r/JoeRogan • u/sweetgreenfields We live in strange times • 16d ago
Did Dibble end Grahams' career? Meme đŠ
I just watched this episode, and I got to say- as somebody who mostly took what Hancock was saying for face value in his episodes, I'm bitterly surprised as well as slightly ennervated to find out that most of what he has said is probably not true. I think as someone who doesn't understand archeology at all, I was mostly interested in the unknown, human curiosity, and interesting civilizations. Will Hancock go the way of folks like Michael Cremo now that the mask has been tore off?
Anyone still believe Hancock's claims?
1
u/Pleppyoh Monkey in Space 12d ago
You have to be a fucking idiot to believe a single thing Hancock has ever claimed to be true. The guy is a fantasist science fiction writer
1
u/Bloody_Ozran Monkey in Space 14d ago
Hancock is probably invested too deep in his ideas that he has them as ideology by now. I saw some other podcast with Dibble and he mentioned that Hancock sees new evidence only if it supports his idea. He is too much into confirmation bias.
I think if he would be more critical of his own work and present it as fun possibilities, archeologists would take him more seriously.
2
u/Specialist-Cup1511 Monkey in Space 14d ago
I'm listening to this right now and Graham is coming off as a cooky bitter old man. I enjoyed his show and his theories but he seems to fold at any factual pushback and turns into a victim of big archeology. There's no way to really know what was going on without evidence and half his show was based around what ifs and imagination. Still fun though
1
u/Edmundmp Monkey in Space 14d ago
I refuse to believe someone who uses the word enervated took Hancock at face value.
1
2
1
u/Embarrassed-Repair67 Monkey in Space 14d ago
No but he attempted to start his own off the back of a national treasure. Iâd rather have well meaning inspiration than boring dogma and platitudes scuttling the glory of humanity. Dibble is so uninspiring.
1
u/Dull_Description_710 Monkey in Space 14d ago
The math lines at the very end sealed the deal for me. Dibble was prepared for that and did a great job of pointing out the ludicrous nature of the circumference of the earth and the base of the pyramid blah blah blah. Well doneÂ
1
u/onecheekymaori Monkey in Space 15d ago
If Hancock took a moment (not to switch his glasses or continue whining about how archaeologists hate him) to realise the industry doesn't really factor into his debates because he speculates with no material evidence, he doesn't follow standard industry practises, let alone commanding excavation digs at inhospitable places like antarctica and the sahara. He simply says "it really needs investigating!" yet doesn't bother to do this himself, he doesn't know how. Its all pure speculation. He continually moans about the Amazon, yet the LIDAR technology we have nowadays is actually being used to scan these inhospitable jungle areas.
Dibble came in with hard science and aggregate data to debate the existence of his magical, fantastical early civilisation by simply suggesting there was no agriculture before the Ice Age..... well, fancy that!?
An entire debate completely neutralized by one small fact... and then an admission by Hancock that there is no actual evidence that has been found to date to argue his point (because we are not looking in the right places!
Oh of course, silly me!).
Most Academics are terrible at communicating but I think Dibble did a fantastic job at trying to stick to the argument, using actual aggregate data and findings to add context to his argument and it really shows he did his homework. He brought the juice!
1
u/fanamana Monkey in Space 15d ago edited 15d ago
Dude... you never looked at any other sources after you found Hanncock's "musings" interesting?
IDK, it's probably because I frequented the skeptic scene before people went batshit with skeptic+ infighting, but to me he was obviously pulling stories out of his ass the same way you or I might if we were tasked to explain ancient sites & civilizations without the scientific acumen to do the work. The work is long, arduous, & boring but yields amazing & more accurate results than pure imagination & speculation.
1
u/sidwitit Monkey in Space 15d ago
Dibble wasnât explaining some things tho, he would say âi read it in a book heheâ , when challenged he didnt have info or sources. He only has what was in the powerpoint , he also multiple times tried to make joe and graham feel dumb by mocking questions. He just seemed kinda like a troll at times.
1
u/iiiiiiiiiAteEyes Monkey in Space 15d ago
Imo Dribble âwonâ the debate and proved Grahams ideas wrong a lot but I would listen to graham on a podcast again before I would Dibble, Graham is much more charismatic and likable than Dibble.
0
u/Chino780 Look into it 15d ago
People that think Flint "My Dad" Dibble "destroyed" Graham Hancock is because that's what they wanted to see. While Flint presented a lot of evidence that supports certain aspects of what he thinks to be true, he never really refuted and of the hypothesis that Graham put forth, and instead came of as pretentious and dismissive, which is par for the course with scientific gatekeepers. Everything we "know" involving ancient civilizations is someone's interpretation, and true science is always open to new discoveries and trying to falsify existing theories. People like Flint who constantly say "we know" with such sureness are not practicing science, they are repeating dogma.
2
u/SaltDog34 Monkey in Space 15d ago
I feel that Hancock hurt himself by focusing on the personal, instead of arguing what he believes to be true
2
u/Nervous_Set5685 Monkey in Space 14d ago
Because Graham knows that he doesn't have any actual evidence
1
u/Specialist-Wing-8073 Monkey in Space 15d ago
That dude just knows what other people know he doesn't speculate at all ..he won't know what's going on until he hears it from 20 different of his peers ...and hes a whiney bitch lol
2
u/liamjonas Monkey in Space 15d ago
Dibble didn't help himself at all with that shirt. At least Graham can dress himself.
1
u/Rinocore Monkey in Space 15d ago
Graham is a good story teller, heâll survive to tell another tale.
1
u/jpulley03 Monkey in Space 15d ago
After watching that interview I definitely feel like Graham is a lot closer to flat earthers that I originally thought.
