How Joe Rogan Was Fooled by Graham Hancock

for regular videos on ancient cultures and forgotten civilizations Please Subscribe of all the alternative ancient history proponents alive today the most famous and successful is without a doubt Graham Hancock although he's been around for years his recent Netflix miniseries ancient apocalypse has propelled him into the spotlight but probably no one has made Graham Hancock a household name more than Joe Rogan Graham Hancock has been a regular feature in Rogan's podcast The Joe Rogan Experience the most listened to podcast on the planet and has appeared on it 11 times by my last count anyone who has seen even one of these knows that Rogan is a big fan and has been persuaded by many of Hancock's claims how did this come to be so longtime viewers of the channel know that I usually assess scientific and historical evidence in this series but in today's video for a change of pace we'll examine the strategies and tactics other than evidence that Graham Hancock has used rather effectively to sway Joe Rogan's mind about history welcome to the myths of ancient history series in which we look at common misconceptions about the ancient past I'm a historian and a teacher and and I give you the Straight Dope about what we know and how we know it most people have heard of Graham Hancock he's probably the most famous propagator of alternative ancient history proposing that there existed a lost Advanced civilization tens of thousands of years ago it's an idea that has gained a huge following among the public but no following among the anthropologists archaeologist prehistorians geologists and geneticists who study this period in many ways Joe Rogan is the Everyman he represents the average person with the same kinds of feelings thoughts and biases that we all have and so don't think of this video as an attack on him how he or he isn't persuaded of something isn't particularly unusual instead view him as someone like yourself or one of your friends or family because I will be using him to illustrate how his responses to what he hears could be the responses that any one of us might have they are understandable reactions and maybe by examining them we can learn more about ourselves and arm ourselves so that we can build better critical thinking skills and it will be more difficult to be taken in by the smooth talk of prizers ah so this video is an attack against Graham Hancock then no this is an analysis of Graham Hancock's rhetorical strategies not about his character Graham seems like a very nice guy I have no problem with him personally I'm sure he'd be a pleasure to hang with I generally give him the benefit of the doubt that he believes what he says but whether he does or not this isn't really relevant to whether other people can be swayed by what he says the purpose of this educational video is to examine how ideas with honestly very little to recommend them can be so widely spread and can convince so many people now I realize some of you strongly believe his ideas have much to recommend them that he has a great deal of evidence to back up his claims if you know this series you know that in other videos I look closely at the supposed evidence for the existence of a now Lost Civilization during the last ice age and show how it doesn't hold up to scrutiny even in his recent debate with Flint dible Hancock admitted that the archaeological evidence for A Lost Civilization is lacking it's not the purpose of this video to examine that though in this video we're going to look at the power of rhetoric specifically we are looking at persuasion tactics that people like Graham Hancock use that have nothing to do with evidence and how often these tactics help to fill in the gaps left in the record of evidence so it's not really even just about Hancock you can find these public relations strategies being employed by many purveyors of unusual ideas once you become cognizant of them you will see them all over the place and to be clear here I'm not on a crusade say to cancel Graham Hancock or anyone else who has alternative ideas I think he should be free to express his opinions and I think I should be free to express mine this video is an expression of my free speech and if you have any thoughtful criticisms of it you're free to express them in the comments below because I will be sharing Clips with you some people might accuse me of taking Hancock's or Rogan's words out of context but I went through every word of every episode to make sure I took context into account and I will show on screen both the number of the episode and the Tim stamp so that you can check up on me to make sure if you find that I did take something out of context please let me know what you found and if it checks out I will admit my mistake the first question I asked myself was how many times did Graham Hancock have to appear on The Joe Rogan Experience before he started to pull Joe over to his side and what I found was that Joe was a huge Hancock fan even before the first appearance Hancock is probably uh the one guy who's influenced my view of History more than anybody ever Fingerprints of the Gods I started reading sometime in the late 90s and just became engrossed in and fascinated by this concept That civilization and as as you put it that we are a species that has Amnesia and that we just forgot what our past was I must say that uh your show has opened my work up to an audience that otherwise would never have seen my work and I'm grateful for that I'm I'm grateful for that your show made grateful for you because your work has opened my mind to a completely new view of human beings and the the history of human beings what exactly is it about the way Hancock presents his ideas that are so attractive yes with the power of the pen he can weave an absorbing story but what does he put into that story one method that Graham Hancock employs to lay the groundwork for what he has to say and he does this in practically every presentation he makes is to portray archaeologists in a negative light he may feel this is necessary because archaeologists have not accepted his views so he says that archaeology the archaeological establishment is protecting a preconceived narrative about the Earth's past it does not allow new novel ideas to be put forward it quashes any disagreement but this is not merely a defense an explanation for why the establishment has not agreed with Hancock he will often lead with this before even presenting his own evidence it's a way of poisoning the well and has the effect of limiting the hearer's desire to ever go and check to see what archaeologists themselves actually are saying about a subject because they can't be trusted I've I've come to view a ology and history is a kind of more ideology really than than science um there's there's there's an ideological view about how civilization developed that we have this long slow gradual politically correct rise from the upper Paleolithic from the hunter gatherers through the Neolithic into the first cities and we go on and on and then we develop Technologies and here we are the Apex and the Pinnacle of this whole story and gosh we're so proud of ourselves and our achievements and we think we're wonderful and we praise and value our technology I've got nothing against technology but there's a hint of arrogance in this there's a hint of of of Pride that it was all about us and I I think that the the once you start introducing this this new view of history that there may have been an earlier civilization a high civilization which was utterly wiped out by a global cataclysm why it contradicts that ideological position and you find yourself in ideological struggle with archeologists the arrogance of archaeologists and historians that Hancock describes he says is the result of their ideology this is interesting their portrayal of the human story is prideful because it suggests that humans got better and better over time until they reached us and we are the Apex the implication is that Hancock's view that civilizations rise and fall represents a more humble view of humanity but surely he must know that history is not presented by archaeologists as a simple gradual line of progress going up it has plenty of ups and downs you can read about the growth and decline of civilizations in most history books even of catastrophic disasters the monan eruption the Bronze Age collapse the fall of Western Rome the Black Death the plagues brought by Europeans that wiped out American civilization geneticists have found population collapses at various points in time there are many Hills and Valleys in the line of of progress in the mainstream view of human history and surely no one has said that progress stops in our time and if progress will continue after our time we are not the Pinnacle at some point in the future it might decline again when I read history books I don't see historians commenting about how much more awesome people are today than they were in the past so I'm having a hard time seeing this particular form of arrogance that Hancock is talking about this is part of the problem I have with with archaeology as a discipline it likes to think of itself as scientific but what I think it's primarily doing and is weird is trying to control the narrative about the past do you think that's because the people that are in control of archaeology the academics the professors these people have written books on these things have lectured on these things and they've been very specific about timelines and dates yeah I think it's I think it's a complicated it's a complicated mixture uh of of things first of all because Archaeology is so desperate to be seen as a science it tries as hard as possible to distance itself from any ideas that might be seen as woo woo you know anything anything out on the edge archaeology doesn't want to associate itself with and then it takes the next step and and and really seeks to attack out on the edge uh ideas the implication here is that archaeologists cannot distinguish between actual woo and merely ideas that are out on the edge but more significantly that they judge an idea by the general feeling that it gives them or by what it sort of kind of sounds like rather than on what they usually judge Matters by which is the actual evidence now I don't know why the possibility of A Lost Civilization during the Ice Age should be an out on the edge idea uh we've had lost civilizations before the indis Vol civilization uh in today in Pakistan wasn't known about until the 1920s it was found by accident and you know every turn of the archaeologist Spade can reveal new information but uh there there there the reaction to my proposal that we've forgotten an episode in the human story it's always been hostile since I published Fingerprints of the Gods in 1995 but with ancient apocalypse much bigger platform reaching a much wider audience the reaction was just hysterical and it went on for a very long time and it appeared to be it appeared to me I don't think it's a conspiracy I don't think archaeologists are involved in a conspiracy I think the people who are attacking me genuinely believe in what they're saying and they genuinely think I'm harmful he says he doesn't know why his idea should be out on the edge despite the fact that this has been explained to him hundreds of times over three decades he knows it is because history is based on evidence and his evidence is lacking it's not hard to understand and yet he continues to tell Joe and others that he can't understand why that it must be because of failings of the archaeological establishment and so he relies on the credulity of the people he talks to they think to themselves Hancock must know right it's happening to him and then he speaks of criticism as hostility or hysteria it's important to his narrative that he be seen as a persecuted man this is how he preps people so that when they do begin to hear archaeologists speaking about the errors Hancock has made they will be more likely to turn the archaeologists off because they think it's just a bunch of nasty know-it-alls who don't like being contradicted and what I have observed is that when Hancock's fans do see archaeologists talking they will focus on their demeanor or tone looking for signs of smugness or conceit rather than on the content of their words the way archaeology would works there's going to continue to be huge resistance to new evidence and that's really problematic because science should be open to new evidence and it should be willing to change its mind when new evidence suggests that a change of mind is needed if Mr Hancock wants archaeologists to change their mind the evidence he presents must be sufficient to do so anyone that studies archaeology knows that archaeologists constantly and since the beginning have been saying that it is difficult to know what happened in the past this is why they are very careful about jumping to conclusions and temper their words to be sure not to make more of a piece of evidence