If Graham Hancock's ideas are allegedly as crazy as they're saying they are, there is no need to lie on him or take away genuine points that he's making.
Only dumb pawns fall for parts of that "rebuttal vid".
Meanwhile in the real world, many people have voiced similar complaints about archaeologists and the scientific establishment. Whether the vid maker wants to acknowledge that, or not.
One example comes to mind of censorship from the anthro/archaeological community, that Hancock's detractor claims doesn't happen in the real world:
No one today with a lay interest in Aboriginal anthropology, and few of those doing introductory courses in the subject, would ever find out that Australia had a pygmy people. What, then, has been going on? Why would these people have been expunged from popular memory? How did the Australian pygmies become extinct within the public consciousness? The extinction of the Australian pygmies https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2002/06/the-extinction-of-the-australian-pygmies/
Shoutout to Graham Hancock. I'm not going against someone bc a parrot of the scientific establishment tells me to. And judging from the beginning of the vid, this is just another hatchet job done by members of the scientific community or its many parrots. You can find these people on wikipedia lying and twisting the truth. Except when anonymous, they don't put on the facade of being nice and polite as youtuber man who claims to do an objective analysis.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And judging from the beginning of the vid, this is just another hatchet job
you can't judge by watching just the beginning of a video, he makes a lot of points in detail. I thought you was mythbusta
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And judging from the beginning of the vid, this is just another hatchet job
you can't judge by watching the beginning of a video , he make a lot of points in detail. I thought you was mythbusta
Lioness. You can be funny every now and then. I'll give you that.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Sorry, but I don't have time to watch that long rebuttal video, can anyone give me a breakdown or synopsis of what the critic is saying about Hancock?
And I agree with Swenet, I don't agree with everything Hancock says but I find it odd that ever since he came out with a series on Netflix there were so many experts that were angry and wanted it canceled and him silenced. Last time I checked, free speech is not only vital to civil freedoms but essential to academia. If an academic is wrong about something you don't try to shut him up rather just prove him wrong.
One of the things which I find curious is how so many are willing to attack him on the premise that there could be civilizations that predate the ones academia touts as the firsts-- Sumer, Egypt, etc. etc. Again, I'm not saying Hancock is not necessarily right but that the possibility exists. These same experts still haven't fully and accurately mapped a timeline for many of the ancient events or properly linked them to archaeology but they want to dictate to the point of shutting other people up. Funny how I see more people attacking Hancock than I do people attack the likes of Robert Sepehr, not that I think he should be attacked.
It's called keeping an open mind. Think about the paradigm created by Western academia which many independent scholars like Max Dashu have just recently been able to deconstruct (and not in the Marxist way) in a logically sound way that dispels narratives and lies as was shown here. It's this open debate that allow people to overturn paradigms as well as prevent new ones from being formed. Even Swenet has opened my eyes to the paradigm that paleoanthropology has constructed in the way it intereprets many fossils to fit a certain agenda.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Exactly, as someone who is a historian( a degree in history) and knows how historical academia works, I can say that 100% these "academics" have no idea on the actual origins of humanity/civilization nor can they claim the accepted narriative is 100% accurate, Goblekli Tepi disproved their whole schtick, and thats just one example.
Weird how they're all so quick to attack Hancock, to try an silence him. Is he making stuff up or drawing his ow conclusions...maybe, but how is he any different that these so called "academics" who for the last hundred years claimed human hunter gathers were too primitive to build something advanced like Goblekli Tepe...how do they even know these people were even hunter gatherers...etc.
These are the same people who ignore or omit whole swathes of human history, theres about a 200-300 year gap of Early American "Colonial/Early Explortion" history that is completly ignored by these academics, the "Islamic Golden Age" Petro Dollar funded liberal propaganda narriative etc
I can go on and on...but Hancock is the eveil boogyman and we're supposed to trust and believe these mainstream academics and their corn-chip lacky armchair mouthpeice "historians" on youtube
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If Graham Hancock's ideas are allegedly as crazy as they're saying they are, there is no need to lie on him or take away genuine points that he's making.
Only dumb pawns fall for parts of that "rebuttal vid".
Meanwhile in the real world, many people have voiced similar complaints about archaeologists and the scientific establishment. Whether the vid maker wants to acknowledge that, or not.
One example comes to mind of censorship from the anthro/archaeological community, that Hancock's detractor claims doesn't happen in the real world:
No one today with a lay interest in Aboriginal anthropology, and few of those doing introductory courses in the subject, would ever find out that Australia had a pygmy people. What, then, has been going on? Why would these people have been expunged from popular memory? How did the Australian pygmies become extinct within the public consciousness? The extinction of the Australian pygmies https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2002/06/the-extinction-of-the-australian-pygmies/
Shoutout to Graham Hancock. I'm not going against someone bc a parrot of the scientific establishment tells me to. And judging from the beginning of the vid, this is just another hatchet job done by members of the scientific community or its many parrots. You can find these people on wikipedia lying and twisting the truth. Except when anonymous, they don't put on the facade of being nice and polite as youtuber man who claims to do an objective analysis.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Exactly, as someone who is a historian( a degree in history) and knows how historical academia works, I can say that 100% these "academics" have no idea on the actual origins of humanity/civilization nor can they claim the accepted narrative is 100% accurate, Goblekli Tepi disproved their whole schtick, and that's just one example.
Weird how they're all so quick to attack Hancock, to try an silence him. Is he making stuff up or drawing his ow conclusions...maybe, but how is he any different that these so called "academics" who for the last hundred years claimed human hunter gathers were too primitive to build something advanced like Goblekli Tepe...how do they even know these people were even hunter gatherers...etc.
These are the same people who ignore or omit whole swathes of human history, theres about a 200-300 year gap of Early American "Colonial/Early Exploration" history that is completely ignored by these academics, the "Islamic Golden Age" Petro Dollar funded liberal propaganda narrative etc.
I can go on and on...but Hancock is the evil boogeyman and we're supposed to trust and believe these mainstream academics and their corn-chip lakey armchair mouthpiece "historians" on youtube
And this is why I am awfully suspicious of these attacks on Hancock. There are a lot quack historians out there, of course the one we are all familiar with in this forum is Clyde Winters, yet with all their erroneous claims most mainstream historians either ignore them or just mock their claims by debunking them. Strangely when it comes to Hancock, there is all this animosity that seems just reactionary. I believe there's a saying that 'you only get attacked when you're over the target'. This makes me believe that Hancock is on to something that the mainstream does not like and therefore in my eyes and the eyes of so many only further legitimizes him.
Several popular books of his..
and its sequel based on Gobekli Tepi.
His book on Ethiopian history
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I'll wait until somebody actually watches the video
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^Ill wait until these corn-chip mainstream academic youtubers admit that they don't know 100% of what happened prior to what they deem to be human civilization, Gobelki Tepi with standing Mega Lithic collumns, paved representation of animals was made by hunter gathers, you know the people these "Mainstream" acheologists and historians for hundreds of years tol us were too stupid to create such things...
Like I said Im in academia, I know what evidence they have and don't have and how certain narriatives are created and upheld.
When these corn-chip, cookie cutter, run of the mill youtube so called historians actually call out their own and not piling on/bullying low hanging fruit like Hancock Ill actually take them serious and watch thier corn-chip stale cookie cutter videos.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
A good example that comes to mind is Robert Bouval's Black genesis where he proposed a connection between proto-Egyptians(Egyptian Civilization) and the modern day Tibbu/Toubou people. Now with more genetic evidence there does seem to be a connection with a "North African" cluster that could very well be represented by the Tibbou and other North African peoples....
Where the Main Stream Academics?, where the Youtube Videos and Debunking videos?
Weird...
They spent the last decade discussing that Dog Whistiling Abu Sier study..
But Im supposed to take these people serious, listen to them and people like Bouval/Hancock etc who might not be 100% correct...but do bring up interesting points and discuss things the mainstream ignores or tries to gloss over....but they're the villains trying to fool people
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Exactly, as someone who is a historian( a degree in history) and knows how historical academia works, I can say that 100% these "academics" have no idea on the actual origins of humanity/civilization nor can they claim the accepted narrative is 100% accurate, Goblekli Tepi disproved their whole schtick, and that's just one example.
Weird how they're all so quick to attack Hancock, to try an silence him. Is he making stuff up or drawing his ow conclusions...maybe, but how is he any different that these so called "academics" who for the last hundred years claimed human hunter gathers were too primitive to build something advanced like Goblekli Tepe...how do they even know these people were even hunter gatherers...etc.