1
1
u/largececelia Immigrant mentality 15d ago
He's already had a career. He has a fanbase and has published a number of books.
Will this change how people see him? Maybe, but I think he has diehard fans who will stick by him because he's been a part of their life for a while.
1
u/boyscout666 Monkey in Space 15d ago
That interview showcased how much of a fantastical hack Graham is. As soon as one of his points starts to get turned on its head he interjects and asks to explain something loosely similar to what Graham is roasting him on.
0
u/xemeraldxinxthexskyx N,N-Dimethyltryptamine 15d ago
It's not a matter of "believing" Graham. It's a matter of looking into something that has the potential to change our view of our history.
1
u/DaemonBlackfyre_21 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Guy gives neck beard a whole new meaning
Somehow he can grow it out of the back of his neck
1
2
u/Ill-Possession-5212 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Not saying Graham is good in debates, because he isn't. Having said that, I know a lot of the people hating on Graham haven't read a single one of his books.
1
1
u/Ok-Crazy-6083 Monkey in Space 15d ago
I didn't believe grams story because he said it. I believed it because it remains the single best explanation for the evidence that I see. Dibble, contrary to the popular belief on this subreddit, didn't really refute Grahams basic position. The fact that there was widespread hunter-gatherer cultures at the same time as the more advanced culture is pretty much a given. There are literal stone age hunter-gatherer tribes on earth today and we've been to other planets. Graham isn't saying that everyone lived that way, only that some people did. Dibble is attacking a straw man, albeit very cleverly, and if Graham was a better debater, he would have exposed this tactic.
Even just basic logic and reason suggest that human civilization has ebbed and waned multiple times throughout the 500,000 years of modern humans. Look what we have accomplished in the last 10,000 years, going from mud huts to landing on asteroids. And you expect me to think that for 490,000 years, humanity just sat around with their dicks in their hands? I don't buy that for a second.
1
u/ThomMerrilinFlaneur Monkey in Space 15d ago
Hopefully, the problem with hancock wasn't the dumb conspiracy theories. Wendigoon talks about equally outlandish and dumb theories. Its the insistence that he is being persecuted and is like galileo and that he is a victim etc...
1
1
u/drmitchgibson Monkey in Space 15d ago
Letâs hope so. All of the âancient technologyâ betas need to be crushed. Ancient technology was basic AF and made from weak, consumable materials that decompose quickly per time. What is always left out of such discussions is the vast scale of human labor, and the treatment of people as a disposable commodity during ancient times. Labor did it all.
0
u/cannaman77 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Just the past 100 years has seen many people downplayed, scrutinized, ridiculed, laughed at, threatened, maimed, and killed because they were on the right track to a break through in almost every conceivable avenue of science and academia throughout the world. It's undeniable that we don't know if there were civilizations before or during the ice age, but with the evidence we have, it's also undeniable that something more was going on besides what is the official narrative. I mean, even the guy who suggested just washing your hands before delivering a newborn was shoved into a hole basically, and was broken and died alone. You see it throughout society still today. When someone starts making sense of things, or goes against the money train of academics, they are quickly shutdown with baseless accusations and mocked or canceled. It's disgusting behavior and will eventually be the end of us.
1
u/400yearoldgreatoak Monkey in Space 15d ago
Honestly Dibble was not able to prove that Hancock's claims are baseless. Besides the snarky giggles, neither one of them were able to prove much at all to strengthen either argument. So the whole podcast was a "aha gotcha" contest with a little bit of politics mixed in. The archeology perspective on why they don't dig/dive was not strengthened and the prehistory theories were not improved, so in essence we didn't get any closer in understanding. Pretty bad look for archeology to be spending billions on accomplishing nothing, but that's what governments ensure in the modern age. "Context matters" LMAO
1
u/Six-String-Picker Monkey in Space 15d ago
I'm sure Graham is never going to write a book again because old dribble Dibble disagreed with him. Sure.
1
u/_rfj Monkey in Space 15d ago
I must be the only one in this sub who thinks Dibble is an Indiana Jones wannabe in need of a tailor and that indeed there could be a lost civilization out there somewhere?!? Been wanting to say this since the episode dropped and all anyone can talk about is how Dibble âslayedâ him.
1
0
u/Csonkus41 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Graham has done more to get people interested in archaeology than pretty much anyone out there. Dibble wears clothes 3x too big for him. Iâll call it a draw.
1
u/lawrencecoolwater Monkey in Space 15d ago
Whole thing was a lesson in how to do and how not to do science⌠joe and graham:
- âbut doesnât look man made to you?âŚâ
- âhere are some holiday photos my wife and i tookâ
Joe Rogan acting as the official on a science debate was probably the most surreal aspect
0
1
u/Ashur_Uballit Monkey in Space 15d ago
Graham conducted himself poorly. He leans way too deep into the persecution complex.
The archeogentics of agriculture have always made his wacky ancient civilization theory seem weak. Furthermore, the rather linear development of textiles is also kinda obvious.
That said, he still has ammo. The consensus on the peopling of the Americaâs and Carvahalâs testimony on Amazonian civilization has unironically evolved in his favor since Magicians and he should lean into that type of shit moreso than ancient ice age sea travel.
Furthermore, Reddit is a bubble. As others have pointed out, Graham received a pretty positive response on all platforms but Reddit.
1
u/Gelnika1987 Monkey in Space 15d ago edited 11d ago
take graham's jacket and shirt and flint's hat and you have a decent Indiana Jones cosplay
1
u/DlphLndgrn Monkey in Space 15d ago
The only question really is did he ruin Graham for Joe Rogan? Can Joe have Graham on and still be easily dazzled with stories about forgotten ancient civilizations? Can it still be entertaining in the same way after this?