than is Justified unlike historians and archaeologists Graham does not temper his conclusions when evidence is absent he fills in the gaps with whatever narrative he wants you see this why archaeologists need to be a little more humble because the next turn of the Spade can change everything completely alter the story and we should always remain uh remain open to that yeah it's so ironic in a way that the human desire for knowledge is what has led us to where we are today we have this insatiable desire for knowledge and for Innovation but that same human desire to achieve is also what what's the the ego is responsible for that and the ego blocks anything that's contrary to what you've already established as fact history and archaeology are constantly being updated you can observe their ideas change in real time all you have to do is look compare a college history textbook from today with one from 10 years ago The Narrative of History has been revised subscribe to archaeological news outlets and see how new discoveries are changing the way archaeologists think all the time updates are occurring constantly the irony here is that when Rogan says that ego blocks people from changing their ideas he is aptly describing Hancock's approach but he doesn't see it he thinks he's describing the AR olical establishment I've spent decades searching for proof of this Lost Civilization at sites around the globe note here he does not say he is searching for the truth he's not collecting evidence and then judging it to figure out what happened he is searching for proof of this Lost Civilization ask yourself when new evidence is presented to Graham Hancock what will he do with it well we know from his history what he usually does what matters most is whether the piece of evidence supports his thesis about A Lost Civilization that existed during the last ice age and was wiped out into cataclysm if it seems to support his thesis he will embrace it and publish about it and if it contradicts his thesis he will most often dismiss it out of hand as invalid or sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist on this principle he will even choose to favor a disputed Theory over a consensus Viewpoint Hancock has built his whole brain around his narrative he is not about to change it now he may revise his opinion about minor points here and there when he has to but not the basic thesis compare that to archaeologists who find a place like gcle teepe and immediately update their understanding of what happened if you read the headlines about new discoveries you will often see archaeologists saying we used to think this but because of this new evidence now we think this does that sound res to New Evidence they do this because they as a group have not built a brand around a narrative their brand is that they are detectives trying to figure out what happened the conclusion is irrelevant the irony of all this is that Joe thinks that Graham is the open-minded one the one making changes and the archaeologists are not it's the exact opposite of the truth I agree that ego is a problem but it's especially a problem for the lone individual ual against hundreds of experts around the world and I'm not talking here about Hancock specifically a person who thinks that they have found things everyone else missed a person who thinks they see things more clearly than all the subject experts a person whose pride is hurt when their ideas don't get accepted they can understand why anyone would not be convinced so what do they conclude if they have a modum of humility they will say hm I must have missed something if they have a huge ego they say there must be something wrong with the establishment because it certainly isn't me I can't help but think of the words of physicist Richard feeman in his famous cargo cult speech when he says what anyone doing science ought to have it's a kind of scientific Integrity he says a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty a kind of leaning over backwards for example if you're doing an experiment you should report everything that you think might make it invalid not only what you think is right about it other causes that could possibly explain your results and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment and how they worked to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given if you know them you must do the best you can if you know anything at all wrong or possibly wrong to explain it if you make a theory for example and advertise it or put it out then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it as well as those that agree with it there is also a more subtle problem when you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate Theory you want to make sure when explaining what it fits that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory but that the finished Theory makes something else come out right in addition in summary the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another does Graham Hancock lean over backward to falsify his thesis if possible there is a double-sided component to Hancock's presentation of himself on the one hand he's just asking questions and suggesting other ways of looking at things but is not actually saying that he's right I don't claim to be an archaeologist or a scientist I am a journalist I feel my my role is to inquire into interesting things that are forbidden territory for scientists and when I inquire into them it doesn't mean that I'm insisting this is a fact it mean what I'm saying is this is something that we need an alternative point of view on and let's look at and consider what this what this might mean and I may be completely wrong but I think the exploration is worthwhile that's the that's the position that I take on the other hand he's a crusader Waging War against the establishment and the purveyor of a superior model of History I'm trying to overthrow the Paradigm of [Music] [Applause] History these two versions of Hancock come out at different times depending on which attitude is needed for a given response are they contradictory positions some might call them this a m and Bailey I mean it is possible to suggest an alternative point of view and attempt to overthrow the Paradigm of history but he can't say he's only suggesting an alternative point of view and how can he acknowledge he may be completely wrong but also say that he knows the Paradigm of history is wrong for contradicting his point of view I don't know thanks in a way I've been I've been glad to have received the vituperative level of attack from archaeology that I did because it shows I've pressed their buttons when archaeologists ignore Hancock he complains that they aren't giving his ideas due attention when they give his ideas attention and naturally point out the errors he complains that he's being persecuted but don't be fooled the negative attention is great for his brand because he can use it to his advantage and does he himself says he's glad in a way that it happened it shows there's something they feel they need to cancel here there's something they feel they need to get rid of it's the most dangerous show in television the most dangerous Show on Netflix an absurd idea uh re really crazy but but that's that's cancel language you know that's the language you use also you call somebody anti-semitic or or racist or or white supremacist or misogynist all of those are are easy labels which these days just need to be applied to a person nobody even investigates or goes look go go to see when the Society of American archaeologists wrote to Netflix asking them to recategorize his special as science fiction he can accuse them of trying to suppress his work when they say that his ideas have racist or anti-semitic Origins he can say they're slandering Me by calling me a racist all of this feeds into his narrative about the man being out to get him so it's all good for his brand what the SAA wrote even if it's true looks to many people like a cheap shot and it gains Hancock sympathy so I think it helps him more than harms him I know he hates the criticism but there's a side of him that loves it too it's popular today to complain of cancel culture and he can present himself as a victim of it even though he has a larger platform than probably any living archaeologist in the world well it seems like to me as a lay person with all this evidence and all this evidence that correlates it's all corresponding it all seems to fit together it would it would seem that this would be something that a lot of mainstream scientists and archaeologists would be extremely interested in like why would they why would they try to ignore something like this the first thing they've tried to do is to get rid of it this is often the case where new information emerges that contradicts established established theories and it's a strange phenomenon in science because we like to think of scientists as as rational and and and reasonable people but the fact is that when you get very committed to a particular model to a particular idea I think you start to connect your own personality to it and any attack on that idea becomes an existential attack on on you yourself how sad I have to ask is Hancock committed to a particular idea he seems to be has he connected this idea to his own personality so that if it's attacked he considers it an existential attack on himself from what I've seen this also is true so right off the bat this sounds hypocritical but the other thing is in the fields of history and archaeology and science criticism is not only encouraged but required when someone puts an idea out there they expect and hope for their peers to find fault with it iron sharpens iron after all I do think it's true that some individuals even in Academia have the tendency to consider attacks against their ideas as personal attacks but everyone knows and expects that criticism will happen and because they want their theories to withstand scrutiny they are motivated to strengthen their arguments peerreview is pardon parcel of these fields it helps to mitigate bias Hancock is not interested in his ideas going through this process if Hancock truly were interested in putting his ideas to the test he would prepare his best arguments and publish them in a peer-reviewed academic Journal maybe with a co-author but he prefers to bypass that process and go directly to the public whom he knows has very little knowledge of ancient history and to build his reputation on their support and when archaeologists do critique his arguments he bristles now I understand that he's only a journalist but when you say that your theories have more to recommend them than the theories of archaeologists you are voluntarily entering the fry and it is and it is sad because again and again what we see is the uh the new facts being dismissed because they don't fit the existing Theory where in fact what we should be doing is modifying the existing Theory to explain the newly discovered facts and this is a this is a problem in the whole history of science is he saying that in science they don't modify existing theories to explain newly discovered facts surely he must know the history of science better than that in fact elsewhere He suggests that science is untrustworthy because its past ideas have been revised as for archaeologists and historians there are always suggesting new ways of looking at something you can't get published unless you have something new to say all you have to do is pick up some academic journals and read the papers it's everywhere and plain to see I mean think about it why would anyone want to become an archaeologist to just repeat what they've always been saying be serious this is a field about Discovery so how did Joe get the impression that archaeologists won't entertain new ideas he got this impression from Graham himself and when Joe says to Graham it's a shame archaeologists won't listen to other ideas Graham does not correct him instead he encourages and continues to cultivate this mindset there's a climate of fear in archaeology I don't mean to pick particularly on archaeologists here I think this is generally true uh across other disciplines as well um these days academics are driven by the need to publish research papers that's what they build their careers on if they can get a paper on their bit of research published in nature or the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Etc that's good for their careers but then you confront The Gatekeepers in those Publications who regard any archaeological idea that is not part of the mainstream accepted consensus with great suspicion and are most most reluctant uh to to you know to publish to publish that information Hancock makes a good point I think it is true that people can get set in their way and should be more open to ideas that come from outside the box but Hancock is using this as an excuse why his idea about A Lost advanc Civilization hasn't gotten through The Gatekeepers it's because of a climate of fear