These are the same people who ignore or omit whole swathes of human history, theres about a 200-300 year gap of Early American "Colonial/Early Exploration" history that is completely ignored by these academics, the "Islamic Golden Age" Petro Dollar funded liberal propaganda narrative etc.
I can go on and on...but Hancock is the evil boogeyman and we're supposed to trust and believe these mainstream academics and their corn-chip lakey armchair mouthpiece "historians" on youtube
And this is why I am awfully suspicious of these attacks on Hancock. There are a lot quack historians out there, of course the one we are all familiar with in this forum is Clyde Winters, yet with all their erroneous claims most mainstream historians either ignore them or just mock their claims by debunking them. Strangely when it comes to Hancock, there is all this animosity that seems just reactionary. I believe there's a saying that 'you only get attacked when you're over the target'. This makes me believe that Hancock is on to something that the mainstream does not like and therefore in my eyes and the eyes of so many only further legitimizes him.
Several popular books of his..
and its sequel based on Gobekli Tepi.
His book on Ethiopian history
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Plus I don't want the Youtube Algorithm to start spamming me with these youtube garbage historians, Ive already blocked so many, sometimes they have multiple accounts or get unblocked....
If you want you could let us know the points he brings up like someone asked you....should be easy since he's got evidence and primary sources to back him up and not opinions and long winded gish gallps....Im sure he provides primary evidence to debunk Hancock and prove dumb stupid human hunter gather become smart mainstream narritive is correct right..?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I'll wait until somebody actually watches the video
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what about what the algorithm might do to you after you watch a Graham Hancock video?
I charge $9.99 to go back into detailed videos and make a cliff notes version
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I'll wait until somebody actually watches the video
Have you seen it yourself?
As far as I can tell, the video's focus is less on debunking Hancock's archaeological claims and more on analyzing the rhetorical techniques he uses to persuade laypeople like Joe Rogan. I don't know if I would recommend it to people who want to see a qualified debunking.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: have you seen it yourself?
I watched the whole thing and thinks it's worth watching even if you are a Hancock stan
Pseudoarchaeology A central thesis in many of Hancock's writings beginning with Fingerprints of the Gods is that, contrary to the consensus of mainstream archaeologists that the earliest known civilizations arose independently, there was an advanced civilization, often identified as Atlantis, during the Last Glacial Period that was destroyed in a natural cataclysm during the Younger Dryas. Its few survivors then travelled the world introducing agriculture, monumental architecture, and astronomy to hunter-gatherers, giving rise to civilizations like ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Mesoamerica.[6] Hancock suggests that that this civilisation originated in North America. According to anthropologist Jeb Card, Hancock suggests that the society was "based not on material technology but on psychic/spiritual knowledge" and that it was a "global-sea based society comparable with the late pre-Industrial British Empire" with knowledge "that would seem like magic even today" with the teachings of Atlanteans to later civilisations being "geometric, astronomical and spiritual" in nature, which were "aided by psychotropic plants such as ayahuasca and peyote that allow access to the Otherworld." allowing them to commune with souls and otherworldly beings. These Atlanteans were then remembered by later civilisations as "magicians and gods".[29] Hancock argues that evidence is found in ancient monuments, which he believes are much older than suggested by mainstream archaeology.[30] Hancock's thesis is a form of hyperdiffusionism,[29] an idea that extends back to at least the 19th century.[31] Hancock's ideas are in particular very similar to those American congressman Ignatius Donnelly put forward in his book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World (1882). with Hancock having explicitly cited Donnelly in some of his works.[6] The hyperdiffusion hypothesis put forward by Donnelly and others has long been discredited by mainstream archaeologists.[6][29] Hancock has argued for the presence of indigenous "Caucasoids" and "Negroids" in the Americas prior to 1492, which he claims are depicted in indigenous American art and mythology[6] Although Hancock has identified the Atlanteans as indigenous Americans,[32] he stated in Fingerprints of the Gods that Atlanteans were "white [and] auburn-haired".[6] Archaeologists and skeptical writers have accused Hancock of reinforcing white supremacist ideas, due to the origins of some of Hancock's claims being drawn from racist sources, such as 19th century proponents of the "mound builder myths" including Donnelly, who claimed that large mounds built by Indigenous peoples of the Americas were actually the works of white people or Atlanteans.[6][32] Hancock has rejected allegations that he is racist, and has expressed support for native rights.[33]
Hancock's claims and methods are regarded as pseudoarchaeology.[34] Jeb Card has suggested that attempts to critique Hancock's work "using the criteria of professional archaeology is doomed to failure, as his goals are outside the goals of the materialist practice of scientific archaeology." descrbing the goals of Hancock as mythic and paranormal in nature.[29] Archaeologist John Hoopes has described Hancock's claims as effectively religious in nature and rooted in New Age beliefs.[35] In Archaeological Fantasies Garrett G. Fagan points out that pseudoarchaeologists cherry pick evidence and misrepresent known facts. When apparently factual claims in their works are investigated it turns out that "quotes are presented out of context, critical countervailing data is withheld, the state of understanding is misrepresented, or critical archaeological information about context is ignored".[34] Fagan gives two typical examples from Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods (1995):[36]
Hancock wrote that "the best recent evidence suggests that"[37] large regions of Antarctica may have been ice free until about 6,000 years ago, referring to the Piri Reis map and Hapgood's work from the 1960s. What is left entirely unmentioned are the extensive studies of the Antarctic ice sheet by George H. Denton, published in 1981, which showed the ice to be hundreds of thousands of years old.[38][39] When discussing the ancient Bolivian city of Tiwanaku, Hancock presents it as a "mysterious site about which very little is known"[40] and that "minimal archaeology has been done over the years",[40] suggesting that it may date to 17,000 years ago. Yet in the years prior to these statements dozens of studies had been published, major excavations were conducted and the site was radiocarbon dated by three sets of samples to around 1500 BC.[41] The Maya are portrayed by Hancock as only "semi-civilized" and their achievements as "generally unremarkable" to support the thesis that they inherited their calendar from a much older, far more advanced civilization.[42]
Hancock has speculated that some of the granite blocks in roof of the tomb chambers in the Great Pyramid of Giza were moved using acoustic levitation, an assertion for which there is no evidence.[43]
Orion correlation theory Main article: Orion correlation theory
Representation of the central tenet of the Orion Correlation Theory – the outline of the Giza pyramids superimposed over the stars in Orion's Belt. This alleged match has been rejected by astronomers. One of the many recurring themes in several of Hancock's works has been an exposition on Robert Bauval's Orion correlation theory (OCT). OCT posits that the relative locations of the three largest pyramids of the Giza pyramid complex were chosen by the builders to reflect the three stars of Orion's Belt of the constellation Orion. The pyramids are aligned to the cardinal direction within a fraction of a degree,[44] however they are mismatched with Orion's Belt exceeding five degrees, noted astronomer Tony Fairall.[45]
The Message of the Sphinx (1996) The Message of the Sphinx: A Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind (Keeper of Genesis in the United Kingdom) is a pseudoarchaeology[46][47] book written by Hancock and Robert Bauval in 1996 which argues that the creation of the Sphinx and Pyramids occurred as far back as 10,500 BC using astronomical data. Working from the premise that the Giza pyramid complex encodes a message, the book begins with the fringe Sphinx water erosion hypothesis, evidence that the authors believe suggests that deep erosion patterns on the flanks of the Sphinx were caused by thousands of years of heavy rain. The authors go on to suggest, using computer simulations of the sky, that the pyramids, representing the three stars of Orion's Belt, along with associated causeways and alignments, constitute a record in stone of the celestial array at the vernal equinox in 10,500 BC. This moment, they contend, represents Zep Tepi, the "First Time", often referred to in the hieroglyphic record. They state that the initiation rites of the Egyptian pharaohs replicate on Earth the sun's journey through the stars in this remote era, and they suggest that the "Hall of Records" of a lost civilisation may be located by treating the Giza Plateau as a template of these same ancient skies.[48]
Atlantis Reborn (1999) Hancock and Bauval's Orion correlation theory was the subject of Atlantis Reborn, an episode of the BBC documentary series Horizon broadcast in 1999. The programme was critical of the theory, demonstrating that the constellation Leo could be found amongst famous landmarks in New York, and alleging that Hancock had selectively moved or ignored the locations of temples to support his argument.[4] It concluded that "as long as you have enough points and you don't need to make every point fit, you can find virtually any pattern you want."[49]
Following the broadcast, Hancock and Bauval complained to the Broadcasting Standards Commission, but the commission found that "the programme makers acted in good faith in their examination of the theories".[50] One complaint was upheld: that the programme unfairly omitted one of their arguments in rebuttal of astronomer Edwin Krupp.[51][52] The following year the BBC broadcast a revised version of the episode, Atlantis Reborn Again, in which Hancock and Bauval provided further rebuttals to Krupp.[4][52]
Ancient Apocalypse (2022) Main article: Ancient Apocalypse Hancock's theories are the basis of Ancient Apocalypse, a 2022 documentary series produced by Netflix, where Hancock's son Sean is "senior manager of unscripted originals".[53] In the series, Hancock argues that an advanced ice age civilization was destroyed in a cataclysm, but that its survivors introduced agriculture, monumental architecture and astronomy to hunter-gatherers around the world.[6] He attempts to show how several ancient monuments are evidence of this, and claims that archaeologists are ignoring or covering-up this alleged evidence.[54] It incorporates ideas from the Comet Research Group (CRG), including the controversial Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.[55]
Archaeologists and other experts have described the theories presented in the series as lacking in evidence and easily disproven.[6][56] It has been criticised for failing to present alternative hypotheses or contradicting evidence, and for unfounded accusations that "mainstream archaeology" conspires against Hancock's ideas.[54][57] Archaeologists have linked Hancock's claims to "racist" and "white supremacist" ideologies from the 19th century, which they say are insulting to the ancestors of indigenous peoples who built the monuments.[58] A Maltese archaeologist who appeared in the episode said that her interview had been manipulated.[59] The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) objected to the classification of the series as a documentary and requested that Netflix reclassify it as science fiction. The SAA also stated that the series
repeatedly and vigorously dismisses archaeologists and the practice of archaeology with aggressive rhetoric, willfully seeking to cause harm to our membership and our profession in the public eye; ... the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists.[60][61]
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
As Swenet said you're funny from time to time, I actually chuckled...