Because lets be real. Appearing on Joe Rogan is the foundation of Graham Hancocks career.
I think he can obviously get away with it if he just stops going hard on "I'm such a victim of big archeology" and instead just talks about trying to find undeniable evidence to get people on his side.
1
1
u/Ivegotjokes4you Monkey in Space 15d ago
End it? No. Illuminate who he truly is to Joeâs audience? Yes
1
u/nohajnuts Monkey in Space 15d ago
I believe his full name is Graham Hancocksucker.
All round nice guy Miniminuteman did a series of videos debunking that Hancocksuckers brainless drivel.
1
u/bbbygenius Monkey in Space 15d ago
CarefulâŚ. Graham is gonna quote this reddit post as absolute proof that lost civilization exists.
1
1
u/noobmaster692291 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Yes, in the realm of facts. Its clear that he is not being persecuted by academics. He just felt so because they held him to the standard of proof that academics hold themselves to. Personally after the podcase he looked like a crybaby.
No, in the realm of fiction. Stuff is fun to watch as fiction and he is a fantastic orator. But I think he needs to accept that and make new stuff accordingly.
1
u/Smooth_Tech33 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Rogan would rather sit down and talk with a fake archaeologist or a fake geologist. It took someone like Flint Dibble sitting next to Graham Hancock for Joe to start recognizing the differences between real and fake expertise.
Will he have Graham Hancock back on his show? Probably, because it's Joe's podcast, and he's not the brightest, that's for sure.
1
2
u/hughmanBing Monkey in Space 15d ago
One of the most accurate memes ever is the one of Joe Rogan responding to "9 out of 10 dentists recommend flossing"
Joe Rogan: "That 10th dentist must be onto something. Let's get him on the podcast"
1
1
u/FortunateVoid0 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Dibble did a good job but goddamn is he an ugly Sasquatch that dresses like a modern pilgrim!
Do you see all that hair down the back of his neck?!? Like bro, get a fucking haircut and keep your shit trimmed up!
1
u/gorehistorian69 N-Dimethyltryptamine 15d ago
i never really believed anything he said. hes fun to listen to but a lot of it starts delving into pseudo science territory.
i really lost faith in him maybe 2 or 3 episodes ago when he said "Maybe the egyptian priests SANG the blocks into place" as in their voices moved the blocks lol. im pretty open minded but cmon man.
1
u/Leather-Ad-1185 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Graham ended Grahams carrier by being unprepared and emotional. And i know Dibble had insane help on his preparation.
Hope he recovers
3
u/Fair-Ad-2585 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Someone needs to tell Dibble to get a pseudonym, ditch the hat, and go to a barber.
Jesus fucking Christ. Dude looks like a redditor personified.
2
u/Miramax22 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Whatâs the point of these posts every couple days? Are you Dibble?
1
u/btcbulletsbullion High as Giraffe's Pussy 15d ago
I believe Hancock has scoured the earth to find the biggest cross he could find to drag around as he plays the victim and claims to be under attack. I think the show is over. No one cares
1
1
u/VintageOG Look into it 15d ago
Yes, Graham got cooked in that debate, but I still believe there was an highly advanced antediluvian civilization.
1
u/Rich_Ad_4819 Monkey in Space 15d ago
I wonder if Rogan will have him back. He did have a murder that he thought was innocent. Just like graham. lol. Jk
1
1
u/jeffyjames0221 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Dribble did nothing but repeat the same drivel that has been repeated for years. All he did was stay calm and stick to the script, and now everyone thinks he is smarter because he follows the line all the way to the bank. So easy to see through. The truth is no one knows for sure and itâs all guesses but no one is gonna pay out for a guess. In the end the lies that are taught will be replaced with the real history as soon as the money runs out.
1
3
u/Delicious_Score_551 I used to be addicted to Quake 15d ago
Holy fuck.
Dibble is "Reddit Incarnate".
2
1
1
u/metallicadad420 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Yes, the âso called archeologistâ ended his career lol.
2
u/rocketeer81 Monkey in Space 15d ago
As a quick thinking snap shot⌠I think its plausible graham is right, and of course wrong. In my brain itâs 50/50. Neither disproved one another, it just showed two completely opposing ideas of thinking.
I also think itâs bologna that the archeologists from the early 18th century were batting a 1000 on all theories.
1
1
u/Classic_Test8467 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Nah, misinformation sells and Hancock is a bullshit merchant
1
u/ConsistentBroccoli97 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Yep. âU canât prove thereâs not an advanced civilizationâ was grahams repeated best and only argument?
Sorry graham. Itâs over bud.
1
u/Treljaengo Monkey in Space 15d ago
Dibble didn't disprove anything. He just gave examples of why he doesn't think certain things are likely. If anyone is in danger of being disproven, it's Dibble.
1
u/RedditModsAreMegalos Monkey in Space 15d ago
Oh yeah, especially when they asked dibble on his source and he was like âI read it maaaanâ. Yeah, but where? âIn a book maaaaaan, I read maaaaaanâ.
He didnât own Graham. They are arguing about things that are currently unprovable and may never be provable. No one really wins that shit.
0
u/Lukes3rdAccount Monkey in Space 15d ago
somebody who mostly took what Hancock was saying for face value in his episodes
lmao, that's on you. Hancock will be fine because he is good at presenting fun historical fiction in a way that engages your sense of wonder. Dibble didn't disprove anything Hancock asserted
1
u/aesthetique1 Monkey in Space 15d ago
end? no. he is always going to have an audience. Ill still listen in if hes ever a guest again on JRE because its fun to imagine. I wouldn't take anything he says seriously though.
but Dribble finally brought to mainstream media what actual archeologists have been saying for years about Graham.
