guru.
He tells him what he wants to hear. He plays on his own preconceptions and justifies what he wants to be true.
To most people, that's enough.
You know the funny thing is that GH ain’t showing new evidence.
His first book came out 30 years ago and it’s mostly stuff that was on Unsolved Mysteries in the 80’s.
His stuff is incredibly out of date. And when someone publishes a correction, he says “Well, the original paper was right.”
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
I spent 25 years as an archaeologist hiking in rugged remote areas finding hundreds of prehistoric sites on survey and excavating many in the dust and heat. Or what Hancock calls engaging in philosophy.
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.
The simplest most basic structure there is to build is a pile of stones receding to the top. Why would an advanced civilization build such a simple structure and not something far more complex like we have today?
Give a child a bucket of wooden blocks and ask it to build something, the first recognisable thing it will manage to construct with any height is a pyramid because it is simple and it is built by a child. Ancient civilization is the child that grew up to be today's modern advanced civilization.
You could give these buckets of blocks to children all around the world, seperated by oceans with no way of communicating with each other, it will always come to the same conclusion.
You, among the rest of these assumptive people, know nothing about the mathematical complexities and precision of these incredible structures. The pyramids are not in any way comparable to the work of children.
I think a lot of the people here were easily convinced by Graham Hancock’s theories by their own superficiality and lust for fun stories. I think the people here believed him without knowing any of the concrete evidence (there is a mountain of concrete evidence, that is undeniable) and therefore believed this opposed view of him just as easily too.
You were superficially convinced with ease to believe him, so you are now just as easily pulled away.
@@tombusby3380those "mathematical complexities" pale in comparison to the mathematical complexities of building a modern skyscraper.
@@christheghostwriterAgreed....allegorically, In the same way that an abacus compares to a quantum computer.
The Graham Hancock debacle via Flint Dibble brought me to this channel. I wasn't really a hardcore believer of the predeluvian/atlantian story but I was reasonably into the idea. I simply never looked into actual archeology. And I realize I could have gone seriously deep into that cult. I've been watching your channel and Science aginst myths and it's amazing and actually more entertaining than the pseudoarcheology stuff. Appreciate you, keep it up!
You are just reassuring yourself following cognitive dissonance, mainstream academia is controlled by anglo American establishment as shown by Carroll quigley in his book the anglo American establishment and the Rothschild family just look into the life of Victor rothschild
Well, Ignatius Donnelly was a best selling author in his day. Von Danniken did fairly well. Simple accounts are much more attractive than messy uncertain reality.
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...
Got to laugh at the assertion of archaeologists' "friends in the media" from Hancock, whose own connections in the media definitely didn't help him secure a Netflix series.
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🤣🤣
I'd imagine being a legit archeologist painstakingly cataloging clay fragments in some heatscorched desert for weeks on end is a thankless career with mediocre pay and minmal chance for media recognition or mainstream fame. Your fundamental motivation is the pursuit of accurate knowledge. Graham's entire persona is the persecuted "truth-teller" championing forbidden knowledge, and tens of thousands of reasonably intelligent people believe every single word of it.
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.
What's sucks is that some of what he says could turn out to be true and he'll be there to say "I told you so" and didn't do any of that work and the news will latch on to him and we won't know who did the actual discovery.
As someone who's involved in Archaeology, i was out of the loop for 15 years , Carbon dating and gps etc were relativley new. When i returned to the subject it was amazing how much things had changed. i had to get revising and up to date pretty quick.
Graham Hancock: "If I only were humble I'd be perfect"
Hancock is talking of archaeology and history as these fields were more than 100 years ago, and then only of some scholars who had it in for each other. He is also trying to turn these fields into a soap opera, creating drama where there is no drama.
As a former student of both fields I can say without a doubt that there is no conspiracy, no hiding of facts, only a yearning to understand what happened, but with tempering of minds before the evidence.
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
@@LoudWaffle which is foolish, at best. Archeologists publish their work for everyone to see. Museums are usually a cheap way of learning more about these subjects. I get what you’re trying to say, but that belief is just wrong.
@@RegularFlyGuy I agree. It’s a perception problem, not a factual one.
Joe Rogan should host a debate between you and Hancock next.
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 has every season of ancient aliens on bluray
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.