1) I don't or have'nt watched a Hancock video so yeah...no problem there.
2) It does'nt have to be detailed you could just summarize his main arguments....I can't wait to see all the primary sources he provides to prove the mainstream narriative as correct....I mean he isn't just talking without providing primary evidence right...?
....Right?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what about what the algorithm might do to you after you watch a Graham Hancock video?
I charge $9.99 to go back into detailed videos and make a cliff notes version
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: A good example that comes to mind is Robert Bouval's Black genesis where he proposed a connection between proto-Egyptians(Egyptian Civilization) and the modern day Tibbu/Toubou people. Now with more genetic evidence there does seem to be a connection with a "North African" cluster that could very well be represented by the Tibbou and other North African peoples....
Where the Main Stream Academics?, where the Youtube Videos and Debunking videos?
Weird...
They spent the last decade discussing that dog whistling Abu Sir study..
But I'm supposed to take these people serious, listen to them and people like Bouval/Hancock etc who might not be 100% correct...but do bring up interesting points and discuss things the mainstream ignores or tries to gloss over....but they're the villains trying to fool people
Right. It's rather hypocritical of them that they can nitpick certain errors on the part of Hancock or Bouval but not be able to refute the major points of their arguments. Meanwhile, they cling to the Late Period Abusir samples as the be all end all of ancient Egyptian genetics despite the fact that now it's been found there was contamination of some samples, go figure!
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Have you seen it yourself?
As far as I can tell, the video's focus is less on debunking Hancock's archaeological claims and more on analyzing the rhetorical techniques he uses to persuade laypeople like Joe Rogan. I don't know if I would recommend it to people who want to see a qualified debunking.
LOL So that's it?! They dissect Hancock's rhetorical techniques of persuation?! Now I know they'r b.s.ing.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here is a debate between Graham Hancock and the archaeologist Flint Dibble from Cardiff University. The debate took place on Joe Rogan´s show and is more than four hours long for those who have the patience to listen through the whole thing.
Graham Hancock is well known but not everyone may know who Flint Dibble is. Here he gives a short introduction to his research:
quote:Hello! I am an archaeologist whose research focuses on foodways in ancient Greece. My research touches on topics of urbanism, climate change, religious ritual, and everyday life. My current project, ZOOCRETE: The Zooarchaeology of Historical Crete: A Multiscalar Approach to Animals in Ancient Greece, combines archaeological, textual, and biomolecular evidence for the human management and consumption of animals. From animals herded in the landscape to large-scale sacrificial feasts, animals were a central component to the development and resilience of citizen-states during the first millennium BCE.
The two debaters are also presented in the text to the video
quote:Graham Hancock, formerly a foreign correspondent for "The Economist," has been an international bestselling author for more than 30 years with a series of books, notably "Fingerprints of the Gods," "Magicians of the Gods" and "America Before," which investigate the controversial possibility of a lost civilization of the Ice Age destroyed in a global cataclysm some 12,000 years ago. Graham is the presenter of the hit Netflix documentary series "Ancient Apocalypse."
quote:Flint Dibble is an archaeologist at Cardiff University who has conducted field work and laboratory analyses around the Mediterranean region from Stone Age caves to Egyptian tombs to Greek and Roman cities. Flint enjoys sharing archaeology - from the nitty gritty to the grand - with people around the world. Subscribe to his YouTube channel, "Archaeology with Flint Dibble," or follow him on X/Twitter for behind-the-scenes deep dives into 21st century archaeology.
It seems that Dibble will try to test some of Hancocks hypothesis based on his own knowledge of the subject and his own experiences as an archaeologist.
I just started listen to it, I may have to break up my listening into smaller parts due to the length of the video, but it looks like it could be an interesting debate.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
As far as I can tell, the video's focus is less on debunking Hancock's archaeological claims and more on analyzing the rhetorical techniques he uses to persuade laypeople like Joe Rogan. I don't know if I would recommend it to people who want to see a qualified debunking.
Did you watch the video?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is a debate between Graham Hancock and the archaeologist Flint Dibble from Cardiff University. The debate took place on Joe Rogan´s show and is more than four hours long for those who have the patience to listen through the whole thing.
the video I posted is 2 hours
they are definitely not going to watch a similar 4 hour one
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: How Joe Rogan Was Fooled by Graham Hancock
these Hancock stans are afraid to even skim this video
For me to give an overview I would have to watch it again because I don't remember a lot of it. But at least I did watch it straight through
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is a debate between Graham Hancock and the archaeologist Flint Dibble from Cardiff University. The debate took place on Joe Rogan´s show and is more than four hours long for those who have the patience to listen through the whole thing.
the video I posted is 2 hours
they are definitely not going to watch a similar 4 hour one (maybe I'll skim around in it)
(although that Dibble one is the high profile one and as Brandon properly stated about the thread topic video: " the video's focus is less on debunking Hancock's archaeological claims and more on analyzing the rhetorical techniques he uses to persuade laypeople like Joe Rogan." That is what World of Antiquity says in the beginning of the video
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: How Joe Rogan Was Fooled by Graham Hancock World of Antiquity
these Atlantis enthusiasts are afraid to even skim this video
For me to give an overview I would have to watch it again but I don't remember a lot of it But at least I did watch it straight through
Make sure to take a a couple of grams of shroom so you can properly judge this stuff and open the right portals
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Exactly, as someone who is a historian( a degree in history) and knows how historical academia works, I can say that 100% these "academics" have no idea on the actual origins of humanity/civilization nor can they claim the accepted narriative is 100% accurate, Goblekli Tepi disproved their whole schtick, and thats just one example.
Weird how they're all so quick to attack Hancock, to try an silence him. Is he making stuff up or drawing his ow conclusions...maybe, but how is he any different that these so called "academics" who for the last hundred years claimed human hunter gathers were too primitive to build something advanced like Goblekli Tepe...how do they even know these people were even hunter gatherers...etc.
These are the same people who ignore or omit whole swathes of human history, theres about a 200-300 year gap of Early American "Colonial/Early Explortion" history that is completly ignored by these academics, the "Islamic Golden Age" Petro Dollar funded liberal propaganda narriative etc
I can go on and on...but Hancock is the eveil boogyman and we're supposed to trust and believe these mainstream academics and their corn-chip lacky armchair mouthpeice "historians" on youtube
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If Graham Hancock's ideas are allegedly as crazy as they're saying they are, there is no need to lie on him or take away genuine points that he's making.