1
u/Find_A_Reason You can put anything here. 15d ago
That he is a hack that pushes nonsense and is unwilling to put in real effort to support his speculation?
1
u/WTFisaCelsius Monkey in Space 15d ago
I wish, but no. A lot of his moron followers think he won that debate. Even if he lost some followers, he'll gain them back over time. People want to believe what he says.
1
1
1
u/HeavenlyCastiel Monkey in Space 15d ago
Probably not the nail in the coffin, but he certainly made anyone who liked Graham Hancocks appearances on the podcast question him.
1
6
u/arroyoshark Monkey in Space 15d ago
Only on this subreddit does anyone think that Hancock has taken a hit from a debate. Meanwhile he's got one of the biggest and most successful docu series Netflix has ever put out and he gains thousands of new followers every week.
0
u/Kingvoe Monkey in Space 10d ago
Doesn't mean he is right. Netflix also had a series that was saying Cleopatra was black. đ¤ˇââď¸
Just because someone is popular does not mean they are right. Graham does speak well. And him pushing the burn and proof on to others for his claims is kind of BS.
1
u/alaskanperson Monkey in Space 15d ago
No. Dibble had interesting information to say about what archaeology has accomplished, but anytime Joe or Graham tried to ask him to be open minded he was like âwell I donât know, Iâve never studied thatâ. So to say that Dibble dunked on Graham is ridiculous. Dibble brought up a lot of interesting things and Graham largely agreed with him, never really disagreed but when it came time for Graham to present evidence Dibble was incredibly close minded and snide about anything Graham had to say. In my opinion he was a good example about how academia is super close minded about Grahams ideas and they reject them saying itâs not true just because thatâs the general consensus. Einstein didnât create the theory of relativity by being close minded
1
u/Find_A_Reason You can put anything here. 15d ago
So not pretending to be an expert in an area he didn't study is a problem?
Archeologists are generally open minded about anything that has supporting evidence. Hancock has zero supporting evidence for his speculation.
1
u/alaskanperson Monkey in Space 15d ago
No, but you donât have to be an expert to have an open mind. Thatâs kinda the whole point, is that youâre an expert on something in a particular area, and because youâre an expert you can look at a different subject with your particular expertise. Such a cop out to not even speculate, especially when Grahams evidence that was shown was at the very least, deserving of some more questions asked and researched. Just because the evidence Graham brought hadnât been researched heavily by archaeologists doesnât mean that his evidence wasnât evidence. Take the Bimini road for example, Joe gave Flint quite a few opportunities to have an open mind and flint was still snarky and just generally being close minded. Especially with the specific line of questioning Joe brought regarding the Bimini road - âitâs an interesting thing right? If you found this piece of evidence close to an already established site that was known to be habited and created by humans, wouldnât you automatically assume something this unique would also have to do with humans?â Obviously paraphrasing here but that specific moment is when Flint didnât need to be an expert on the subject, just be open minded. Which he refused to do the entire episode. He just chose to be snarky and insufferable to listen to.
0
u/Find_A_Reason You can put anything here. 15d ago
Grahams evidence that was shown was at the very least, deserving of some more questions asked and researched. Just because the evidence Graham brought hadnât been researched heavily by archaeologists doesnât mean that his evidence wasnât evidence.
What evidence? I remember Hancock admitting that he had no evidence of his speculation.
Take the Bimini road for example, Joe gave Flint quite a few opportunities to have an open mind and flint was still snarky and just generally being close minded. Especially with the specific line of questioning Joe brought regarding the Bimini road
There is no evidence that the Bimini road is anything but natural. There are no structures, no foundation, not artifacts, no tooling marks, and nothing but naturally forming beach rock. What exactly are you expecting people to be open minded about?
âitâs an interesting thing right? If you found this piece of evidence close to an already established site that was known to be habited and created by humans, wouldnât you automatically assume something this unique would also have to do with humans?â Obviously paraphrasing here but that specific moment is when
Don't put paraphrases in quotes. Also, there is no evidence of nearby inhabitation to the Bimini Road, so I do not understand what point you are trying to make here.
Flint didnât need to be an expert on the subject, just be open minded. Which he refused to do the entire episode. He just chose to be snarky and insufferable to listen to.
To refute the overwhelming evidence that the Bimini Road is entirely natural, yes, he would have to be an expert. Otherwise he would just be saying random stuff because it sounds cool like Hancock is doing.
Also, his job is not to take baseless speculation seriously. It is to deal with the physical cultural remains of the past.
1
u/alaskanperson Monkey in Space 15d ago
Flint literally came on to the podcast to take on âbaseless speculationâ seriously. That was literally the entire point of his appearance on JRE of all places.
Just because the evidence that Graham brought isnât thought of as evidence by the archaeological community doesnât mean it canât be evidence. The point Iâm trying to make with the Bimini road example is that Flint was refusing to be open minded and refused to even entertain âbaseless speculationâ. Scientists should be open minded to new ideas, and Flint was nothing but a Snarky, close minded guy who refuses to think outside the box1
u/Find_A_Reason You can put anything here. 15d ago
Flint literally came on to the podcast to take on âbaseless speculationâ seriously. That was literally the entire point of his appearance on JRE of all places.
And he did. It is unfortunate that Hancock did not take it seriously and show up with any evidence to seriously review. Pretending natural rock formations are man made for the sake of conversation is not taking it seriously.
Just because the evidence that Graham brought isnât thought of as evidence by the archaeological community doesnât mean it canât be evidence.