Ancient aliens is a good TV show, if the volume is turned off and all that you can see is the pretty artwork and images they use. With the volume on it feels like tuning into a tv show designed to annoy with its ridiculous "ancient alien theorists believe that....." Signature phrase.
I'd just like to thank you for challenging Rogan and Hankock. I worry we live in a world filled with misinformation. I'm not an archaeologist but I know enough about science to see Hancock's confirmation bias in the face of no actual confirmation
I used to think David was so pretentious….that’s because I was on Graham’s side until I truly listened and realized there’s zero evidence to back Graham. As much as I’d LOVE for Graham to be correct, I mean imagine our history goes back even further. I have to be realistic and understand there’s no physical evidence to support that claim. Just wanted to say thanks for making your CZcams channel and enlightening us on history. It’s my favorite topic and you do an incredible job teaching us. I’d love to be a fly on the wall during one of your lectures.
I appreciate hearing that!
He is pretentious.....evidence is all nice and well but people like him denied gobekli tepi being possible......till it was found......and that there has to tell you enough
Considering Joe’s guests, the title implies Joe is easilly and often fooled.
Which is true.
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
Graham’s insistence on his right to attack anybody and his anger when people clap back at him do seem familiar somehow
Men, I don't know Graham, and everyone involved seem like they love the sell of their dung
Dr. Miano, cant wait to watch this. I hope you get on a platform like JRE soon talk about all the amazing work you've done.
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. . .
I got my first doses of alternative history from von Däniken back in my early teens. When I had read two or three of his books, I noticed this: all of those repeat the same stories, all full of astonishing claims like the Nazca lines, stone spheres in Costa Rica and so on. My opinion grew up to this: People used to have very interesting hobbies and ideas about art back in the old days. Hancock sounds pretty much like von Däniken, so I don't pay much heed to his stories either.
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.
All this talk about the nonsense he published 30 years ago, no mention of the nonsense he published 40 years ago.
I can't deny, I was drawn to Hancock's work in 1994, and followed his work (and then 'real historians') closely until I managed to learn enough to realise I was being misled by him.
He deserves my back-handed thanks for starting me on the path of actual history.
He puts enough factual information in-between the bullshit to fool the uneducated.
😂 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😂😂😂😂😂
As a CZcams content creator, I must acknowledge that this video was not easy to make. To produce a detailed and fair critique of one’s position this way requires many MANY hours of tedious work to view and index the various videos in order to present a fair sample of Hancock’s positions. Prof Miano has achieved a comprehensive, fair, and just critique of Hancock’s views. This level of commitment to detail and thoughtful argumentation is uncommon. Prof Miano deserves every view and all the support he receives from his audience for this fruitful expedition into the facts. As a Christian in public ministry, I thank God for the great work of archeologists who dedicate their lives to the difficult, often treacherous task of telling the story of humanity and our amazing world and I honor Professor Miano for his love of truth.
Thank you!
Well said. Totally agree
Yeah not just this video but many other videos by professor
@@WorldofAntiquity Nah, you had an agenda. You're just a gatekeeper of a false science. Is Hancock right? Probably not. Are you? Probably not.
I feel like a lot of people don't realize how much time and patience ancient Egyptians and other ancient folks had, or how certain methods of engineering and design are universal by common sense, not because of shared information. Peoples of ancient times could commit to projects that took generations, and just because it seems incredibly slow and improbable to us to transport those huge blocks, cut them with the finest precision and so on, doesn't mean there's a lost technology...they were just willing to work on those things their whole lives, because they weren't distracted by our modern ways of life. Ancient structures have similarities across the globe because they all figured out the same basic engineering principles. They're not that hard to figure out. With time and patience, you can do incredible things with very simplistic tools.
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 CZcamsr called World of Antiquity that delves into these things: czcams.com/video/n_NguZUDku4/video.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.
It is my personal belief, that this man is a "spin doctor" a professional propagandistic. Making a boat load of money from his philosophy. Thanks doc. for bringing fresh air to this subject.😊
One major problem with Hancock convincing his audience that archaeologists are set in their ways and don't consider new evidence, is that his audience is going to miss all the fascinating discoveries that actually are made every year, because they stopped paying attention to "mainstream archaeology".
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
Holy cow, thanks for the shout-out to Potholer54, he's one of the most underrated science communication channels out there
He doesn't "dismiss" established evidence nor does he claim that what main stream archaeolgy has found is incorrect. He only states that there is evidence discovered that doesn't directly fall in line with that narrative and thinks it should be explored. Again you yourself are being very disingenuous to support your narrative.