but consider the possibility that the idea has not been accepted because the idea contradicts the preponderance of evidence that's a possibility isn't it Hancock may not want to accept this possibility but maybe you can if you go against the mainstream view your career does not progress as an egyptologist for context he said this in regard to his son who had been studying egyptology getting his grade marked down when he suggested in a paper that his father might be correct but notice he did not conclude if you propose that the pyramids might be thousands of years older your career does not progress no he says if you go against the mainstream view so it's sounds as if you can't disagree with the mainstream view about anything and yet Archaeology is largely about disagreeing with prevailing views go read some archaeology papers I think the professional professional Academia particularly in the realm of archaeology encourages those who are working in the field to think in terms of the existing Paradigm not to think in terms of of challenging the Paradigm because it's dangerous if you challenge the Paradigm uh you you're going to be ridiculed by your colleagues and and regarded as completely lunatic and and and attacked and insulted uh so it's better not to challenge the Paradigm when Hancock says Paradigm I think he's just referring to long-held beliefs which are assumed to be factual and if so it is true that challenging such Notions will get a lot of push back though many have successfully done so and made it through relatively unscathed but yes entrenched ideas are harder to deconstruct I don't think anyone would disagree the point I want to make is that Hancock is using this to make it seem like his ideas are ridiculed primarily for this reason but we have to understand Joe has to understand that just because certain beliefs are difficult to topple this does not automatically mean that this is the reason why Graham Hancock's ideas are not accepted as a viewer I encourage you to consider the possibility that maybe Hancock thinks his ideas have more Merit than they actually do but what a fascinating area of research to not challenge the Paradigm an area where you have so little information about what could have possibly happened when you get back to 5,000 years ago 6,000 years ago 7,000 years ago and you're trying to piece these puzzles together to pretend that you have the entire timeline it seems a little silly it's pretty crazy this is the thing with history where you have written documents that you can draw upon where you have those written documents you can be reasonably certain about what's going on the further back we go we don't have the written documents Beyond 5,000 years we have no written documents and to draw fixed and firm conclusions about what happened before 5,000 years ago on the basis of a few things dug out of the ground it's not good enough it's it's it's a mistake that's being made and that I believe is going to is going to change it's going to be painful it's going to be slow it was painful to change the toic system to the cernic system but it will happen the system will change there are other kinds of documents besides written documents all material remains are documents of the kind and those are the kinds of documents archaeologists anthropologists and geologist study but notice here how confident that Hancock is that there is going to be a paradigm shift similar in some way to the change from the talic system to the capern system from what I can gather the paradigm shift he is referring to is specifically one that takes into account the existence of his Lost Civilization so I guess that would make him cernus this is how paradigms shift I mean everybody's familiar with the concept of a paradigm shift and and and there's a a book called the structure of scientific revolutions by Thomas [ __ ] which outlines what a paradigm shift is where an established model in some discipline of science that has been in control of people's thinking for a very long time suddenly falls apart and it doesn't fall apart suddenly what happens is that there's an accumulation of evidence which that model cannot explain that Paradigm cannot explain it it seemed like a great Paradigm at one point but then it doesn't explain this and then it doesn't explain that Thomas Coon's book has had considerable effect on popular culture and Hancock is feeding off of it in his book [ __ ] says that most scientific activity takes place within paradigms and these paradigms Define what questions are studied what criteria are used to answer these questions and what experiments are considered acceptable when making evaluations however from time to time revolutions occur these are periods when the Paradigm changes examples of revolutions might be when Galileo and cernus overthrew the Paradigm set by Aristotle or when Einstein overthrew the Paradigm set by Newton they don't happen often when Hancock is talking about overthrowing the Paradigm he is simply talking about a certain model that archaeologists anthropologists and historians and geologists and geneticists have about the velopment of human civilization it's not really about redefining archaeology like the Paradigm that says that megalithic architecture is only 6,000 years old and that the first megalithic architecture was in Malta that can't explain the massive megalithic site of glyi in Turkey 5,500 years before that it's evidence like that the slow accumulation of evidence that the existing system cannot explain that at eventual point no matter how strongly The Advocates of the existing system hold on to it no matter how determined they are in their defense no matter what dirty tricks they may choose to deploy to undermine their opponents sooner or later the evidence overwhelms them and the Paradigm goes down and you have a new way of thinking he says there was a paradigm that said that megalithic architecture is only 6,000 years old there was never a paradigm that said that all that was said was that our earliest known megalithic architecture is from that time there was no statement that it could not possibly be old older it was simply a statement about the extent of our knowledge at the time have you had uh any uh archaeologist review any of this work and change their opinions no no I haven't but what I what I have found uh and I I found it interestingly during the research trips for America before uh is a younger generation of archaeologists who are in the field um and they are quite different from the older generation of archists who were running the whole seen 25 years ago now we have a very different younger generation a younger generation that has been exposed to open-minded thinking um that has been exposed to the internet that itself as part of the general pattern of the younger generation is suspicious of authority the reason why Hancock has not been able to get any archaeologists to change their opinions is because the evidence he has presented is insufficient to have any effect I do agree however that the slow accumulation of evidence can overturn entrenched ideas over time but in this case that hasn't even come close to happening get so puzzled and baffled by the resistance to it cuz it's just interesting well if it's right it pulls the rug out completely from under the feet of archaeology and that's why there is resistance to it all human beings are territorial in their own way and and archaeologists are no exception they're they're they're territorial they've defined their territory they see a gradual slow steady evolution of human society uh and uh they think that we were at a relatively simple stage during the so-called Stone Age and we just gradually got more and more sophisticated and it's appealing idea and it makes it makes sense in lots of ways but there isn't room in that for an earlier civilization to have emerged and been destroyed and that's why the idea is is attacked because if that idea were true then the foundations on which archaeology has built the house of History would collapse two observations about this first the idea that that archaeologists are territorial academics have been working hard to make all of their research open source so that everyone can have access to it it's not the academics who make it hard for people to find the research it's the publishing companies and amateurs help archaeologists all the time amateurs have even made great discoveries amateurs have proposed ideas that archaeologists have followed up on archaeologists interact with the public online and members of the public feed them ideas the intellectual value of Hancock's words are determined by their content not by who is speaking them much less by his diploma people don't seem to realize this but you don't need to have a higher degree to get your ideas published in a peer-reviewed academic Journal your credentials aren't the deciding factor what makes a paper get accepted into a journal is its level of scholarship if you follow proper scholarly and scientific methods and your conclusions are empirically drawn you can get public published you don't have to belong to a group of Elites Graham Hancock himself could have taken this Avenue but this would require that he dot all his eyes and cross all his tees and he doesn't want to do that he keeps saying that he's just proposing possibilities but these proposals include telling people that archaeologists are wrong and that he is leading the charge to overthrow their house of history now let's talk about that with the foundations on which archaeology has built the house of of History collapse if a lost Advanced civilization were found lost civilizations have been found before they continue to be found and what happens they get added to the timeline of History archaeologist uncovered gcle teepe they added it to the timeline if a civilization was found earlier it too would get added to the timeline so what Foundation is he talking about the foundation that he described earlier that there was a slow gradual rise of progress there is no such Foundation the reason why the timeline looks as it currently does and this can't be emphasized enough is because you lay out all of the things that have been found placing them in the timeline according to Scientific dating methods not according to where you want to put them and when you see them all laid out like that that's what the timeline looks like so if you find something new you scientifically date it and then you just add it that's it now to be fair to Graham Hancock I should point out that he does on occasion on rare occasion temper his words against archaeologists somewhat by giving them some credit this doesn't happen that often but he made a point to say this and I should include this to be fair to him I'd like to say on on on on the record um I don't hate archaeologists I know that there's a lot of great work that's done by archaeologists I myself could not do the work I do were it not for the work that archaeologists have done out there in the field painstakingly digging and producing evidence uh I have huge respect for for archaeologists I think there's a very limited group within archaeology who who have this domineer mentality and who seek to control the narrative but by and large Archaeology is doing a good and a useful thing and uh I don't want it's it's unfortunate that I've been identified as a hate figure by a number of archaeologists I think there's there's much more potential for cooperation after hearing what he has said about archaeologists in various interviews do you think the belief that he is a hate figure comes out of left field I can understand why someone would think that about him also do you notice how here he is saying that it is a limited group within archaeology that have this domineering mentality he has been talking about and yet before he painted archaeology with a very broad brush saying archaeologists are this way all this time he hasn't been saying some archaeologists so when people hear him make these accusations if they don't catch this rare caveat they would never get the impression that he doesn't mean archaeologist in general or archaeology as a field and if only a limited group of archaeologists have this bad attitude how are they able to control all the other archaeologists archaeology is a very decentralized discipline there's no pope of archaeology there isn't an archaeological College of cardinals archaeologists are largely independent and have great academic freedom they come from every corner of the world from various ethnicities countries religions political Persuasions so where is this limited group operating from what are their names how are they making dictates from on high a lot of archeologists have accused me of accusing them of a conspiracy against me and trying to trying to make you look like a cook yeah I don't see any conspiracy I see people who do believe what they're saying and uh who think I'm wrong but who feel that I'm such a threat to the narrative that they present that I must be