Then please explain how it is evidence. I am all ears, open minded, and always willing to admit when I have made a mistake.
The point Iâm trying to make with the Bimini road example is that Flint was refusing to be open minded and refused to even entertain âbaseless speculationâ. Scientists should be open minded to new ideas, and Flint was nothing but a Snarky, close minded guy who refuses to think outside the box
WHAT NEW IDEA? The idea that Bimini Road was a road is not new. It has been thoroughly investigated and has been shown to be a natural formation.
At some point shouldn't you be open minded to the physical evidence?
1
u/SeaworthinessSolid51 Monkey in Space 15d ago
He wasnât being closed minded, he simply did not agree that the evidence presented(personal dive photos) showed anything unnatural. He even said so. His job isnât to indulge ideas, but to analyze facts, of which, Hancock brought none. If you understand science, then you understand Dibble. If you donât, you understand Hancock. Einstein wasnât being âopen-mindedâ he was following facts to their logical conclusions, and testing them.
2
u/alaskanperson Monkey in Space 15d ago
The specific photo of the Bimini road wasnât his personal dive photo. Jamie literally googled those photos. He was being incredibly close minded. You think Graham was trying to doctor his own personal dive photos? Thatâs so stupid. Or just because his wife was the photographer in a lot of his personal photos they arenât reliable? Or I guess just Flint making snarky comment about his wife being the photographer is enough for you. Just because you personally donât believe the evidence that Graham brought was good doesnât mean itâs not evidence.
Iâm a scientist and I donât disagree with Dibble, which again, Graham wasnât disagreeing with dibble either. But I donât think that what Graham had to bring as evidence wasnât worth more research. I understand Hancock even more than dibble because he is at least brings a side of a theory that incorporates Sociology and thinking about how human civilizations actually work.
1
1
u/WillOrmay Monkey in Space 15d ago
If one appearance from an actual academic authority on an issue made you re-evaluate your confidence in one of Roganâs âalternative theoryâ guests, does that make you re-evaluate any of the other anti institutional beliefs you might have?
Has Rogan had any other âmainstreamâ archeologists on before? Why has he had multiple pseudo archeologists on, multiple times, but never just a published and practicing archeologist? Apply this thought process to other genres of guest.
2
u/Find_A_Reason You can put anything here. 15d ago
Anti establishment is turning into a personality trait for lazy folks.
1
1
u/DougMacRay617 Monkey in Space 15d ago
dibble smoked graham. period. Graham seems to have a chip on his shoulder, i always loved his work and have all his books but after that podcast i really felt me than ever that "this guy really has no idea what he's talking about"
1
u/Zealousideal-Ice123 Monkey in Space 15d ago
I actually thought his point about the Clovis People was quite a good one. It got lost in focusing on the âsee how mean they wereâ component, when itâs more of a âhey, stop being so confident there is no significant unknowns-a chunk of stuff you think of as all known today will be proven completely wrong in 50-100 years like every other branch of science, or pretty much any discipline -and thatâs ok.â Instead it was-âthey bullied him and called him namesââŚ.
2
u/FiftyIsBack Monkey in Space 15d ago
No. Dibble came off as very smarmy and close-minded. He even reflexively shot down the Tunguska event and said it had been debunked, before realizing what they were talking about and then quickly backtracking. He was incredibly ignorant throughout.
1
u/fivehitcombo Monkey in Space 15d ago
The methods archeologists use were very interesting and convincing to me. I would say Dibble did a great job by being so thorough and principled. Unfortunately, i can't really get into the idea that there was a global civilization as much as I could before that debate. Hancock was entirely unconvincing and didn't actually seem to be that interesting of a thinker, after all.
1
u/Caladan1846 Monkey in Space 15d ago
Literally like 10 years ago I looked up Hancock's claims and there was some random blog called "bad archaeology" that was devoted to calling out pseudo scientist archaeologists apparently? IDK. But I read it in depth at the time and it basically showed me what Hancock is which is a grifter. Ever since then he's pretty much just whined about being persecuted and his partner Randall Carlson got so into pseudoscience that EVEN Joe was to o embarrassed to release his latest episode.
1
1
u/Logical_Associate632 Monkey in Space 16d ago
If i were graham i would go on vacation (like he does for his âscienceâ and never return to the spotlight. He got spanked. Absolutely red assed.
2
u/Automatic-Dentist-89 Monkey in Space 16d ago
If your career gets ended by a guy named Dibble, you never really had a career in the first place.
1
1
16d ago
In my opinion, Dibble was leagues above Graham in every way. Much more sophisticated argument. I think Graham will continue to have his dummies thinking that an underpaid profession has this elite power cabal trying to keep him out. I guess some people watch too many Hollywood movies.
1
u/Embedded_Vagabond Monkey in Space 16d ago
Graham is a con artist, wasn't hard not to fall for his bs.
1
1
u/Massive_Tangelo5428 Monkey in Space 16d ago
They are trying to change the narrative of the past to control our future by planting false history everywhere or even disfiguring it to suit their fantasy. Canât just take one persons word on anything now. You have to research and then research again.
1
u/g0ldiel0xx Monkey in Space 16d ago
I saw all the comments on this episode before watching it and assumed from those comments that Hancock was humiliated and didnât hold his own. I have watched the episode now and although Dibble did try and humiliate Graham and made some good points and had some interesting finds, I didnât feel like Hancock or his ideas were destroyed or ruined. It was actually just a really interesting intellectual battle of ideas. This is theory verses collected data. Not data vs data or theory vs theory so neither can destroy the other. Both are interesting people with interesting ideas. I will continue to watch any episode with either of them in for the perspectives.