Only dumb pawns fall for parts of that "rebuttal vid".
Meanwhile in the real world, many people have voiced similar complaints about archaeologists and the scientific establishment. Whether the vid maker wants to acknowledge that, or not.
One example comes to mind of censorship from the anthro/archaeological community, that Hancock's detractor claims doesn't happen in the real world:
No one today with a lay interest in Aboriginal anthropology, and few of those doing introductory courses in the subject, would ever find out that Australia had a pygmy people. What, then, has been going on? Why would these people have been expunged from popular memory? How did the Australian pygmies become extinct within the public consciousness? The extinction of the Australian pygmies https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2002/06/the-extinction-of-the-australian-pygmies/
Shoutout to Graham Hancock. I'm not going against someone bc a parrot of the scientific establishment tells me to. And judging from the beginning of the vid, this is just another hatchet job done by members of the scientific community or its many parrots. You can find these people on wikipedia lying and twisting the truth. Except when anonymous, they don't put on the facade of being nice and polite as youtuber man who claims to do an objective analysis.
If you look at how palaeolithic times worked, especially in terms of archaics and hybrids roaming the earth, many of whom were physically much stronger than modern humans (think Enkidu, from Gilgamesh, who may very well be a memory of an archaic human), it's not a stretch of the imagination that in the Palaeolithic, there could have been insulated, inward-oriented enclaves of sapiens who attained high standards of living (including farming, writing, and so on), entirely outside of view of science. I mean, many of them probably had to live insulated lives anyway, as a matter of survival. Progress would then simply be a matter of time and free time to spend after subsistence activities.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often portrayed in the shape of a pyramid, with the largest, most fundamental needs at the bottom, and the need for self-actualization and transcendence at the top. In other words, the idea is that individuals' most basic needs must be met before they become motivated to achieve higher-level needs.
I don't see how it's better to say there was no Atlantis (establishment skeptics), than it is to say there was an Atlantis (Hancock). Hancock is an individual, and I don't get any malicious vibes from him (not that I know him that well). But the establishment consists of professionals who know full well it's against their own scientific code to speak on and rule out things that cannot be known.
Having said that, if anyone has a vid that gets on the bumper of BOTH Hancock and his detractors, I'd be more than willing to watch the whole thing. If not, I'm pressing close window at the first sign of establishment bs.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Sorry, but I don't have time to watch that long rebuttal video, can anyone give me a breakdown or synopsis of what the critic is saying about Hancock?
And I agree with Swenet, I don't agree with everything Hancock says but I find it odd that ever since he came out with a series on Netflix there were so many experts that were angry and wanted it canceled and him silenced. Last time I checked, free speech is not only vital to civil freedoms but essential to academia. If an academic is wrong about something you don't try to shut him up rather just prove him wrong.
One of the things which I find curious is how so many are willing to attack him on the premise that there could be civilizations that predate the ones academia touts as the firsts-- Sumer, Egypt, etc. etc. Again, I'm not saying Hancock is not necessarily right but that the possibility exists. These same experts still haven't fully and accurately mapped a timeline for many of the ancient events or properly linked them to archaeology but they want to dictate to the point of shutting other people up. Funny how I see more people attacking Hancock than I do people attack the likes of Robert Sepehr, not that I think he should be attacked.
It's called keeping an open mind. Think about the paradigm created by Western academia which many independent scholars like Max Dashu have just recently been able to deconstruct (and not in the Marxist way) in a logically sound way that dispels narratives and lies as was shown here. It's this open debate that allow people to overturn paradigms as well as prevent new ones from being formed. Even Swenet has opened my eyes to the paradigm that paleoanthropology has constructed in the way it intereprets many fossils to fit a certain agenda.
Basically.
What I also can't stand is when science gets it wrong, the field moves on quietly, and the public lets them get away with it. When an independent researcher gets it wrong, they get a wikipedia entry in the pseudo-science section, etc.
I agree 100%, hell Goblekli Tepe proves that such conditions did happen, as you don't just wake up and start building Megalithic monuments, it takes years of perfecting a skill such as masonry, art, construction etc, that you perfect and pass down to your descendants, and its a social skill that must be taught.
These academics don't know what the hell was happening, they're assumung as much as Hancok is. and like you I don't know much about him but its not like he's having his work taught in university or anything. These cookie cutter corn chip Mainstream academics control the University/Primary/High school educational system but whine and cry when someone like Hancock gets popular on YT and Netflix...lol Bunch of namby-pamby babies...lol
I hope Hancock gets more followers..lol
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Exactly, as someone who is a historian( a degree in history) and knows how historical academia works, I can say that 100% these "academics" have no idea on the actual origins of humanity/civilization nor can they claim the accepted narriative is 100% accurate, Goblekli Tepi disproved their whole schtick, and thats just one example.
Weird how they're all so quick to attack Hancock, to try an silence him. Is he making stuff up or drawing his ow conclusions...maybe, but how is he any different that these so called "academics" who for the last hundred years claimed human hunter gathers were too primitive to build something advanced like Goblekli Tepe...how do they even know these people were even hunter gatherers...etc.
These are the same people who ignore or omit whole swathes of human history, theres about a 200-300 year gap of Early American "Colonial/Early Explortion" history that is completly ignored by these academics, the "Islamic Golden Age" Petro Dollar funded liberal propaganda narriative etc
I can go on and on...but Hancock is the eveil boogyman and we're supposed to trust and believe these mainstream academics and their corn-chip lacky armchair mouthpeice "historians" on youtube
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If Graham Hancock's ideas are allegedly as crazy as they're saying they are, there is no need to lie on him or take away genuine points that he's making.
Only dumb pawns fall for parts of that "rebuttal vid".
Meanwhile in the real world, many people have voiced similar complaints about archaeologists and the scientific establishment. Whether the vid maker wants to acknowledge that, or not.
One example comes to mind of censorship from the anthro/archaeological community, that Hancock's detractor claims doesn't happen in the real world:
No one today with a lay interest in Aboriginal anthropology, and few of those doing introductory courses in the subject, would ever find out that Australia had a pygmy people. What, then, has been going on? Why would these people have been expunged from popular memory? How did the Australian pygmies become extinct within the public consciousness? The extinction of the Australian pygmies https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2002/06/the-extinction-of-the-australian-pygmies/
Shoutout to Graham Hancock. I'm not going against someone bc a parrot of the scientific establishment tells me to. And judging from the beginning of the vid, this is just another hatchet job done by members of the scientific community or its many parrots. You can find these people on wikipedia lying and twisting the truth. Except when anonymous, they don't put on the facade of being nice and polite as youtuber man who claims to do an objective analysis.
If you look at how palaeolithic times worked, especially in terms of archaics and hybrids roaming the earth, many of whom were physically much stronger than modern humans (think Enkidu, from Gilgamesh, who may very well be a memory of an archaic human), it's not a stretch of the imagination that in the Palaeolithic, there could have been insulated, inward-oriented enclaves of sapiens who attained high standards of living (including farming, writing, and so on), entirely outside of view of science. I mean, many of them probably had to live insulated lives anyway, as a matter of survival. Progress would then simply be a matter of time and free time to spend after subsistence activities.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often portrayed in the shape of a pyramid, with the largest, most fundamental needs at the bottom, and the need for self-actualization and transcendence at the top. In other words, the idea is that individuals' most basic needs must be met before they become motivated to achieve higher-level needs.
I don't see how it's better to say there was no Atlantis (establishment skeptics), than it is to say there was an Atlantis (Hancock). Hancock is an individual, and I don't get any malicious vibes from him (not that I know him that well). But the establishment consists of professionals who know full well it's against their own scientific code to speak on and rule out things that cannot be known.
Having said that, if anyone has a vid that gets on the bumper of BOTH Hancock and his detractors, I'd be more than willing to watch the whole thing. If not, I'm pressing close window at the first sign of establishment bs.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is a debate between Graham Hancock and the archaeologist Flint Dibble from Cardiff University. The debate took place on Joe Rogan´s show and is more than four hours long for those who have the patience to listen through the whole thing.
Interesting debate between Graham Hancock and Flint Dibble. During more than four hours they managed to cover several topics. Joe Rogan did a pretty good job of moderating the debate so it didn't degenerate into mud slinging. Sometimes the participants could get stuck in details but often there was quite a good pace in the exchange.