neutralized in in any way possible and that's a sad State of Affairs science should embrace and explore new and different ideas uh and particularly when it comes to the human past so he makes a the point to say that he does not believe in a grand conspiracy in archaeology the sins of archaeologists are simply the result of common biases intrinsic to humans okay that seems fairly reasonable but at other times and this is another two-sided aspect of Hancock he makes it sound like there is a conspiracy it certainly led me to to conclude that that um academic history um is part of a this sounds a bit paranoid but part of an overall system of kind of mind control that that operates there are certain things that we're allowed to think and certain parameters that we are allowed to think within in our society and and when it comes to the past those parameters are set by academics and they get so territorial and so defensive when you try to break out of that something else although this sounds a bit con conspiratorial I I think the existing view of history is part of a mind control system in our society it's it's something that we're presented with that we take in with our mother's milk and we're never supposed to question um I think it's if you control the past you do actually control the present and the future as well so but you mean if you have an absolutely established narrative that you're teaching and you're unwilling to look at any possible variations to that you're you're saying like almost from an authority position we know what happened and we know where we're going but if you say [ __ ] we don't know what happened then it's well well then who are you to tell us where we're going exactly starts to raise questions over everything actually right that last sentence is interesting Hancock assumes it is true that the teachers of academic history are authority figures who are trying to control people's minds and then he builds on that Foundation saying hey if they're lying to us who else is lying to us shouldn't we establish the truth of the first claim before jumping to further conclusions if I get in an airplane I I do want the pilot to be a properly qualified pilot I want him to have undergone all the training and to be really good at what he does but flying an airplane and studying the human past are two different things and archaeologists often compare themselves to airline pilots they say you wouldn't get in an airplane without a properly trained pilot so why are you studying the past without a properly trained archaeologist and what I say is you've got blinkers on you're very you you've got a very narrow perspective on what the past could be and you're defending and protecting that perspective and imposing a narrative about the past on the public and that's where we get into a kind of religious aspect of this that they become the high Priests of the past here he claims archaeologists are more like high priests than airline pilots first of all if you think that conducting an archaeological excavation requires no knowledge or training better think again but I expect that Hancock is not talking about the actual archaeological work that he's willing to let the archaeologists do he's probably talking about the interpretation of the archaeological evidence to me I see this as a kin to knowing how to read the instruments in the cockpit because reading archaeological data isn't the easiest thing in the world but sure an amateur can figure it out if they study the subject and yes they can interpret the data when problems arise is when an amateur doesn't study all the data or cherry picks his data to come up with the conclusions that he wants I don't need a high priest of archaeology to tell me that I think that all three of the world's monotheistic faiths whether it's Christianity Judaism or Islam have been responsible for just a vast amount of misery in the world and I think if we're not going to move on as a human race unless we actually move on from that time where we don't we don't accept that something is true just because our parents or some guy with a beard tells us that it's true you know where we look for direct experience of the Spirit and the Divine this is the problem with all of those big religions I don't care whether they call themselves Christians Muslims or Jews you know is that they hierarchies they bureaucracies they power structures and uh they do not offer a direct experience of that's why all of them persecute the use of psychedelics they don't want people to have direct contact with the Divine the implication here that archaeology or academic history is like religion and that its purveyors are like priests is not accidental he wants his audience to view academics in the same manner but it is a construct that he has been creating the way that Archaeology is organized has no resemblance to religious institutions but he wants Joe and his audience to think of it that way because by taking away their legitimacy he builds his own legitimacy even though you know huge negative forces are still at work and are still sitting in the seat of power I think I think there's a tremendous hope for the future in America that comes from the The Awakening to consciousness of the American people and maybe it's small right now but it's growing and in that sense far more than any other I believe America is leading the world that there is this this possibility for awakening here and maybe it goes back to the you know to the founding fathers and the frontier days and just the the the the the sense that that people should be able to make decisions about their own lives without government telling them what to do that's the step we all need to take we need to move ahead we need to set aside our commitment to these large monolithic religions we need to set aside our commitment to large monolithic States we need to run our own lives and make decisions for ourselves and it just happens that that is very close to the heart of what America is all about so if we're going to wake up um we have to overthrow these systems of mental control which are which are in place it sounds almost like it is our patriotic duty to reject what archaeologists tell tell us information which used to be strictly controlled and in the hands of Elites is now changing the power the power structure of information is changing entirely and that's a very that's potentially a very exciting new time to live in and great things are coming out of it and and it's easy to say this but I think a new Consciousness is Dawning in the world actually I don't think it's very big yet I think the old way of doing things is still extremely strong but people are waking up to their power and saying you know I am not simply uh to be pushed around and told what to do by an expert or a government official or or a corporation with this narrative even without having to discuss any of the evidence he has already made a certain type of person that is the kind of person who despises The Establishment the man put themselves firmly on his side you got to support the underdog right with this kind of foundation it will take Hancock far less effort to convince and don't misunderstand me I'm not saying that all someone has to do is tell Joe Rogan that they're anti-establishment and he'll believe everything they say no I mean only that the more someone can sympathize with a person and the more they can identify with that person and the more they have in common the more they will be inclined to view things from that person's perspective it's only human nature and that's half the battle right there granted I have met some people who take the anti-establishment side in everything automatically their identity is tied up in being anti-establishment they say I'm the anti-establishment guy I'm Mr independent it's who I am if I agree with the mainstream I'll look like a dork I want to be cool but I don't think Joe is that two-dimensional and the other thing that's changed a lot is the attitude of the man in the Street to Authority that has changed back in the '90s authority figures were The Gatekeepers they controlled everything if an authority figure in a discipline like archaeology said hanock is completely wrong he's made all this stuff up that would generally be believed not by everybody but by the majority of people today to have a a mainstream authority figure say that to me is actually an advantage because people are are so distrustful of authority and rightly so because we've been lied to by authority figures in all fields for so long the [ __ ] has been so enormous that people are finally waking up and we can't trust what authority figures say the implication of Hancock's words is that he is part of this counterculture Revolution and if you believe in this revolution you ought to hop on board with his theories it doesn't matter what the theories actually are what matters is that you are not letting other people tell you what to believe but aren't you this is one of the reasons why my work has not been cancelled and hasn't disappeared because archaeology dislikes it because the general public today distrust experts and with good reason there's a good reason to distrust distrust experts we've been told so many lies by experts over such a long period of time uh they so often are confident absolutely certain that they're right and they turn out later to be to be wrong that any intelligent person begins to wonder are these experts really the only people we should listen to and anyway I want to think for myself I don't want to be told what to think by a group of authority figures called archaeologists I want a diverse range of information and then I will draw my conclusions from it I'm not speaking of me I'm speaking of the the general public and I think that that attitude is growing but at the same time there still is a slavish adherance to the words of experts what makes someone an expert knowledge and experience the more your knowledge grows and the more you gain experience in a subject the greater your expertise if you continue to study a subject in a comprehensive way you're bound to become an expert and then when you do according to Hancock you should be trusted less the more you know the less trustworthy you are apparently the people you should listen to are the people with only a rudimentary or intermediate understanding of the subject and why because their minds are more open consider why experts Minds seem less open to alternative atives it's because the more data that you have the fewer explanations there are to explain the data so for example if the police are trying to figure out who the killer was as they gather evidence the number of suspects by process of elimination gets reduced and hopefully they can narrow it down to one but before they go through the process of collecting the clues the number of suspects is numerous it's the same here the less you study a subject the more more possible explanations you can imagine but the more you study a subject the number of explanations for what happened gets reduced that is why it seems to The Outsider that experts minds are more closed in his efforts to call into question the reliability of archaeology Hancock also continually misrepresents it saying things about it that are either framed in a misleading manner or completely fabricated he has stated before that he has never knowingly made false claims or deliberately spread disinformation and would never do so I'm generally refraining from asserting that Hancock is deliberately lying perhaps he himself is misinformed or has just misremembered something he heard YouTuber and geologist potholer 54 gives an example of what he says is a provable lie told by Hancock relating to archaeology just opinions on gang Padang you might want to check that video out and make up your own mind about it I'll leave a link below as for me I'm open to the idea that Hancock could simply be poorly read on the subject and has jumped to conclusions Jerry just remember it's not a lie if you believe it let's go through a few examples and you can decide whether you think it is intentional or not even if it is not disinformation it is still misinformation that he gladly publicizes to the world we'll start with some basic ones we should not be surprised about how little we really know about our past this is also a comfort game with archaeology oh yeah we've got the past all worked out we understand it here it is this is what we teach in schools this is what our friends in the media report this is the fact it's not the facts we know nothing in the entire history of the existence of the field of archaeology has it ever said that it has the past all worked out ever I challenge anyone to find a single archaeologist who has ever said that we have the past all worked out archaeology wouldn't even need to exist if that were the case what would the field even be for but in order to make it seem like archaeologists are setting their ways Hancock makes this false claim and then this catchphrase gets