He does dismiss established evidence, and he does claim that what archaeology has found is incorrect. I have seen it happen many times. For example, he does not accept the the dates for many structures.
Truth
@WorldofAntiquity many structures are dated incorrectly. I have heard you say once: yeah we dont know how they built the pyramids (we actually do know, but I digress) and that it doesnt matter. Lol , it doesnt matter? Wtf? How can it not matter 🤡😂😂😂🤡
I feel like the world needs people like Hancock. His claims might be far out there, especially with the pyramids, but the world needs people who think very in depth to difficult ideas. I feel like if a convention was made between everyone on the spectrum of archeology with the purpose of finding answers, not proving why they are right and there critics are wrong, we could find deeper answers in the history of human beings.
People like Hancock don't make money from answers. They just want others to believe that their questions are valid and that experts are not good enough.
The only "Lost Technology" theories I'm interested in is whether my phone went down the back of the sofa, or if it's in my other jacket pocket, in the car.
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.
Fun fact; G.H. used to be a big proponent of the 'face' on Mars being an ancient monolith and that Mars used to harbor ancient civilizations.
"The Mars Mystery: A Tale of the End of Two Worlds" (published in 1998).
I wonder why he's awful silent on the subject now.
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
Fantastic analysis! I also appreciate your calm tone and professionalism. You're truly an educator ☺️👨🏼🏫
Excellent work here. Methodical, principled, fair, and concise work.
Jimmy from Beight Insight could definitely use a humbling assessment as he is in essence carrying on Hancock's legacy, but with the caveat of "this thing on Google Earth looks like X, therefore X is validated." Additionally, a short span of years ago Jimmy was pitching how there would be "mass food shortages" so you should buy his product. These people have become clear charlatans.
Liked and shared.
I'm so glad that a legitimate academic in the field of history takes the time to call out Hancock's bullshit. I'm a self-educated "history buff" so my critique carries no weight, but I have enough common sense to understand that Hancock and Rogan are both in the entertainment business. Hancock is a really a show-biz huckster in the tradition of P.T. Barnum, "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" and Eric Von Daniken. The "lost civilization" shtick is his gig. I give him credit for his sheer panache and for playing it to the hilt. He's made a good living from it. But it is not factual nor is it scientific. I suppose it's harmless, but it's irritating because real history is way more fascinating.
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.
"It's my role to ask questions about subjects which are forbidden to talk about...". Except, none of them are forbidden: they are just stupid, old and presented better by others, who weren't good enough to be right either. Hancock is a salesman, with a dash of religious zealot. Great for making money, but useless for learning anything about History or Archeology. Great video. Again.
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 😂
So done with the whole who's- been- meaner- to- whom, and who was mean first, thing. Joe wasted half a debate on it too.
New recording setup making video quality really good sir. I appreciate your content.
Hancock saying "Archaeologists aren't scientists, they're just trying to control the narrative of what happened in the past" is like someone who thinks mercury is medicine saying "Chemists aren't scientific, they're just trying to control the narrative of chemistry"
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.
Robert bauval does the same thing in his lectures. At least a quarter of his talks are spent carrying on about how the establishment dismiss us boohoo. I find that such a waste of time and such a cop out. So prove them wrong then guys. PROVE IT! They never can or do.
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.
Chronologist and author, Jason Breshears has meticulously picked Graham Hancock's work apart and comprehensively destroyed it, accusing Hancock of cherry picking dates and data that support his thesis, ignoring everything that proves him wrong and even outright lying. I strongly recommend Breshears work as he is very generous with sharing all his research material and entire bibliography.
You mention Gobeklitepe and how the narrative has changed, but if you look at the EVIDENCE of it, Archeologists say that Gobeklitepe was built by hunter gatherers that also like to build megalithic stone structures for fun 🤦♂️.
Try again.
The evidence indicates they were hunter gatherers. Nobody says they built for fun.
Exactly, the narrative hasnt changed thsy were proven wrong so they backtrack and then shove it in their wrong assumption and then call it a day. Also they force feed it to us and call us stupid 🤡🤡🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@WorldofAntiquityyes you do
@@SWOTHDRA There are easy ways for you to learn about the site if you are interested.