During the four hours, Hancock presented arguments for his hypothesis and Dibble presented counterarguments. Hancok argued that such large areas as the Sahara, the Amazon, and the flooded continental shelves were almost completely unexplored and therefore could contain as yet undiscovered vestiges of an advanced civilization. Dibble countered by saying that even though large areas were unexplored, there were plenty of sites, artifacts, and ecological traces of human presence, and none of those traces pointed to an advanced civilization of Hancock's model.
Among other things, Hancock argued that an early civilization perished during the Younger Dryas. The survivors would then have fled the disaster and spread their knowledge to the rest of the world. One idea they would have spread was the idea of plant domestication. Against that, Dibble argued that domestication took a long time and also occurred at different times in different places. Hancock emphasized that it was the idea itself that was passed on, an idea that different peoples applied to local crops. Joe Rogan then broke in and asked Hancock what crops these civilized cultural spreaders had grown themselves. Then Hancok replied that he did not know because this civilization was "lost". He admitted on a couple of occasions that he had no truly indisputable archaeological traces of the vanished civilization or knew exactly where it had been.
The debate further brought up mysterious underwater structures that Hancock believed to be man-made while Dibble claimed they were natural. Dibble compared more certain traces of constructions where artifacts are mostly found, while the mysterious underwater structures lcked artifacts.
Well-known topics of discussion such as a possible very old pyramid at Gunung Padang in Indonesia were brought up. Furthermore, they discussed the age of the Sphinx and the construction technology and astronomical skills behind the pyramids at Gisa.
They even managed to get into the old Olmecs and the speculations about African visitors, as well as the notion of white, bearded men who came to several of the New World cultures as a kind of culture bringers. Dibble was highly sceptical to these ideas and considered them to be speculation without real evidence. He also cited a couple of experts who explained why such notions were not probable.
Hancock raised the issue of how he himself had been treated by mainstream archaeologists and he also raised some other cases where both archaeologists and others have been treated condescendingly by the archaeological community. Dibble countered that one must still be able to argue against theories that are poorly substantiated, and demand evidence. However, they agreed that it could be done in a friendly way.
Dibble also talked about the work he and others have done in paleoecology and which does not support Hancock's theories.
The two came to the conclusion that they agreed to disagree but that it was still important to try to understand the ancient past, especially in times when cultural historical research has had its funding drastically reduced in many places
My impression after the debate is that Hancock has not been able to present any substantial material evidense for his hypothesis about an ancient (possibly Atlantean) civilisation which after a catastrophic event fled to other parts of the world and spread their knowledge.
Graham Hancock seems well read in many different subjects but his arguments about the ancient civilisation lack enough physical evidence. Dibble's research, on the other hand, provides more physacal evidence which points in another, perhaps more mainstream, direction than Hancocks theory.
Even if the video is long, it is still worth listening to. There are many pieces of information, some new, some already well known. But still interesting.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you look at how palaeolithic times worked, especially in terms of archaics and hybrids roaming the earth, many of whom were physically much stronger than modern humans (think Enkidu, from Gilgamesh, who may very well be a memory of an archaic human), it's not a stretch of the imagination that in the Palaeolithic, there could have been insulated, inward-oriented enclaves of sapiens who attained high standards of living (including farming, writing, and so on), entirely outside of view of science. I mean, many of them probably had to live insulated lives anyway, as a matter of survival. Progress would then simply be a matter of time and free time to spend after subsistence activities.
Sth worth considering, in light of what I said.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Earliest evidence for wild grain harvesting in Middle Stone Age Africa 100,000 years ago:
quote: The consumption of wild cereals among prehistoric hunters and gatherers appears to be far more ancient than previously thought, according to a University of Calgary archaeologist who has found the oldest example of extensive reliance on cereal and root staples in the diet of early Homo sapiens more than 100,000 years ago.
Julio Mercader, holder of the Canada Research Chair in Tropical Archaeology in the U of C's Department of Archaeology, recovered dozens of stone tools from a deep cave in Mozambique showing that wild sorghum, the ancestor of the chief cereal consumed today in sub-Saharan Africa for flours, breads, porridges and alcoholic beverages, was in Homo sapiens' pantry along with the African wine palm, the false banana, pigeon peas, wild oranges and the African "potato." This is the earliest direct evidence of humans using pre-domesticated cereals anywhere in the world. Mercader's findings are published in the December 18 issue of the research journal Science.
"This broadens the timeline for the use of grass seeds by our species, and is proof of an expanded and sophisticated diet much earlier than we believed," Mercader said. "This happened during the Middle Stone Age, a time when the collecting of wild grains has conventionally been perceived as an irrelevant activity and not as important as that of roots, fruits and nuts."
I don't know about you guys, but reading this (and many other types of info over the years), I don't get the impression that reality as described in such quotes, tracks closely with what experts are saying about cultural progress of hunter gatherers.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I remember that. In fact, I do recall one or two threads where we question the narrative about the origins of horticulture and how far back it goes.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Try to come back from this one...
quote:Stone Age sorghum found in African cave
Humans may have been baking bread 105,000 years ago, says a researcher who has discovered evidence of ground seeds from sorghum grass on stone tools in a Mozambique cave.
"Whether they were eating it or not, we cannot be sure, but I cannot see how sorghum gets into the cave unless humans bring it in," says study author Julio Mercader, an archaeologist at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada. Today, seeds from domesticated sorghum grass are used as flour for porridge, as a fermentation substrate for beer and as a dye for clothing.
Sorghum granules have been found on ancient stone tools.Mercader, J. Science
Most researchers think that humans in the Middle Stone Age — which began around 300,000 years ago and ended around 50,000 years ago — depended on foodstuffs such as underground tubers and meat. Grains require a complex preparation process of grinding and charring before they can be digested by humans. Mercader says that sorghum flours could have been used to make culinary preparations such as bread. The first confirmed use of grains in the human diet comes from charred barley and wheat from Israel dating to about 23,000 years ago1, so the latest findings could push that date back another 80,000 years.
Mercader first discovered the Ngalue cave, in the sparsely populated Niassa province of Mozambique, with the help of locals in 2005. After a drive to the end of a road at an old mine site, he and his team then had to hike for 45 minutes to reach the cave's mouth. In 2007, the team made this trip every day as they excavated in a dark chamber 20 metres from the cave entrance, identifying animal bones along with more than 500 quartz artefacts.
Grinding and pounding implements from the Ngalue cave had starchy grains on their surfaces.Mercader, J. Science
Mercader says that he has always taken precautions not to wash or touch the excavated tools to ensure that he leaves pollens, starches and other microfossils intact. After examining 70 stone tools, including scrapers and grinders, he found that 80% contained traces of starch granules, mainly from wild Sorghum species. Some of the grains appeared damaged, but none had been cooked. "These data imply that early Homo sapiens from southern Africa consumed not just underground plant staples, but above-ground resources too," he writes in this week's issue of Science.2
Half-baked
Other scientists, however, are sceptical. Archaeologist Lyn Wadley, an honorary professor at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, points out that starch grains are notoriously difficult to identify, varying not only among species but also between different parts of a plant. "Even if sorghum is truly present at the site," she says, "there could be a reason for this presence other than eating of grains." At the Sibudu cave in the KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa, her group has found that grasses similar to sorghum were used for bedding and as tinder for fireplaces.
Loren Cordain, an exercise physiologist at Colorado State University in Fort Collins and an expert on the Palaeolithic diet, agrees that the evidence is too thin to support the consumption of grains as food. "I don't think they've really built a strong case for the notion that cereal grains were exploited on a real basis and were part of the diet of our ancestors," he says. "It's fascinating and suggestive, but the logic doesn't fall in place." He points out that there is no anvil rock with which to grind the grains as discovered in Israel, for instance, nor is there evidence that humans were cooking the grains.
But Mercader believes early human grain consumption is possible even if he has not yet fully demonstrated it. "If you think about the complexity of modern human behaviour, I'm not sure the early use of grains is unexpected: it's in line with other discoveries from the Middle Stone Age," he says. Early modern humans first emerged around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago, and scientists working in South Africa have found that humans 72,000 years ago were using shell beads and ochre pigments, in addition to making stone tools with the help of fire.3 "I understand healthy scepticism goes a long way," Mercader says, "but let us not overdo it."