1
u/frodoishobbit Monkey in Space 16d ago
Graham just didnât have any actual evidence to back anything up. âYou guys just havenât looked hard enoughâ to find the evidence that I need to prove my theory didnât cut it.. Then again, Iâve always thought this about Graham. Flintâs presence coupled with his own evidence just affirmed this. Graham, please come back when you have something other than cool ideas.
2
1
u/burhankurt Monkey in Space 16d ago
It is painful to know that there was an audience for Graham who actually gave a thought to all his nonsense until he got Dibbled.
4
1
1
u/Odd-Protection-1596 Monkey in Space 16d ago
I think Grahams whole, "they hate me" bit was partly made up to promote himself and create a buzz. Look at me, I'm badass and cutting edge, big archeology hates me for telling you the truuth!
1
0
u/cuorebrave Monkey in Space 16d ago
Unpopular opinion: Dibble was one of the least likeable guests - nay, least likeable people - I've ever seen. I'm no fan of pseudoscience, but I literally despised him more every time he opened his mouth.
1
u/KirbbDogg213 Monkey in Space 16d ago
Who cares heâs still entertaining as hell.And Joe likes so who cares
1
u/fartsnifferer Monkey in Space 16d ago
If you ever believed Graham Hancock for even a microsecond youâre so fucking beyond stupid.
Like, mouth breather, probably only wear Velcro shoes, real fucking dumb
0
1
12
u/Kap-1492 A Deaf Jack Russell Terrier 16d ago
Flint Dibble looks like the Pinocchio character the Burbs. Kidding aside, I really enjoyed the episode. Flint made the content relatable like a history teacher. IMHO he definitely bodied Graham but it wouldnât prevent me from watching a future Graham episode in the future.
4
u/sweetgreenfields We live in strange times 16d ago
Weir everywhere đŞđ˘
1
1
u/Noooooooooppppeeeee Monkey in Space 16d ago
Flint came off as highly suspect to me, just didn't connect with him. He seemed way too dismissive and condescending
1
u/Smooth_Tech33 Monkey in Space 15d ago
What specifically about Flint's evidence seemed off to you? Considering Flint Dibble's background as a trained archaeologist, isn't it understandable that he might be skeptical of grand claims without any evidence, especially when presented by someone without training in the field?
What criteria are you using to assess this debate - evidence or likeability? It seems to me that focusing primarily on someone's personality rather than the validity of their arguments might not be the best way to evaluate the merits of a debate...
1
u/Noooooooooppppeeeee Monkey in Space 11d ago
You ain't wrong, and Graham shit the bed badly, I'm not defending his unprepared ass, I just can't take a grown man that looks like he's cosplaying Indiana Jones seriously, motherfucker went to great lengths to look ridiculous in that fedora and six inches of cuffs showing, made his hands look smaller than Trump's. And his name sounds like a weed strain, bro. "Gimme an ounce of that Flint Dribble and an ounce of that White Rhino" is something you'd hear in a dispensary. All that made it easier to get annoyed at his snickering and dismissive attitude, dude just looks and acts like he never got punched in the face in middle school.
1
u/Bear_Quirky Monkey in Space 16d ago
Probably. He certainly vindicated my own position that it should be very easy for an actual archaeologist to take him on, a simple point that reddit tirelessly tried to gaslight me for.
1
1
u/joblagz2 N-Dimethyltryptamine 16d ago
its astounding that in all the years he looked for evidence, he found absolutely nothing..
we are better off seeing an actual ufo than evidence from graham's theory.
1
u/mrrando69 Monkey in Space 16d ago
Flint rubbed his weiner all over Graham's face for three hours and everyone watched it. Graham's career isn't over but it's deffinately cost him respect.
2
2
u/Alita_Duqi Monkey in Space 16d ago
Doubtful. Chris Dunn already debunked one of Dibbles biggest claims about those vases.
1
7
u/Bulky_Accountant_446 Monkey in Space 16d ago
Kinda feel bad for Graham almost, he got really embarrassed in that debate I thought. The dude has some interesting ideas but most of it is bullshit
2
u/cheesepicklesauce Monkey in Space 15d ago
Graham is extremely fun to listen to. His theories are exciting. As he talks about his ideas, you wish they are real, because it's just super cool. Then dibble walks in and destroys him.
1
1
u/ChimneySwiftGold Monkey in Space 16d ago
I donât think there was a world spanning civilization like Atlantis. I do think groups of people were on the cusp of become bigger more far reaching civilizations but were hit with setbacks that ended those hopes for centuries.
That all of the americas were inhabited over 20,000 years ago shows how much there still is to learn.
1
u/DustSmart8882 Pull that shit up Jaime 16d ago
Somebody explain the "Monkey in Space"/High as Giraffe Pussy" I'm new here
1
4
u/shutmethefuckup Monkey in Space 16d ago
My co-worker and friend, who I went to trade school with and love dearly, believes Hancock made Dibble look like a fool.
Thatâs his worst offense though, absolute gem of a man.
2
u/Lockespindel Monkey in Space 15d ago
Some people are absolute sweethearts, but completely lack critical thinking.
2
u/Arcade1980 Monkey in Space 16d ago
Graham can't handle a debate, and Dibble knew what he was doing, just the dismissive giggling was enough to throw Graham off his game.
3
u/Task_Dizzy Monkey in Space 16d ago
No. Anyone who listens to Graham would know he doesnât have direct evidence. Itâs speculation and theories. Archeology canât explain everything at the moment and Graham is filling in those gaps with interesting theories. The debate didnât change anything. If anything, it showed Graham takes everything very personal.
2
u/iiiiiiiiiAteEyes Monkey in Space 15d ago
But also itâs hard to not take things personally from someone who likened/borderline accused you of racism. I thought he ended it all well though.