How come those pseudo-archeologists never tell you that they make a lot more money than the average archeologist? And that they are more interested in their "business model" than in the actual truth?
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
I Grew up in the early 80s and 90s with the idea that there was some secret being kept from us. Graham and others like hims work is what led me to have a passion for history, archeology and geology.
If not for them, I honestly would have found no interest in the fields. So there is a plus side to the madness.
And like you mentioned, "we" do and did tend to check for smugness, arrogance and elitist attitudes when watching opponents to Graham and others. Which is why people like Gutsick Gibbiean turns most off immediately.
I've come around in the last few years after actual studies in the fields and now am on the opposing side, but still hold a fond place for Graham as the person who turned me on to history as a subject itself.
But I must say, it was your Channel and videos that ultimately persuaded me to see the errors in the reteric of the opposing side. So kudos to you sir. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about disapproving somebody else's ideas, and you sir have done it right. 👏
Having been a fan of Graham Hancock for decades, my opinion of him has now changed completely. Thank you for your work. 👍
I used to find Hancocks hypothesis’ compelling until I watched his Netflix series. The veil was lifted and I saw through his leaps of faith thin correlations and saw him as a petulant resentful narrow minded fictional archeological theorist pushing his dogmatic self righteous narrative.
@@Andrew-mv2qb I suggest watching Miniminuteman’s series on that “documentary”. He deconstruct it very well and demonstrate the dishonesty behind Graham’s claims and work.
"How Joe Rogan Was Fooled" could be a 500 part series. The man is a walking, talking refutation of the existence of meritocracy in our world.
Joe states he doesn’t really know he just loves to believe, stop being ignorant
@@AdriansCreatures Oh, he said some weasely double speak? Well certainly that excuses pumping out metric tonnes of misinformation to millions of people every day.
@@AdriansCreatures Joe is a maroon. He’s only famous because he’s easily fooled. Who’s being ignorant?
@@AdriansCreatures So he's a rube without any ability to actually do any research?
Meh - most people believe many things that are very untrue. He’s not alone in that. Myths are rife throughout history. But for those of us that value truth it can be frustrating. But Joe also points out lies and myths that the establishment does perpetuate and are also frustrating.
It's actually kind of sad how Hancock has fooled Joe Rogan. Joe's literally talking about all this 'correlating evidence' that Graham has convinced him of yet when Dibble was on with him Joe asks Graham if there is any evidence and Graham had to admit there wasn't. I wonder if Joe even realizes what that exchange meant?
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.
Hancock is right people have been working on Mind Control devices 😮... I been trying to work one out for 20 years now, I'm getting really close too... 😮
This video really should have a million views. Thankfully, I'm not one of the comment writers on a Rogan/Hancock video thinking that it's a conspiracy perpetrated by CZcams to hide the truth or something really stupid.
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 🤙🏻
Dr Miano dropping a 2 hour diss track on Hancock?? Sleep will have to wait I guess.
What it all comes down to is this. Hancock : 'They shouldn't be listing to thousands of archaeologist allover the world ...They should only listen to me .I'm the real expert ' .
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?
I really appreciate your neutrality, principled and honest approach, but Grifter Hancrock doesn't deserve it, he's a science fiction writer who wants to be more.
I always appreciate the detail and time that go into your videos. They are very insightful! Thanks for posting them!
Someone really ought to tell graham that archaeology isnt mainstream, its mostly underground actually
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.
Really imortant analysis of the way Hancock actually lies.
Interesting how he says things about others, that actually describes what he is doing in that very moment.
W video
Hancock is like a little boy playing a board game with his friends, constantly changing the rules so that he always wins. But in reality this game influences millions of people via Netflix who think it's fine to cheat and twist to win. Fostering the tin foil hat brigade
Im so glad people like YOU and Miniminuteman cover these fringe topics for what they are. Its annoying how much Graham is recommended and given credibility. Thank you for your amazing work!! This video is very well done.
I once made the facetious comment that GH needs to step away from the funny mushrooms. I had no idea I was speaking the truth.
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.
Imagine hearing your life long career that you worked so hard for, described as digging some stuff from the ground.
I love how pseudoarcheologists think we can find tiny flint tools made 20,000 years ago in relatively good condition, but completely hand-wave away the lack of any hypothetical supermaterials and tools that would have supposedly been used to build every single massive monument on Earth.