repeated people come over to my channel even on a regular basis and they say oh you think we have history all worked out don't you I had to laugh at that part about archaeologists friends in the media what is he talking about there is he claiming there's some kind of alliance between the media and archaeologists a media that will sooner publish a story about a 20,000 year old pyramid in gunang Padang than a story about how there is no evidence for a 20,000 year old pyramid in gunang Padang okay well maybe when he said that archaeologists think they have the past all worked out he was speaking off the cuff and was exaggerating let's look at another example along the same lines this is what the society for American archaeology said in their open letter to Netflix complaining about my show uh they said we know that there was no Lost Civilization during the Ice Age and my question to them is how can they possibly know that when they've looked at relatively small areas of the Earth the picture is not complete they should be saying we don't think there was a loss civilization during the is fine go and take a look at the letter yourself it never says any such thing what it actually says is after More Than A Century of professional archaeological investigations we find no archaeological evidence to support the existence of an advanced Global Ice Age civilization of the kind Hancock suggests saying that they have found no evidence for it is not the same as saying that they know it doesn't exist one thing I know is is that Hancock read the letter probably numerous times so why is he claiming it says something that isn't there but keep in mind that statements like these are just another way of saying that archaeologists have their minds closed they're know it alls they think they have the past all worked out they say they know definitely what happened or didn't happen this is a mischaracterization and it is a mischaracterization that Hancock often uses to his Advantage when they find things when they're making a apartment building sometimes they're digging into the ground they go oh hold on a second what is this doesn't it happen in Mexico City all the time yeah it does and and actually that's how a lot of archaeology happens most archaeology certainly in the industrialized countries is a result of a dam or a road being built an archaeologist being called in to see if there's anything there it's not a targeted search it's kind of random something's happening and archaeologists go in there um and then there's huge areas of the world that have had very little archaeology in them uh those include the Amazon rainforest where I've just been is it true that most archaeology has done this way at least in industrialized countries it makes the discipline of archaeology seem very halfhazard doesn't it it makes it seem as if archaeologists aren't really looking for new things and especially not for A Lost Civilization if Hancock got himself a copy of an archaeology textbook one of those studied by archaeologists in training the ones that are learning the Bas Basics he would find that this is not the case in my copy of a rru and bonds archaeology book one of the more widely used ones there's an entire chapter about how archaeological sites are found sure some sites are found by accident but archaeologists regularly locate the whereabouts of sites through ground reconnaissance aerial survey ground penetrating radar this is not done with restrictions as to the date of the archaeological sites no one knows the dates yet anything and everything is cataloged there is a wealth of information about how this is done and although I know Graham is familiar with some of these methods I think he would benefit by cracking open a book such as this and learning more about it and how much it is done but here he's telling people how it's done and they won't bother to fact check this they'll simply believe it a story he often tells about the Sphinx also misrepresents archaeology you actually have to go back to this period to this younger Dr period to get those heavy rainfalls that could have eroded the Sphinx in the way it is and I want to pay tribute to the work of John Anthony West and Robert shock from Boston University because they broke this story way back in 1992 and at the time the egyptological establishment of course were Furious that anybody dared to suggest that the Sphinx might be 12,000 years old the egyptologist said we know the Sphinx dates from 2,500 BC actually one of the things I've done in this book is look at what the egyptological case rests on and it's a fairy tale it rests on nothing it's kind of ideology it's a it's it's it's their idea of how things should be rather than any real factual evidence that puts the Sphinx at 2,500 BC and the geology puts the Sphinx much much older now the argument of the archaeologists at the time was and anyway the Sphinx couldn't possibly be 12,000 years old because if that was the work of some unknown culture 12,000 years ago we're going to find lots of other monuments around the world that are 12,000 years old and we don't find any um well that was 1992 but now we're in 2015 and the site of gocke in turkey has been discovered with its gigantic megaliths a deliberately buried Time Capsule buried more than 10,000 years ago and created 11 and a half thousand years ago and if you can make gockley tee you can make the Sphinx okay this is a misrepresentation for two reasons first an archaeologist would never say that the lack of evidence of monuments in the world would disprove that the people of one particular country could build a monument archaeologists would only be concerned about the region in which the Sphinx was constructed it wouldn't matter what people in China or anyone else was doing I went and looked for evidence of what laner or hawas said in 1992 I found this article in the New York Times where laner was quoted as saying if the Sphinx was built buil by an earlier culture where is the evidence of that Civilization where are the pottery shards people during that age were hunters and gatherers they didn't build cities is this what Hancock was referring to no mention of laner saying that the lack of evidence throughout the whole world was significant logically he's talking about the region in which the Sphinx is located and he makes a valid point that we have found no evidence of a society living in or around Giza at the time that Hancock wants to date the Sphinx that would have constructed a sphinx he doesn't ask for another structure like the Sphinx elsewhere in the world he ask for evidence of people living at Giza hence the call for pottery shards I found a quotation from egyptologist Carol redmount in 1991 from the LA Times in which she tells the paper something similar there's just no way that could be true the people of that region would not have had the technology the governing institutions or even the will to build such a structure thousands of years before cfr's Reign she said notice the focus is on Egypt not the world now if someone can find an actual quotation in which an archaeologist states that it is the global lack of evidence that is the important thing rather than the evidence at Giza I will eat my words but I don't think so Hancock changed their point about a lack of evidence for a culture at Giza that could build the Sphinx to a point about a lack of global evidence for monuments but maybe he misunderstood the point the argument was at that time that the Sphinx cannot possibly be of that age because there's nothing else in the world of that age how could there just be this one unique thing which is 12 and a half thousand years old or maybe older this amazing the monument how can that be alone so show me the pochards of the rest of that Civilization well some years later those pots have started to turn up and they've turned up in Turkey uh in the form of uh goly Tey a gigantic megalithic Circle uh which dates back to precisely 12,000 years ago Mark laner and zahi hawas put it on record back in 1992 when John Anthony West and Robert Shock first presented the rainfall erosion evidence on the Sphinx and what lener and hawas said is the Sphinx can't possibly be 12,000 plus years old because there was no other culture anywhere in the world that was capable of creating large scale Monumental architecture like this show me one other structure that's capable of doing that well they could say that in 1992 Michael but they can't say it in 2017 not since gockley Tey mind after setting up his straw man intentionally or unintentionally he can then say that the discovery of GC liepe proves them wrong because here's a place that has rock sculptures and it is far far older than ones we knew about before this makes the archaeologist look irrational but of course he isn't debunking a real argument if he wanted to he could make the argument himself that the evidence at gcle teepe and Northern Mesopotamia shows that people could have made a sphinx in Egypt considering it's so far away and the Sphinx is nothing like The Monuments at gcle Tepe I think it is a weak argument but he's not actually showing that GC Ty a debunked an actual argument archaeologist made about the Sphinx and there is a second issue with this claim another way that he misrepresents the archaeologists he also claims this straw man argument is basically the only argument that they made against an older Sphinx or at least the chief argument but the fact is archaeologists have marshaled many pieces of evidence and many lines of argumentation that demonstrate a date for the Sphinx in the middle of the third millennium B CE not the least of which is geological evidence that the Sphinx would have been sitting in the Nile River throughout the African humid period which ended only 5,500 years ago but also evidence concerning the type of weathering or erosion we see there the dating of the surrounding structures Etc see my video on the geology of the Sphinx to get more information I really find it difficult to believe Hancock doesn't know about the other pieces of evidence but by reframing what archaeologists actually say and by saying this really is all they've got he builds a straw man that he can knock down and Joe Rogan is none the wiser because he relies on Hancock to tell him the truth let's look at another claim he makes about egyptologists and this is the area where the egyptologists the academic egyptologists are incredibly annoying because they will not listen to what the ancient Egyptians themselves had to say it's as though they the academics know more about ancient EGP history than the ancient Egyptians did themselves and the ancient Egyptians were really very clear they they they pushed their history back well plus 30,000 years like the way they viewed some of the older hieroglyphs that depict civilizations that were 30,000 years ago like kings and and the L the king lists from ancient Egypt go back 30 30 plus thousand years but they want to pretend that those are myth yeah and yet for their chronology of ancient Egypt they actually used the king lists the moment those King lists start giving dates that fall within dates that archaeologists like every everything before those dates they say oh they just made it up how crazy is that maybe Hancock really believes that egyptologists reject dates given in an ancient document merely because it contradicts their beliefs maybe but the fact is when you have a king list that comes from a later time and it contradicts the evidence that has been collected from earlier times it is important to give priority to the earlier contemporary evidence and to all the other material evidence that has been collected including data from scientific dating methods primary sources are superior to secondary sources but again he's trying to make it seem like it's an ideology that motivates archaeologists rather than the evidence itself so he says egyptologists won't listen to what the ancient Egyptians themselves say and this is the opposite of the truth the truth is that egyptologists prefer primary Egyptian sources over secondary Egyptian sources now let's look at it the other way if Hancock finds a secondary source that fits his ideas and it contradicts the primary sources what does he do he favors the secondary source why because it fits his narrative so who is allowing his ideology to motivate his choices the properly scientific approach is to gather all the evidence and then let that evidence lead you to the proper conclusion by starting with a conclusion and then accepting only the evidence that supports it Hancock is not doing this the scientific way you might say well in science we start with a hypothesis that's fine but Hancock does not truly test his hypothesis he won't allow it to be falsified he only allows it to be supported that's called cooking the books again this is an area where there has been narrative that archaeology has sought to impose upon us and this was this was called the Clovis first idea that there was a people who archaeologists called the