~Brendan Borrell
Published online 17 December 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1147
References
Piperno, D. R., Weiss, E., Holst, I. & Nadel, D. Nature 430, 670-673 (2004). | Article | ChemPort | Mercader, J. Science 326, 1680-1683 (2009). | Article | ChemPort | Brown, K. S. et al Science 325, 859-862 (2009). | Article | ChemPort |
I admit that I'm not the biggest fan of Graham Hancock, especially since he seems to be crediting his hypothetical prehistoric North American civilization with founding ancient Nile Valley, Mesopotamian, etc. cultures instead of the indigenous people of those regions. But I don't have a problem with complex societies existing in the Pleistocene, especially in areas that could support large human settlements. Gobekli Tepe attests to such societies existing in the Middle East at the tail end of the Pleistocene, and we have both archaeological and historical records of sedentary hunter-gatherers in places like the Pacific Northwest. Who knows what we might uncover after more digging around the world?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here is a video series which goes through Graham Hancocks claims as they are presented in Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse.
^^^^So basically Hancock is a cash cow for these people to generate interest in their content..Looks like he lives rent free in their mouths..lol
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I believe it's called the 'Streisand effect', or any attention even negative is still good attention.
Or a better saying 'monetize your haters' LOL Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: "academics" who for the last hundred years claimed human hunter gathers were too primitive to build something advanced like Goblekli Tepe...how do they even know these people were even hunter gatherers...etc.
quote:
“It’s an enormous site, you can’t just wake up one morning with no prior skills, no prior knowledge, no background in working with stone and create something like Gobekli Tepe. There has to be a long history behind it and that history is completely missing…
To me it very strongly speaks of a lost civilisation, transferring their technology, their skills, their knowledge to hunter gatherers…”
~ Graham Hancock, Ancient Apocalypse, Episode 5, November 2022,
.
.
quote: There are no purely logical grounds, therefore, that can exclude the possibility that an advanced civilization co-existed with hunter-foragers during the Ice Age—since our own so-called “advanced” civilization co-exists with hunter-foragers today...
the archaeological record contains evidence of what might be...
These dates are roughly contemporary with those of Gobekli Tepe while suggesting that the latter’s monumental Enclosure D might perhaps be...
But in what form might the lost civilization have lived on...
I speculate further, that he or she might...
By then, in the late 12th millennium BC, the sky might already have been...
I have contemplated – although in no more than a dozen pages out of thousands – the possibility that psi powers, such as telekinesis, might have been deployed in lifting megalithic blocks weighing tens or even hundreds of tons. I’ve also wondered whether a lost sonic technology, activated by rhythmic chanting, might have been used to do the same job.
~Graham Hancock
'
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
It is a bit funny that Erich von Däniken once got famous through a book called Chariots of the Gods and Graham Hancock got famous with a book named Fingerprints of the Gods.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
When it concerns professional archaeologists (and other scientists) there is an ongoing debate how to handle proponents of alternative theories (especially of the "wilder" kind). Some scholars think that one should just ignore them (if they do not seem very credible, then one can look into it) and instead just go on with ones usual work.
But others think that one have to engage at least those with the biggest followings since they spread misinformation to too many people. But it is a balancing act. To engage them can also risk to give too much credit to their theories.
Hancock, and others are just the tip of an iceberg, there are many proponents of all kinds of alternative theories out there. But most of them never get the attention that Hancock and some more get.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:There are no purely logical grounds, therefore, that can exclude the possibility that an advanced civilization co-existed with hunter-foragers during the Ice Age—since our own so-called “advanced” civilization co-exists with hunter-foragers today...
This is the whole premise of the theory of evolution--that, given enough time, complex structures can emerge and give rise to diverse life forms.
(and I'm not going to debate the theory of evolution, so don't even bother to respond to the sentence above, in an effort to deflect from what I'm about to say).
So how is this type of thinking, of complex things emerging eventually over long geological time scales, a foreign and fringe idea now, all of a sudden? In this big stretch of time, called the palaeolithic, there was never an independent local invention of farming, or writing, that perpetuated for a couple of hundred or thousand years, before dying out?
----------------
This is what I mean with establishment bs. In their efforts to come off as 'scientific' and by insisting on eons of unbroken technological stasis ("stone age"), Hancock's detractors are undermining the same ideas they're claiming to support elsewhere in science.
I just wish Hancock and others would have stuck to one bombshell example of potentially anomalous monument structures, and that they would have kept scientific reports coming over time, while staying away from mainstream scientific publications and mainstream scientists.
For instance, the sphinx' age still seems unsettled as of today, among actual geologists who are qualified to speak on the meaning of the weathering patterns that set the sphinx apart from securely dated Old Kingdom structures with mainly wind erosion. Hancock etc. should have tried to bring closure to the subject of the age of the sphinx (which hasn't happened, yet, afaik). Surely modern seismic technology can be brought to bear on the issue; this is no longer the 20th century, when geologist Schoch first started publishing on the subject.
All of this other preliminary stuff in Indonesia, etc. is just spreading himself thin and making him seem like he's all over the place, which makes it easy for his detractors to attack him.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Its because as far as I can tell from what Ive seen of Hancock's theories(That there was an ancient advanced civilization) is that he discussing things that is overlooked, am I saying he'd right, no, but lets stop pretending that "academic" archeology has everything figured out because they don't.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: When it concerns professional archaeologists (and other scientists) there is an ongoing debate how to handle proponents of alternative theories (especially of the "wilder" kind). Some scholars think that one should just ignore them (if they do not seem very credible, then one can look into it) and instead just go on with ones usual work.
But others think that one have to engage at least those with the biggest followings since they spread misinformation to too many people. But it is a balancing act. To engage them can also risk to give too much credit to their theories.
Hancock, and others are just the tip of an iceberg, there are many proponents of all kinds of alternative theories out there. But most of them never get the attention that Hancock and some more get.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Yeah, that guy's(in Archeo's linked vids) Graham Hancock videos were his highest viewed on his channel, These people like him and the one lioness posted LOVE Graham Hancock, he's one of the gimmicks they use to generate interest and algorithm clicks to their cookie cutter, similar to watching paint dry content.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I believe it's called the 'Streisand effect', or any attention even negative is still good attention.
Or a better saying 'monetize your haters' LOL
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:I have contemplated – although in no more than a dozen pages out of thousands – the possibility that psi powers, such as telekinesis, might have been deployed in lifting megalithic blocks weighing tens or even hundreds of tons. I’ve also wondered whether a lost sonic technology, activated by rhythmic chanting, might have been used to do the same job.
Dude played himself by saying that (but not for the reasons you think).
Lioness, you still can't think for yourself, even after all these years, and after all these threads discussing errors in Egyptology and anthropology. You still have not learned to listen to both sides of an academic debate.
The mental stagnancy on here is crazy. Will be ignoring this thread from now on, just like all the 95% of the other stagnant threads you make on 'black', admixture of individual OK/dynastic Egyptian bureaucrats based on ancient portraits, and whatever old topics you talk about nowadays.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:I have contemplated – although in no more than a dozen pages out of thousands – the possibility that psi powers, such as telekinesis, might have been deployed in lifting megalithic blocks weighing tens or even hundreds of tons. I’ve also wondered whether a lost sonic technology, activated by rhythmic chanting, might have been used to do the same job.
Dude played himself by saying that (but not for the reasons you think).
He played himself because only mainstream scientists are allowed to hypothesize unconfirmed or even bogus particles, strings, fields, and forces and "missing 95% substance in the universe" that no one has ever touched or seen. I wonder why you're never seen on here, calling them out, but you do call Hancock out for comments on telekenesis.
Lioness, you still can't think for yourself, even after all these years, and after all these threads discussing errors in Egyptology and anthropology. You still have not learned to listen to both sides of an academic debate.
The mental stagnancy on here is crazy.
Some people think telekinesis is real, others think it's bullshit
If Graham Hancock thinks it's possible telekinesis could have been used to move large stones what astrophysicists or quantum physicists say about other topics or whether or not I make a thread questioning what they say has no effect on determining if Graham Hancock played himself out or not.
If I had made a thread calling out astrophysicists or quantum physicists for bullshit would that change whether or not Graham Hancock played himself for considering ancient stone might have been able to move stones by telekinesis?
It's logical fallacy to try to link these things' to assesses each one's feasibility or lack of
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Its because as far as I can tell from what Ive seen of Hancock's theories(That there was an ancient advanced civilization) is that he discussing things that is overlooked, am I saying he'd right, no, but lets stop pretending that "academic" archeology has everything figured out because they don't.