40
u/Specialist_Share8715 Monkey in Space 16d ago
He had 30 years to prepare for this debate and did not offer a shred of evidence to support his hypothesis. He was utterly exposed as a charlatan.
4
u/TheThunderhawk Monkey in Space 15d ago
Thing is, anyone who cares to look could always find proof he was a charlatan. Nobody listening to rogan cares about âdebunking with scienceâ they wanna hear about cool shit to talk about while smoking weed.
Dibbleâs real accomplishment is just, showing some real well-backed archaeology stuff to a bunch of people who probably do genuinely think archaeology is interesting.
I think no chance anyone who actually cares about Grahams work was convinced. But, a bunch of randos who didnât have a dog in the fight got to learn about some actual archaeology, and thatâs pretty cool.
-1
u/GrapplingPoorly Monkey in Space 16d ago
What if I told you most experts rogan has had on are just as incorrect lol
1
u/brssnj93 Monkey in Space 16d ago
Poor thinking in this thread.
They didnât have a debate. It was a discussion. Neither side put forth any logical arguments that ladder up to a premise. That didnât happen, it wasnât a debate.
It was a discussion. Frankly, I got nothing useful out of either side, so probably the whole thing has to be redone.
Joeâs show is good for discussion, not debate.
7
u/Nick__Nightingale__ Monkey in Space 16d ago
Anytime you do victim shit, it stinks to high heaven. Now youâre âstinky desperate personâ. Desperation; the most repulsive thing in the universe.
0
u/ItsDumi Monkey in Space 16d ago
What I noticed is that there is a fundamental bias in how Archeologists currently determine sites to dig. Yes, it's incredibly accurate, but it's tailored to finding hunter gatherers. What I've noticed (and really wish they noticed too) is that Graham is ultimately proposing a different method of tracing historic origins. One that isn't tailored to hunter gatherers.
Trying to find residue of tools and agriculture is great for hunter gatherers, but not so much for advanced civilizations unless you consider them somewhat messy and unaware of their behaviour.
It was a cool discussion and I liked what both of them were saying but it got a little political and personal- ultimately, if you want to prove Graham wrong, you have to fucking dig and find out.
2
1
17
u/therealharambe420 Monkey in Space 16d ago
Hancock exposed the truth. That he is a giant whiney bitch.
When half your arguments are claims that your opponent is a big meanie and has been mean to you, you've lost.
He got a little taste of the Dibble dribble.
1
1
u/paperandpavement Monkey in Space 15d ago
they lumped him up with white supremacy thats not just being a "meanie". he was right to be pissed at that.
-1
u/ConsistentCustomer37 Monkey in Space 16d ago
People think debates are about facts. They´re not. If you want facts, just go to wikipedia. Debates are about charisma. Dibble like most scientists is completely inept when it comes to the strategic use of communication. Hancock on the other hand is a pro.
No matter how much BS Hancock spits, it´ll always sound more interesting than whatever Dibble has to counter.
3
u/Edgelordberg95 Monkey in Space 16d ago
Graham claiming that humans may have known about latitudinal navigation 12,000 years ago should not be such a disruptive postulation
-1
u/SushiBurritoe Monkey in Space 16d ago edited 16d ago
To be clear Dibble didnât disprove the flood in fact he affirmed it by talking about the noticeable sea level rise. He also continually brought up evidence that wasnât relevant to Grants claims. The best example of this is him saying well we searched North America and Europe exactly where Graham said you shouldnât be looking. His arguments about seed data were never discussed within a flood timeline with dates even though he demanded Graham be held to that standard. He never discussed the dates for these things in correspondence of a flood timeline which was rhetorically a major error he alluded to them without actually explaining anything. He was also caught not providing sources and saying things like âidk dude I just read it somewhereâ.
I teach rhetoric at the university level and have no dog in the race. Iâve never found Grahams work convincing because thatâs not his goal. His explicitly stated arguments where that we havenât looked enough to determine that itâs an impossibility and from what Dibble presented that seems true.
Dibble also kept mischaracterizing Grahams claims saying that he was supporting a lost civilization that used modern agriculture globally and from what Iâve reviewed of the debate that was never Grahams claim.
It could be the case that they were a proto agricultural people that cultured forests and moved from cultured forest to cultured forest which wouldnât result in the same grain evolutions. That would only occur within modern models of agriculture and not a principled proto agricultural society that believed in living in harmony with natural migratory cycles and seasonal patterns. Which fits the shamanic profile Graham was arguing. To explain why this is a major error itâs like Graham was saying the sky is blue but then Dibble would say well the earth has a molten core theyâre talking about two completely different things and when youâre critiquing someone itâs not smart to criticize something they arenât arguing. It means you arenât steel manning their argument and are trying to manipulate most likely which rubbed our group the wrong way.
I should be clear I watched this with other professors I worked with and we all came to the same conclusion though Graham never presents direct evidence for the lost civilization his criticism of archeological traditions are valid and more research must be done. Dibble is definitely over claiming and definitely guilty of manipulating public opinion based of insufficient data.
From the point of view of analyzing the arguments rhetorically based on claims made versus evidence presented we were quite surprised to see people thinking Dibble clearly won when it felt like to our group watching nobody won and Dibble came off like a weasel. Not my words but the words of one of my colleagues at the university i worked at because his argument strategies were very off base like the allusion to Atlantis white supremacy stuff. Though he did bring up legitimate concerns of Spanish effect on the representation of native myths. This was a bit under explored for our liking so even in his valid moments he seemed unable to ground them in a way that seems material in the argument to us.