Clovis people we don't know what they call themselves uh in North America and traces of their characteristic uh tools particular sort of fluted points Arrowhead spear points turn up from about 13,400 years ago and end abruptly 12, 800 years ago and for a long time with the beginning of the younger dras and for a long time archaeologist maintained that this Clovis culture so-called Clovis culture we don't know what they call themselves were the first Americans and that there were no human beings in the Americas before 13,400 years ago and bit by bit the New Evidence has come in which has forced archeologists screaming and tearing out their hair to back away from the clov first Paradigm and admit that actually yes there were people here before that but even then they're reluctant to go very far back we've recently had these these Footprints in in White Sands in in New Mexico 23,000 years old or so that's largely being accepted now but there are much earlier dates there's 13,000 years ago from the suruti Mastadon site near San Diego okay so here's a narrative that Hancock has repeated many times it his goto example of a case where wait for it archaeologists change their minds as new evidence was found most people think that's a good thing the reason why Hancock likes to use it however is is because he himself has been trying to push the idea that humans were in America earlier and then archaeologists later ended up accepting the idea that humans were in America earlier so he can spin a story where they refused to believe what he had been saying and they had to be dragged Kicking and Screaming towards the truth they were blinded by their own egos while his clear perception of the evidence won the day but that's not what happened here is the truth of the matter just as in every case the archaeological consensus of what happened forms around the theory that best explains the existing evidence in order for a new Theory to be adopted sufficient evidence must be brought in to overturn it as more evidence is brought in the scale begins to tip more and more individual archaeologists become convinced and when enough of them are the scale tips in favor of the new Theory before this happened in the case of humans in America Hancock was looking for support for his theory about an earlier civilization and this required humans to be in America earlier so he looked for whatever evidence he could find even if it was weak or flimsy and he marshaled any example that bolstered his theory he didn't go with the preponderance of evidence he went with the evidence that suited his narrative then later as evidence was brought in by archaeologists not by him and and when the preponderance of evidence finally showed that humans were in America earlier he proclaimed that he had seen this all along the archaeologists were blind to see what he already knew and their weakness was their big ego they should show humility like he did the lesson to learn from all of this of course is that we have to allow the evidence not our own theories to lead us notice how he still thinks their current view isn't good enough and he wants to push the date of human arrival in America back even earlier so he cites the Cudi Mastadon evidence which is a weak example and if you want to know why I know a couple of channels that explain it well so I'll leave links to them below in order to demonstrate that what he is saying about the archaeological establishment is true Hancock not only claims that he personally is persecuted by it he claims it has destroyed the careers of good archaeologists his favorite instance to to support this claim is that of jacqu sen Mars which is related to the Clovis first argument he was just talking about the Americas um have been misrepresented uh for a very long time uh by archaeology and archaeologists will be annoyed with me for saying that they have a way of forgetting their own errors uh of saying oh well we knew that all along it wasn't it wasn't the case but the fact of the matter remains that for best part of 50 years from the 1960s through until about 2010 American archaeology was locked in a Dogma that they actually had a name for which was Clovis first uh that they invented a name for a a culture they called them the Clovis culture we don't know what they called themselves they were hunter gatherers uh they first appear in the archaeological record 13,400 years ago and they vanish from the archaeological record 12,600 years ago and for a very long time it was maintained adamantly that these were the first Americans that no human being touched the soil of the Americas until 13,400 years ago just animals but no human beings present at all and any archaeologist who attempted to dispute that dogma and I use the word deliberately there should be no room for Dogma in science but any archaeologist Who challenged that would face severe problems with his or her career they would be mocked and humiliated at conferences like an archaeologist called Jac Sankar from from Canada who excavated in the in the in the Yukon humiliated at conferences insulted accused of making stuff up uh their research funding would be withdrawn basically to challenge Clovis first was the end of your archaeological career so naturally very few archaeologists wanted to challenge Clovis first Hancock is getting his information largely from an article written in 2017 by archaeologist Heather Pringle for hawkey magazine and reprinted the next day in Smithsonian Magazine about how sank Mar's work conducted Between 1979 and 2001 was finally Vindicated she refers to Fierce opposition to sank Mar's conclusions and bitter debate she says s Mars likened it to the Spanish Inquisition she writes about attending conferences in which sank Mars presented his conclusions quote often a polite Amusement spread throughout the room as if the audience was dealing with some crackpot uncle or the atmosphere grew testy and tense as someone began grilling the presenter but once or twice the mask of professional respect slipped completely I heard laughter and snickering in the room she quotes Tom dillah as saying the scientific atmosphere was clearly toxic and clearly impeded science there is clear criticism here made by archaeologists about the behavior of other archaeologists and I do hope this will prove to be a learning experience that will spur archaeologist to make some changes in their personal Behavior towards those they disagree with but Hancock puts a personal spin on this to tie it in with his thesis about archaeology being a religion he speaks of Dogma he makes the claim that to challenge Clovis first was the end of your archaeological career which Pringle never says Jack sank Mars you know the excavator of the Bluefish caves in the Yukon back in the 1970s were prop was proposing that human beings had been in Americas at least 24,000 years ago his reputation was was utterly destroyed his research funding was withdrawn he was given no access to Grants he wasn't able to do his work he was heavily penalized and punished by the community and now just a few weeks ago we have the Smithsonian coming out and saying sorry we got it wrong jack sank Mars was right all along let's look at sank Mar's career he started fieldwork at Bluefish caves in 1977 in 1979 he published one of the first peer-reviewed Journal articles on a purported pre-clovis site he was hired into a permanent position at the Canadian Museum of civil Iz ation the same year as head of the rescue archaeology program and curator of boreal forest archaeology s Myers's work at the Bluefish caves was funded from 1977 until 1987 if there was an effort to destroy his career by taking away the funding they sure took their time doing it 10 years of funded research at the same site it's a long run now it's true that Pringle says funding for his Bluefish work grew scarce his field work eventually sputtered and died well this is because the museum which was his only source of funding stopped funding him after 10 years this is not the same as saying he was given no access to Grants and he remained in his position at the museum until he retired in 2002 and he continued working on other pre-clovis research and many other archaeological projects up until he retired he did get some harsh criticism by a handful of people and he complained about it but his findings were cont controversial when Excavating sites that old there is always an issue of getting reliable dates from secure cultural layers later work yielded new data and secured dates that better supported sank Mar's conclusions the misbehavior of some archaeologist wasn't how they treated him at conferences and I will agree that even if careers are not destroyed laughing at people at conferences is unacceptable but I don't think criticism is anything to get upset about it comes with with the territory when an idea is controversial expect controversy I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with a fellow archaeologist about something and you shouldn't either every historian and archaeologist knows that their work will be subject to scrutiny it must pass the test of fire bottom line S Mars had a long career he never lost his job he continued to do archaeology he continued to publish his reputation was not utterly destroyed his work was Vindicated during his lifetime this is not a case where archaeologists destroyed the career of another archaeologist simply for disagreeing with the consensus I think you would be hardpressed to find one but even if you could pointing out isolated abuses does not demonstrate that the field of Archaeology is abusive and corrupt Ponder why Graham Hancock tells this story over and over again with his own characteristic spin is it because he wants people to see him as a sank Mars type personality who will one day be Vindicated is the criticism of his ideas like the criticism that sank Mars received they laughed at him they laughed at Hancock and just as sank Mars won in the end maybe Hancock will also or it could just be to continue this Narrative of archaeology being corrupt but my point about this is that what it meant was since it was the Dogma that Clovis was first that their oldest dates were 13,400 years ago there seemed to be no logic to archaeologists in digging deeper you know how it is with archaeology that the the upper levels are the youngest and the deeper you go the older it gets and the feeling was no need to dig below the Clovis Lair because we already know that there were no human beings there before that this is an oversimplification most pre-clovis sites have been found in the normal course of excavation you don't have to be specifically looking for it to find it though I'm sure if you go out of your way to look for it you will be more likely to find it but the point is that it was inevitable that pre-clovis sites would be found nevertheless it is true that archaeologists may have found more had they been looking well they will find more now is there a reason why they should be in a big hurry no really is there some urgency here that we should be aware of what are they going to do if they dig up something that's 30,000 years old I mean well I hope that they're not going to hide it and pretend well I know of cases where it's happened I know it happened in Malta what what happened in Malta in the hyper gum which is an underground structure in Malta amazing underground one one place this should be on everybody's bucket list by the way the hyper gum in Malta it is an incredible place it's like it's it's like a huge Temple complex cut out underground uh and and um there are traces of red ochre paint on the walls they look much more like the caves the painted caves than they look like stuff from the Neolithic and there was at one time uh a figure of a hybrid creature a half bison half bull um such a figure would be normal in the painted caves from 30,000 years ago but doesn't fit in with the idea that the hypium belongs to 5,000 years ago and uh this was solved by a certain gentleman who shall remain nameless who had the Bison scrubbed off the walls of the hyper GM in Malta it was literally scrubbed off I uh reported this at some length in my book underworld wow who do you who do they think scrubbed it well we know who scrubbed it um it was the former director of museums in in Malta you back in the back in the 60s he scrubbed it off the walls the source of the accusation that Hancock is making here is Anton mood a pediatrician who's also an ancient Malta Enthusiast and former president of the local PR prehistoric Society of Malta misfud has a theory that the hypogeum is from Paleolithic times and in his book dossier Malta he weaves this yarn about how there was on the wall of the hypo in Malta an ancient painting of an extinct bisen Bol that hasn't existed since the Paleolithic period and that this was evidence that the hypog comes from Paleolithic times but that a former director of the national museum Francis Malia told an employee to erase the painting because it conflicted with the archaeological