Most archaeologists I met or worked with do not say that mainstream archaeology has everything figured out. We know that there still are large gaps in our knowledge. No one denies that. But many archaeologists still think that we must start with the remains we actually found and build theories or speculations around them. Then we may find new material and then we may have to revise our conclusions based on these new finds. But some people like Hancock speculate based on things they have not yet found, which he himself admits, for example, in the debate against Flint Dibble. Same with his "predecessor" von Däniken. Von Däniken speculates based on the theory that Earth once was visited by alien intelligences in ancient time. But he produces no direct evidence in the form of spacecraft wreckage, alien bodies, or other material of extraterrestrial origin.
Archaeologists at least try to speculate based on material they have found. Sometimes the interpretations are wrong and they have to be revised, but that is part of all science.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
At the end of the day Hancock is not being taught in mainstream academic institutions, your narritive is. There's all sort of Nutters spewing anti-historical garbage with more of a reach than Hancock. How many people think mythical fairytales like the Biblical exodus is correct? Where are all the YT 4-5 Vidoes debunking religious garbage. Funny thing is you can find mainstream academics/academic puplications with "Who was the Pharoah of the Exodus" type stuff. There's now a whole new genra of YT videos dedicated academic critique of Religious studies/archeology made by people who have 0 academic training. (Neal and Derek from Mythvision and Gnostic Informant).
But you "Academics" more concerned about a Nutter because he's on netflix, but religious nutters have people thinking the earth is 6,000 yrs old
Truth is yall need people like Von Danniken and Hancock. They're the totem devil to your acceptable relationship hiearchy in academia. The guy you linked most viewed videos were on Hancock
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Its because as far as I can tell from what Ive seen of Hancock's theories(That there was an ancient advanced civilization) is that he discussing things that is overlooked, am I saying he'd right, no, but lets stop pretending that "academic" archeology has everything figured out because they don't.
Most archaeologists I met or worked with do not say that mainstream archaeology has everything figured out. We know that there still are large gaps in our knowledge. No one denies that. But many archaeologists still think that we must start with the remains we actually found and build theories or speculations around them. Then we may find new material and then we may have to revise our conclusions based on these new finds. But some people like Hancock speculate based on things they have not yet found, which he himself admits, for example, in the debate against Flint Dibble. Same with his "predecessor" von Däniken. Von Däniken speculates based on the theory that Earth once was visited by alien intelligences in ancient time. But he produces no direct evidence in the form of spacecraft wreckage, alien bodies, or other material of extraterrestrial origin.
Archaeologists at least try to speculate based on material they have found. Sometimes the interpretations are wrong and they have to be revised, but that is part of all science.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Oh it happens in historical academia as well, you can find IN ACADEMIA not in a Netflix documentary or a Facebook group, but in academic textbooks about how Islamists "Preserved" the Greek/Roman Knowledge despite there being you know a Greek Speaking Empire of people who called themselves Romans, but yeah no, poor hill billy Europeans were stupid and needed Islamists to save them, They're barely now starting to admit the "Dark Ages" was a myth.
I can go on and on, trust me. But Im supposed to trust academia mainstream...lol, Im sure its different in Archeology, they don't spew or support nonsense without or contrary to evidence...lol Only every other acedemic instutuion like Science/Physics/History etc does but only bwad ole meenie Graham Hancock does...lets force Netflix to take him off their platform because he's ebil and we're correct and trustful..
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: At the end of the day Hancock is not being taught in mainstream academic institutions, your narritive is. There's all sort of Nutters spewing anti-historical garbage with more of a reach than Hancock. How many people think mythical fairytales like the Biblical exodus is correct? Where are all the YT 4-5 Vidoes debunking religious garbage. Funny thing is you can find mainstream academics/academic puplications with "Who was the Pharoah of the Exodus" type stuff. There's now a whole new genra of YT videos dedicated academic critique of Religious studies/archeology made by people who have 0 academic training. (Neal and Derek from Mythvision and Gnostic Informant).
But you "Academics" more concerned about a Nutter because he's on netflix, but religious nutters have people thinking the earth is 6,000 yrs old
Truth is yall need people like Von Danniken and Hancock. They're the totem devil to your acceptable relationship hiearchy in academia. The guy you linked most viewed videos were on Hancock
Most archaeologists (or other academics) I know do not spend much time on Hancock, Däniken, young Earth creationists, flat earthers and so on. Most of them, at least here where I work, are busy doing research, doing fieldwork, writing reports, papers, dissertations, articles and other scientific material. Some though feel it is necessary to debunk some of the crazy stuff out there, but the majority do not spend much time on it.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Yeah Yeah Sure they are'nt
quote:The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) penned an open letter to Netflix and ITN, the series’ production company, condemning the show and asking for it to be re-categorized as “science-fiction” rather than “documentary.”
quote:. It has also sparked unparalleled outrage from archaeologists and journalists, resulting in dozens of think pieces decrying the show’s many false claims and illogical arguments, analyzing its racist implications, and declaring the series everything from “fishy” to the “most dangerous” show on Netflix. “Why has this been allowed?” asked Britain’s The Guardian. The answer to that seemed pretty obvious: Hancock’s son, Sean Hancock, is Netflix’s senior manager for unscripted originals.
Yeah he's no big deal...
Like Swenet pointed out as long as Academia is making the bogus A-Historical claims nothing wrong, Another "WhO Is ThE PhArOaH Of ThE BiBlE" will be written by historical academic publications this Easter, or another Academic College Text book will inform us how the Brilliant Golden Age Once Nomadic and Illiterate Islamist "Arabs" preserved the Greco-Roman works after they had these manuscripts translated for them by Byzatine Scholars....
One day these same pearl clutching academics will start caring about the mis-information and "racist" and "dangerous" BS that happens within academia...
One Day....
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: At the end of the day Hancock is not being taught in mainstream academic institutions, your narritive is. There's all sort of Nutters spewing anti-historical garbage with more of a reach than Hancock. How many people think mythical fairytales like the Biblical exodus is correct? Where are all the YT 4-5 Vidoes debunking religious garbage. Funny thing is you can find mainstream academics/academic puplications with "Who was the Pharoah of the Exodus" type stuff. There's now a whole new genra of YT videos dedicated academic critique of Religious studies/archeology made by people who have 0 academic training. (Neal and Derek from Mythvision and Gnostic Informant).
But you "Academics" more concerned about a Nutter because he's on netflix, but religious nutters have people thinking the earth is 6,000 yrs old
Truth is yall need people like Von Danniken and Hancock. They're the totem devil to your acceptable relationship hiearchy in academia. The guy you linked most viewed videos were on Hancock
Most archaeologists (or other academics) I know do not spend much time on Hancock, Däniken, young Earth creationists, flat earthers and so on. Most of them, at least here where I work, are busy doing research, doing fieldwork, writing reports, papers, dissertations, articles and other scientific material. Some though feel it is necessary to debunk some of the crazy stuff out there, but the majority do not spend much time on it.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
I can only talk about the archaeologists I worked with and met. Maybe American archaeologists are more engaged in the fight against people like Hancock.
Hancock has not made so many statements about Scandinavia more than that he does not think his ancient civilisation was located here because Scandinavia was covered by ice during the last glacial maximum.
USA has more than 7000 professional archaeologists, I bet most of them do not spend their days worrying about Hancock.
Sweden has a few hundred archaeologists, most of them do not spend their days writing about Hancock or talking about him either.
There are of course some archaeologists in different countries who are keen on debunking authors like Däniken or Hancock, especially when these authors start to write about subjects, time periods or places which these archaeologists work with.
It is the same with evolutionary biologists or paleontologists, all of them are not actively participating in debunking or debating young Earth creationists. They are often busy with their own work.
Most geologists or astronomers do not spend their careers debating flat earthers.
Sometimes also professional academics forward ideas that are dubious or not supported by much evidence, but in the end they will be called out by their colleagues who will point out the flaws or demand better evidence.
Among archaeologists there is a discussion about how much time and effort shall be spent on debunking people like Däniken or Hancock. Some think they should be ignored, some think that too outrageous claims should be debunked, or discussed especially if these claims reach a larger audience.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The long debate between archaeologist Flint Dibble and Graham Hancock I posted in this thread came about because Flint Dibble wrote some articles or social media posts where he pointed out certain errors in Hancock's claims. Dibble also reacted on Hancock's allegations about mainstream archaeologists trying to suppress new ideas and being narrow minded.