Are you aware that flint is a type of rock? Lmao. It doesn't rust or decompose. If you leave flint in a cave for 5000 years it's still gonna be relatively the same as when you left it. You really think this is hard to believe compared to "hypothetical supermaterials"? Like what, alien laser-rocks or some other nonsense? If you think supermaterials are real, then show evidence of them. Show me a glowing green rock that's harder than diamond discovered buried under the pyramids. Oh wait, there's no such thing, which is why archaeologists ignore you.
@@RabidCupcake2010 Unless there was another comment that got deleted, I'm pretty sure y'all are on the same side.
I wonder if Hancock's idea about archaeologists and historians thinking that we have history all figured out comes from a brief skimming of your average middle school history textbook. Because those books do tend to be like, "Oh, we know this this and this". But it kinda has to be simplified for the sake of teaching about the topic of history. Those textbooks are meant to be a brief overview of what is generally known with the expectation that, if you're interested, you'll go out there and learn more about whatever niche of history you're into. Even then, those textbooks do not accurately reflect the views of archaeologists and historians necessarily. At least, it's a major simplification of it for the aforementioned reason. Archaeologists and historians are always looking for new ways to interpret the past. Read literally any publication written by archaeologists and/or historians and you will find them constantly talking about what we don't know. The field of history, like all fields of science, is a constantly evolving discipline that is always open to new ideas, as long as you are able to substantiate to a reasonable degree whatever findings you come up with.
I cant listen to Hancock. The patronisation has a visceral effect on me
Hancock knows that the reactionaries (notice the rants on political correctness and canceling, typical buzzwords) and the conservatives (the idea of a golden age fallen to degeneracy is a popular one) and the anti-science people (they tend to be the big conspiracy people, and anything that challenges accepted science is a good thing for them) will love to hear him, so he appeals to their sentiments. It's marketing.
And yet he's not a grifter- he believes what he's saying. It's just that he's frustrated at finding resistance. It's a big temptation for scientists to turn to media to gain visibility for pet causes- it's been done by even good scientists. And we have a media and a built in audience for pseudoscience, and he's using that to platform his pet theory. He's a persuasive speaker and skilled rhetorician. He's not stupid- he's wrong, but he's not stupid, and he's using every resource he has to its best effect.
I remember when the Younger Dryas climatic event was proposed to be caused by an asteroid. It got big press, but without followup evidence, it faded away for a while in the public eye and ultimately became yet another unsubstantiated model. Right now it's sustained by Hancock Castrastophists. The big Toba eruption caused a huge stir when it was discovered, but eventually closer examination shows it had less of an impact than expected.
I have a suggestion for a future video: the history of catastrophe theories in archaeology. There's a big appeal to connect disasters to phenomena, and people have been coming up with that for a while now. Even socioeconomic collapses like the Bronze Age Collapse and the fall of the Western Roman Empire have become framed as a single really bad, chaotic day of violence and death rather than something resulting from multiple gradual causes.
_"And yet he's not a grifter- he believes what he's saying. It's just that he's frustrated at finding resistance"_ That's pretty naive to think. He's ignored corrections for 30 years and pretending that evidence that counters his narrative doesn't exist. You don't do that by accident.
You lost me at "yet he's not a grifter"
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime I'm giving him the benefit of a doubt- it's all about his fragile ego. This whole thing is about him throwing a tantrum about his ideas not holding water when held to any sort of scrutiny
_I have a suggestion for a future video: the history of catastrophe theories in archaeology. There's a big appeal to connect disasters to phenomena, and people have been coming up with that for a while now._
That's a brilliant suggestion! I second that.
Typical leftist drivvel.....
People underestimate how much weed Hancock smoked in his early life, even Mother Ayahuasca told him to put down the hash on a trip. Probably some of his paranoia comes from the hashness
Thanks so much for the link! I think this is a really important way to take a step back and look at the context of how pseudoscience works. Great video, as always!
I will say, about 5 years ago I stumbled across Hancock and was immediately drawn in by his story and the framing of his theories. It felt apart like wet tissue though when I started seeing archaeological evidence and videos rebutting his claims. And now I have a strong interest in the actual history of early humanity, the fascinating and important evidence that people doing the real work share through their work on CZcams. The truth, as ever, is far more powerful than a titillating tale of elites and deception about the history of our species. Thank you for work Doctor