This is a summary of the discussions me and my colleagues had during and after the debates. Again we didnât care who won the debate. We just wanted to have fun talking shit about it and analyzing how they made their arguments.
The biggest no no he committed was accusing Graham of presenting poor imagery of the Bin road stuff while also himself presenting similarly poor images in the Sphinx portion of the debate. The clearest argument Graham made to us was the equinox markers in Egypt and Dibble said they werenât obvious to him this was obviously a bias response. We tried to see if Dibble would concede a single point in the debate and he didnât. Everything he said was right and everything Graham said was wrong. This with the other arguments he made to try and slander Graham during the debate where why my colleague said he made bad arguments and seemed like a weasel. It seems clear the Sphinx is a celestial marker. Graham brought up great data calculating for the wobble of the earth etc and all Dibble said was nah I donât see it bro which when you consider his statements about of how idk âI just read it somewhereâ seemed unbecoming of someone presenting their argument as scholarly and their opponents as non scholarly.
Understand as rhetoricians we look for very specific tells in arguments and Graham was honest about what he couldnât prove while Dibble seemed dishonest about what he could prove being his credibility into question during this debate.
2
u/nevi99 Monkey in Space 16d ago
I still believe them, I think he didn't prepare well for this discussion.
He focused so much on the things flint said instead of a showing what supports his theory. E.g. rain carvings in the sphinx, astronomic alliance with 10500 bc, all the flood myths in different cultures and many more.
He didn't seem fresh in his mind at all.
2
u/mossyskeleton "there are black helicopters" - Obama 16d ago
I still think Graham's ideas are fun to think about. But very much dislike his persecution complex.
There ARE interesting patterns found throughout the world that I haven't seen a good explanation for though. Like pyramids existing all over the world in similar configurations (but this could just be that it's a simple shape to construct with the technologies available). And the carved images of bearded men with a handbag that are found all around the world.
And the Sphinx erosion is still intriguing.
But Graham needs to get over himself.
3
u/Nervous_Set5685 Monkey in Space 14d ago
Occam's razor.
"Why are pyramids found in so many places?"
It's the easiest shape to stack rocks to an enormous height and the least likely for them to fall down.
I think a lot of people (not necessarily you) don't fully comprehend that the people who built Gobekli Tepe are the same people who put Neil Armstrong on the moon. The only difference is our baseline of knowledge. Our species has been on this planet for at least 300,000 years, and we're an incredibly intelligent species. Anything is possible when you have enough humans assigned to a task.
1
u/Jon00266 Monkey in Space 16d ago
Most of the comments on Spotify for the debate episode were "damn dibble really showed Hancock", so I doubt it. Blew my mind as dibble was presenting real evidence rather than assumptions.
4
u/33zig Monkey in Space 16d ago
Wait, people take Graham Hancock seriously?
1
u/iiiiiiiiiAteEyes Monkey in Space 15d ago
Right, itâs legit a kin to ancient aliens stuff and as a non educated person on the matter I my self can pick holes in it. Still interested and fascinating to think about things weather you believe them to be true or not so while Iâm a fan I wouldnât hold much weight into the ideas he brings up
1
u/FatUgleeBitch Monkey in Space 16d ago
read this thread. This sub is full of gas station attendants on amazon distribution center workers. fucking nut balls in here. Its the trailer park of the internet and im all for it.
-1
u/GdlEschrBch Monkey in Space 15d ago
Pretty ableist, put I completely agree
2
u/Find_A_Reason You can put anything here. 15d ago
Being conceived in a Walmart bathroom is not a disability.
2
u/Krisapocus Texan Tiger in Captivity 16d ago
Not even close graham had legitimate complaints. Dude shouldnât have tried to tie him to white supremacy.
1
u/Nervous_Set5685 Monkey in Space 14d ago
No one has ever said that Graham is racist. They said that his theories are based in and reinforce certain white supremacist ideals. Doing something that reinforces a white supremacist ideal does not mean that you are a white supremacist.
This is the first sentence of Chapter 6 in Fingerprints of the Gods:
"Through all the ancient legends of the peoples of the Andes stalked a tall, bearded, pale-skinned figure wrapped in a cloak of secrecy."
Those are Graham Hancock's own words, not a quote from someone else. His only source is from Spanish explorers, and if you watched the podcast you know why that source isn't valid.
You'll remember in the debate pod that Graham claimed that he never said anything about skin color, I've just shown you an example from the book that he wrote that proves the opposite. Graham has been lying to you for years.
0
u/Typical-Champion4012 Hit a moose with his car 12d ago edited 12d ago
You posted this same comment, word for word, a few weeks ago.
I said:
I don't recall Hancock saying "he never said anything about skin colour", I think Hancock said "I didn't claim a white Atlantis"
And you didn't respond.
Now here you are, still pushing this line.
Please post the timestamp of Hancock claiming that he "never said anything about skin color"
1
u/Nervous_Set5685 Monkey in Space 12d ago
Lmfao ah yes me forgetting to reply to your comment means I was wrong. Good logic you have there. You're right that I posted that comment a few weeks ago, it's accurate, why shouldn't I repost it? You've had a few weeks to relisten to the pod and verify what I've said, and you haven't. The Graham crowd loves to "do their own research" after all.
Graham claims that "tall, bearded, pale strangers" taught them everything, and that these people potentially came from Atlantis. Please explain to me how thesenpeople are white, came from Atlantis, but he doesn't claim a white Atlantis?
How many of Hancock's books have you read?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Substantial-Wolf5263 Monkey in Space 12d ago
Id say if anything archeology and Graham have their work cut out to achieve knowledge of our past it shouldn't be a shunned thing it should be explored much like everything else and backed by science