Annoyed by Dibble's writings, Hancock asked Joe Rogan if he could invite Dibble to a debate or discussion. So it happened, and Dibble agreed to the request. The debate attracted some attention among Hancock's followers, among lay people, and even among some academics, at least online. Had they debated in articles in a magazine, the debate would probably not have attracted much attention. But via the internet it reached a somewhat larger audience.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Oh it happens in historical academia as well, you can find IN ACADEMIA not in a Netflix documentary or a Facebook group, but in academic textbooks about how Islamists "Preserved" the Greek/Roman Knowledge despite there being you know a Greek Speaking Empire of people who called themselves Romans, but yeah no, poor hill billy Europeans were stupid and needed Islamists to save them, They're barely now starting to admit the "Dark Ages" was a myth.
I can go on and on, trust me. But Im supposed to trust academia mainstream...lol, Im sure its different in Archeology, they don't spew or support nonsense without or contrary to evidence...lol Only every other acedemic instutuion like Science/Physics/History etc does but only bwad ole meenie Graham Hancock does...lets force Netflix to take him off their platform because he's ebil and we're correct and trustful..
Yeah man I was coming to the same conclusion of not posting anymore in this thread, at first I could not explain why, but you sum it up perfectly when you mentioned people defaulting to the programming. You really can't argue with that, there's a reason why critical thinking is not stressed in "Academia"...
they'll find another devil to put at the bottom of their totem pole after Hancock's name is totally tarnished.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Oh it happens in historical academia as well, you can find IN ACADEMIA not in a Netflix documentary or a Facebook group, but in academic textbooks about how Islamists "Preserved" the Greek/Roman Knowledge despite there being you know a Greek Speaking Empire of people who called themselves Romans, but yeah no, poor hill billy Europeans were stupid and needed Islamists to save them, They're barely now starting to admit the "Dark Ages" was a myth.
I can go on and on, trust me. But Im supposed to trust academia mainstream...lol, Im sure its different in Archeology, they don't spew or support nonsense without or contrary to evidence...lol Only every other acedemic instutuion like Science/Physics/History etc does but only bwad ole meenie Graham Hancock does...lets force Netflix to take him off their platform because he's ebil and we're correct and trustful..
The Dangers of Ancient Apocalypse’s Pseudoscience Reviewing Netflix’s Ancient Apocalypse, an anthropologist explains how its host Graham Hancock devalues both archaeology and Indigenous heritage. By FLINT DIBBLE 6 DEC 2022
Most glaring to scholars investigating the history of Hancock’s pseudoarchaeology is that while claiming to “overthrow the paradigm of history,” he doesn’t acknowledge that his overarching theory is not new.
Scholars and journalists have pointed out that Hancock’s ideas recycle the long since discredited conclusions drawn by U.S. Congressman Ignatius Donnelly in his book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, published in 1882.
Donnelly also believed in an advanced civilization—Atlantis—that was wiped out by a flood over 10,000 years ago. He claimed that the survivors taught Indigenous people the secrets of farming and monumental architecture.
Like many forms of pseudoarchaeology, these claims act to reinforce white supremacist ideas, stripping Indigenous people of their rich heritage and instead giving credit to aliens or White people.
Hancock even cites Donnelly directly in his 1995 book Fingerprints of the Gods, claiming: “The road system and the sophisticated architecture had been ‘ancient in the time of the Incas,’ but that both ‘were the work of White, auburn-haired men.’” While skin color is not brought up in Ancient Apocalypse, the repetition of the story of a “bearded” Quetzalcoatl (an ancient Mexican deity) parrots both Donnelly’s and Hancock’s own summary of a White and bearded Quetzalcoatl teaching Native people knowledge from this “lost civilization.”
A photograph features a page of a book filled with text and two illustrations: a cartoon of a large-nosed, barefoot person on the top left labeled “Negroid figure, Palenque” and a boulder-shaped face with beady eyes labeled “Negro head, Vera Cruz” on the bottom right. A page from Ignatius Donnelly’s now debunked book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World.
Public Domain via the author
Hancock’s mirroring of Donnelly’s race-focused “science” is seen more explicitly in his essay, “Mysterious Strangers: New Findings About the First Americans.” Like Donnelly, Hancock finds depictions of “Caucasoids” and “Negroids” in Indigenous art and (often mistranslated) mythology in the Americas, even drawing attention to some of the exact same sculptures as Donnelly.
This sort of “race science” is outdated and has long since been debunked, especially given the strong links between Atlantis and Aryans proposed by several Nazi “archaeologists.”
These are the reasons why archaeologists will continue to respond to Hancock. It isn’t that we “hate him,” as he claims, it is simply that we strongly believe he is wrong. His flawed thinking implies that Indigenous people do not deserve credit for their cultural heritage.
Netflix labels Ancient Apocalypse a docuseries. IMDB calls it a documentary. It’s neither. It’s an eight-part conspiracy theory that weaponizes dramatic rhetoric against scholars.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ What I find hilarious is that the global cabal or organization of elites that are trying to control the Earth as we speak actually hold on to similar beliefs of advanced civilizations predating what we know and that they are their heirs and successors. Make that make sense! LOL Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Have any of you guy's heard the Terence Howard interview. Shit went viral for all of 11 minutes. But it was amazing to see exactly what people on here @Djehuti @Swenet @Jari was speaking about...
The clips that went viral, admittedly were cool as he does have an understanding of which he speaks however I've not researched enough to cosign his over worldview.
sidenote: I made a comment about it correcting some math that people misinterpreted (in a way to downplay his argument), and right after I was kicked out and when I logged back in he wasn't trending anymore. -interesting Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: 14:24
Graham Hancock:
"...going back to Fingerprints of the Gods that I wrote in 1995 in which I reported indigenous traditions about the appearance of bearded foreigners bringing knowledge after a cataclysm to the shattered survivors of that cataclysm and in some cases in those traditions those knowledge-bringers are described as white skinned... Archaeology has since taken the view that all of those stories were made up by the Spanish and that seems to me completely ridiculous .. both in Mexico and in Peru and Bolivia we have traditions..."
The Most Intense Debate in JRE History Podcast Cringe (Youtube channel) 32:48 minutes
A synopsis of part of what Flint Dibble argues against in his debate with Hancock on Rogan
however the commentary in this Podcast Cringe video about the debate is sympathetic to Hancock (but not entirely) -featuring many clips from the 4 hour+ debate
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
It is interesting that people like Hancock and Däniken have an ability to reach out to millions of readers and viewers.
A quote from Wikipedia about Dänikens book sales
quote:According to von Däniken, books in his series have altogether been translated into 32 languages and have sold more than 63 million copies
Most scholars can only dream about selling so many books or dissertations.
Besides writing and selling their books both Däniken and Hancock have figured in TV programs and they also hold lectures and partake in different kinds of seminars.
"Alternative" Science can indeed generate incomes.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Have any of you guy's heard the Terence Howard interview. Shit went viral for all of 11 minutes. But it was amazing to see exactly what people on here @Djehuti @Swenet @Jari was speaking about...
The clips that went viral, admittedly were cool as he does have an understanding of which he speaks however I've not researched enough to cosign his over worldview.
sidenote: I made a comment about it correcting some math that people misinterpreted (in a way to downplay his argument), and right after I was kicked out and when I logged back in he wasn't trending anymore. -interesting
No I haven't heard. What did Terrance Howard say??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Have any of you guy's heard the Terence Howard interview. Shit went viral for all of 11 minutes. But it was amazing to see exactly what people on here @Djehuti @Swenet @Jari was speaking about...
The clips that went viral, admittedly were cool as he does have an understanding of which he speaks however I've not researched enough to cosign his over worldview.
sidenote: I made a comment about it correcting some math that people misinterpreted (in a way to downplay his argument), and right after I was kicked out and when I logged back in he wasn't trending anymore. -interesting
No I haven't heard. What did Terrance Howard say??
quote: [02:39:20] They call out and they speak and they're interactive and they're share resources. They're alive and sentient because everything is alive, but we see everything as death, as dead because of what the Bible said, because it breathed into life, you know, and the universe is just one big example, big nothingness of dead. There's nothing dead in the universe. Everything is alive and everything is a piece of God. So when God, when we do good things, then God is considered God is good. When we do bad things. God works in mysterious ways. It's just how we are behaving. And we can all take the conscious level and recognize, okay, somebody's got to do the right thing. And if you do the right thing, the right things happen, and you're going up against the stream of mankind. But I've got the entire universe behind me. I have the universal phenomenon and observable evidence and data that stands behind it, and 97 patents and trademarks and copyrights and multiple industries that I've invented. Nobody else has ever invented tangential flight and ability to fly or unlimited mid air bonding.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