Dogma that dated this Temple to the Neolithic period this serious charge has been repeated numerous times by Hancock I took the the national museums of Malta to task over this when I was back there making a documentary with Channel 4 we put in a formal document to them asking them to answer this charge and they refuse to answer it they would not comment upon it at all wow so yeah I mean archaeologists do actually sometimes do incredibly dishonest things to maintain the view of History that's so sad I mean you just think about the whole cycle of thinking that goes from being a young person wanting to explore history wanting to become an archaeologist getting involved in archaeology getting involved in Academia and then destroying evidence that's contrary to what you've been taught or or are teaching yeah it's the opposite of science hanock first discussed this in his book underworld back then he made the effort to get both sides of the story but since then he behaves as if there never was another side of the story when he wrote the book Mia was already dead and couldn't be questioned about it but his predecessor at the national museum David Trump was still living and Hancock sent his assistant shareif to ask David Trump to verify the truth of this Tale the conversation is reproduced in the book and what did Trump say the very simple answer to that is what on Earth would Francis Malia have wanted to scrub it out for absolutely no motive for this it was very slight indeed in the first place it is known that there has been deterioration of the paint under the hypog gam that this is what all the recent restoration work has been doing to try to stabilize the situation as it is now now you might say well Trump is just defending his fellow archaeologist but according to Mis food's story Malia and Trump disagree read about the significance of the painting with Trump saying he thought it was a piece of art resembling a bull and Malia saying he didn't think it looked like anything so when Malia took over from Trump as head of the museum he had the painting scrubbed that's miso's accusation but Trump said this well as with all scholarship we had slightly differing views of this I was more willing to accept this very faint figure than Malia was the bull figure I wouldn't regard this as a disagreement we certainly didn't squabble over the issue shareif asks so it was a difference in academic Viewpoint Trump says well yes I was prepared to accept by the way it was our curator there who pointed it out to us no one had noticed it before it was as faint as that I looked at it and thought well maybe there's something in it I wanted to put it into the guide so that people could and then Sharie says look for themselves and Trump says have a look and make up their own minds whereas Malia was rather more dubious of it but I wouldn't put it more strongly than that and to call it a disagreement is quite misleading Trump then emphasizes the fact that the painting was already very faded from the outset it was extremely faint as I say no one noticed it until our curator who obviously was up and down passing it every day for years spotted what he thought might be something and pointed it out to to the authorities at the Museum we went and had a look and said well maybe but it was never any clearer than that Sharie asked you've seen this figure yourself what remains of it Trump says it was barely perceptible then I wouldn't well it's even less perceptible now Sharie says so have you seen the changes Trump said oh yes Sharie says and those are the changes that the restoration project is trying to stop Trump says yes yes Sharie says these are not deliberate changes they're changes that all tourist sites have to think about Trump says yes the question of the air conditioning and the like Sharie says is there any part of this bull figure which leads you to think about Mis food suggestion that it actually represents an extinct species is there enough of it left for you to tell that Trump said no so we have here direct testimony from someone who knows that painting and who is seen it over the course of several years that the painting was already faded barely perceptible and that it had been fading ever since he says that Malia did not have the painting scrubbed and yet even though Hancock received this eyewitness testimony he continues to tell Mis food's clearly inaccurate story because it fits not only with what he wants to believe about Malia but with his portrayal of archaeologists if that means slandering the dead so be it I have a question for you Hancock bemon the fact that he gets criticized and he calls these criticisms attacks now do you think that what he has been saying about archaeology and archaeologists can rightfully be called attacks remember that letter written by the Society of American archaeologists to Netflix about Hancock one thing that the letter says is that Hancock quote 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 unquote from what you have heard Hancock say do you think this statement is true I do on his website Hancock responds directly to this accusation by saying basically they started it he doesn't deny it in your opinion when he makes accusations against archaeologist is he merely returning the favor or is he being hypocritical at the very least I guess you can say he wants to keep this war going the thing is to say someone is doing archaeology poorly and that person is not even an archaeologist by profession is not on the same level as saying archaeology itself should not be trusted this kind of talk privileges oneself over all other things I have no doubt that Mr Hancock will consider me as one of his attackers that I'm willfully seeking to cause harm to his profession in the public eye with this video but I'm not attacking his profession he's a journalist and I have nothing to say about journalism or even his journalism he's a writer I think he's a great writer sure I think he's terrible at ancient history but he is neither a historian nor an archaeologist so yeah but aren't you doing harm to his book sales that's how he makes a living you know sure but books get panned all the time and so do movies Everyone is always talking about books or movies they don't like they rate them on Rotten Tomatoes this movie sucks they might also criticize how a movie is being publicized and I'm criticizing how Graham Hancock publicizes his books you would think it ridiculous if a movie director claimed to be persecuted because the critics didn't like his movie but if I wrote a hit piece on movie directors in general or on the entire film industry and I went around the world spreading this message then filmmakers would have cause to complain now here's the takeaway where does Joe Rogan go when he wants to get archaological information now I'm sure he reads the headlines whenever there's a new discovery he sees it in the news but what if he really wants to ask questions about it to get into the nitty-gritty who's his go-to person it's Graham Hancock right when he wants to know what archaeologists think he doesn't ask archaeologists he asks Graham Hancock Hancock tells him what the archaeologists think when he wants an interpretation of an ancient site who does he ask he asks Graham Hancock the information comes through the Graham Hancock filter not directly from the people who are actually working on these sites this is a perfect recipe for getting duped it also shows that Hancock has become kind of a guru to Rogan if you only learn about a group of people from someone who has positioned himself as their opponent you ought to know you're not going to get straight information this is what happens when you let someone else tell you what archaeologists are saying and doing and you don't look into it yourself or you don't ask archaeologists guess how many archaeologists Joe Rogan has had on his podcast up until Flint Dibble came on the show no one I couldn't find any and if you watched that episode you will see that Rogan seems to be persuaded by Flint in many instances when you hear what the other side has to say you get a more well-rounded Viewpoint there's still hope for Joe a good lesson from this is never accept without question what someone says about what their opponents think get the information firsthand you don't in any way pretend to be some sort of bearer of secret knowledge that no one else possesses and absolutely not a guru I don't want to be anything like that I'm a reporter that's that's what I am and I'm I'm a reporter who's reporting on offbeat subjects and to some extent I'm an I'm an outsider by Guru I do not mean some kind of spiritual adviser I meant simply in the colloquial sense as an influential teacher and there is no doubt that Hancock has been Rogan's teacher think about the significance of that there are people from countries around the world who devote themselves to the study of the ancient past each individual person devoting themselves to research the in-depth study of ancient documents archaeological data physical extraction of material remains scientific research and the like somehow a man who says he is only a reporter has been able to get people like Joe Rogan to bypass these professional researchers for such a long time and to come to him to get the knowledge they seek it's really rather amazing but I hope that somehow this video is helping you to understand how he has been able to do it another way that Hancock has been able to bond with Joe Rogan and remember what I said earlier about how creating bonds is an effective way of creating empathy and trust is through their mutual interest in psychedelics so I thought and I've made this proposal sever several times that um that what you know what I would like to see is anybody running for high office they first right off they got to do 10 iasa sessions it's a great idea you know that's it that's that's the first that's the first hurdle they got to do that they got to go through it and we'll see how they feel afterwards um could be 10 you know strong mushroom sessions that would be just as good but uh you know they got to they got to be able to do that you know it's really crazy the solution exists to a better world it exists it exists right here Hancock believes that psychedelics in fact played a role in the success of ancient civilizations we need to recognize that these demonized plants have played a huge role in the human story just in my recent travels in South America I was in a place called caral uh 200 200 kmers North of uh Lima uh in Peru and what's fascinating at Coral is a couple of things firstly there was a big city complex there 5,000 years ago and absolutely no evidence of warfare whatsoever it was traditionally it was believed that you know the the evolution of cities was connected with Warfare in some way that people came into cities to protect themselves from war no Warfare none whatso these people did not make war secondly they were using psychedelics um quite clear evidence of this uh so you know this unexamined part of the human story needs to be brought back into prominence and we need to realize we ow a lot to the Visionary plants and we're making a mistake to create a society that seeks to cut cut us off from that source of learning and that source of teaching it's not an accident in the Amazon that they call these plants teachers they are teachers do you think the Egyptians were taking psyched definitely definitely what psychedelics they particularly the blue water lily when the ancient Egyptians explored the mystery of life after death they were not uh you know sitting in some scribal room just making this stuff up they were investigating they were EXP exploring they were separating their Consciousness from the body and they were entering other Realms and they were coming back and giving a detailed report about what they encountered there in this matter I realize Joe is not really representing the every man because most people aren't into psychedelics but my main point in bringing this up is to show that Hancock believes that psychedelics are a key to understanding the world including history I think that I think I'm going out on a limb here but I think that we're dealing I I don't believe Consciousness is generated by the brain I I believe the brain is more of a receiver of Consciousness it is a legit thing and if you take it you'll have an experience that you cannot believe is real and available you cannot believe that it's so easy that you drink this substance and all of a sudden you you literally enter into some different dimension yeah that's right it's it's it is real with psychedelics we retune the receiver wavelength of the brain and G hypothesis might you and gain access to other levels of reality parallel universes if you like which are inhabited by intelligent beings okay let's explore that hypothesis scientifically how are we going to do that psychedelics very best way put people into deeply Altered States Of Consciousness on Q you know and then get them to compare notes get them to ask questions of those entities see if any new information any novel information comes back that couldn't possibly have been known there is of course a difference between studying psychedelics scientifically and using psychedelics as a source of information Hancock is suggesting that there are other ways of obtaining information besides just empirical science information can be obtained by going into Altered States Of Consciousness through the use of psychedelics and he thinks science should investigate this process more the problem is that the kinds of experiences he is espousing are subjective experiences even if science could verify that these experiences were actually caused by outside forces rather than internal processes that would not make this experiences objective because they are still personal they therefore cannot be used as an objective way to provide information if for example you personally and truly met the ghost of an ancient Atlantean and they told you that yes the Sphinx is more than 12,000 years old how could you convince someone that did not have this experience that the ancient Atlantean actually said this there's no way to cross-examine the witness Hancock flirts here with cognitive relativism and I'm not using that term to refer to a specific set of beliefs but just generically to refer to a general set of ideas that are part of a relativist Zeitgeist in society today which largely originated in books like Thomas Coon's the structure of scientific revolutions and Paul feren again method and then was expanded upon by others later relativism is a philosophy that claims that the truth or fality of a statement is relative to a social group or to an individual and Hancock says this explicitly about archaeology its conclusions are just the opinions of a group of people I strongly resist the idea that Archaeology is a science I I don't think it should be described as a science what do you think it should be described as it's more like a kind of philosophy it's a it's it's it's an attempt to interpret the past uh based on rather flimsy and limited evidence and what you find in that interpretation is that the preconceptions of the individuals involved are being imposed upon the evidence which then turns out to support their preconceptions and that's not a scientific way of doing things a scientific way of doing things is testing testing hypothesis and FAL seeking to falsify them and seeing if they if they if they work out so the problem is drawing these conclusions and then being too rigid with these conclusions upon the further Evidence that's that's my view that that that that um archaeology has been has been much too rigid and and and that there's a there's a climate of fear in archaeology I don't mean to pick particularly on archaeologists here I think this is generally true uh across other disciplines as well you might be wondering how he can say on the one hand that archaeology isn't as strict as science and on the other say it is too rigid but don't think he is saying that archaeology shouldn't be so open into interpretation no he wants it to be he is saying that since Archaeology is a mere philosophy then it should not be so rigid about what is acceptable so let's talk about how archaeology or history compares to science the conclusions scientists draw may not always agree with each other but the basic approach is accepted by all scientists because this approach is objective anyone from anywhere in the world can follow the method and if it's done properly that method will be accepted by every scientist this is why science is data focused now how can we hope to gain an objective albeit approximate and incomplete knowledge of History we can't get into a time machine and go there so we don't have direct access because of this some people say that there is no way to know it but historical and archaeological research employs methods that are not radically different from those used in the Natural Sciences historians study documents archaeologists study material remains Gathering data from these making rational inferences and inductions from the data we might liken this to a murder investigation the question of who committed the crime is about history recent history but still history the detective has to figure out who did it now the radical skeptic might say well there's no way of knowing what what happened any idea is just as good as any other idea but most people don't think like that they see the value in looking for Clues the murder weapon fingerprints DNA documents of various kinds testimonies and logic all come into play here and they constitute material evidence now what if someone came along and said the investigation is too materialistic that's too narrow I think the detective should go and see a spirit medium and ask who did it or I think if the detective took psychedelics he might get some answers choose whatever example you like that doesn't matter what matters is this person is suggesting something other than material evidence something subjective rather than objective do you think expanding the collection of evidence in this way improves the investigation what if the evidence that comes from the spirit medium contradicts the material evidence what then what do you go with we don't simply contemplate history and then interpret it we test the different parts of our interpretation to see if it holds up and I mean a whole set of tests the more stringent the tests the better in history you don't have even need to have a hypothesis you can collect all the evidence and then infer what happened based on that evidence when we talk about a conclusion being justified it means that the conclusion is supported by the evidence and that it fits the evidence better than other reasons in the same way as scientists do historians and archaeologists Grant a higher probability to ideas with strong evidential support and lower probability to more speculative ideas and for those of you who are scoffing right now and saying that history and archaeology are not science the approaches are the same those who work in the hard Sciences don't have different methods they deal with less complex problems problems that are easier to measure historians and archaeologists have to assess human actions and that adds more variables but the method is the same it's true that no conclusion can be proven but every proposal has a degree of credence depending on the quality of the evidence and sometimes a proposal can be established Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at the very least it can be said to have a rational objective b basis that it has a high degree of likelihood and that it is the best explanation we have pending further Evidence this cannot be said about something revealed to us in our minds through psychedelics or mystical or paranormal means because there's nothing to substantiate it it doesn't need to follow any rules of logic or be supported by evidence this is why you hear Hancock often say archaeologists say this but I believe this I believe and he's encouraging those who hear him to approach history in the same way follow your belief he may not say this explicitly but his framing of it as a value judgment instead of a factual judgment has an effect on his audience this idea that Archaeology is nothing more than a philosophy or narrative or social construction is part of a postmodernist intellectual current characterized by a rejection of the aist tradition of the Enlightenment by theoretical discourses disconnected from empirical tests and by a cognitive and cultural relativism that regards even science as nothing more than a narrative if that's the case then you don't really need to use science to arrive at your conclusions you can use some of it but you can also bring in other means you might object he didn't say science is a philosophy he said archaeology and other disciplines are you're right but Hancock goes a step farther saying even that maybe something is wrong with science itself speaking of an understanding derived from Altered States Of Consciousness Joe says this that understanding is very difficult to realize with our normal conditioning the the normal alpha male primate Behavior what I call the alert problem solving State of Consciousness that's that State of Consciousness is not our friend when it comes to understanding our place in The Wider scheme of things it is our friend in many ways and it's a good State of Consciousness but there are so many other states of Consciousness that are that are of value and that need to be sought out now some people are very lucky and they can they can get into deeply Altered States Of Consciousness and and see reality in a different way uh without needing to take any substance it it's fine you know or they can get there through meditation or they can get there through floating in a Flo ation tank but but for a lot of people the very powerful vehicle for changing our perspective on the nature of reality has been for thousands of years the Psychedelic experience and it's time that we rehabilitated that and and and gave it a place in our society if you were merely saying here that there are times when the right side of the brain the intuitive part is more useful than the left side of the brain the logical part I would agree but when he speaks of the problemsolving state of consciousness he's talking about the normal State of Consciousness he's talking about what our minds are like in sobriety and he says this state is not a good state to be in when we are considering our place in The Wider scheme of things does ancient history fall into that category he certainly makes it sound that way but what value specifically does an altered state have then I start drinking iwasa in 2003 and I I encounter um seamlessly convincing parallel Realms inhabited by intelligent beings um some of whom uh seem very dark and dangerous and some of and some of whom are filled with light and joy and and exercise the power of healing now I absolutely accept that all of this could be a projection or a creation of my own mind that there is no exterior reality to it whatsoever it's just that's all there is um but I don't think it's that way I think I think that what happens in a deeply aled State of Consciousness is that we retune the receiver wavelength of the brain and encounter other levels of reality that are normally closed off to our senses and the first thing I would say to any I know that a number of people who work with psychedelics in depth haven't come to that conclusion I know that but the conclusion that I come to might the little offering that I bring to the table and that many others have brought is that there is a separate freestanding reality of some kind which we don't fully understand yet and that in aled States Of Consciousness we can encounter interact with that reality that's the that's the view that I have now in that reality are spiritual forces some of which seem to eat fear and energy and and and and dark energy they thrive on they see they seem to thrive on anything that's miserable or Wicked or or or or cruel or thoughtless or vile about humanity and at the the other side of it are entities that glow with light and love and that and that seek to show us how we may bring to light that Divine spark within us to go back to the Gnostic the Gnostic idea what's the most compelling argument against it like what's the most compelling AR article uh um argument rather from like a neurological standpoint like has anybody ever explain to you like what's going on there isn't a compelling argument they don't know there isn't a compelling argument there's a reference frame and the reference frame and this is again where where I got myself into so much trouble with Ted the reference frame is the reference frame of materialist science and that reference frame says that all Consciousness is a kind of accidental epiphenomenon of brain activity um there there's actually no reality to Consciousness that is not something that's been proven scientifically and experimentally it is just the way that a large and influential group of scientists see the world that everything can be reduced to material causes the app of material is of course immaterial and this is the kind of evidence that Hancock believes should be incorporated into science he's an admirer of the work of parasytes to him that he didn't make so it was more of the same type of thing the same type of thing he he what was his his uh controversy well he's saying that that scienti science is locked in what we call a materialist reference frame which is that it seeks to reduce everything to matter and that there cannot be and so therefore the idea of telepathy for example is is an impossible idea as far as mainstream science is concerned because if your Consciousness is simply something that's generated by your brain why how can you then pick up the thoughts of somebody else you know across a continent or or on the other side of the world how is that how is that possible possible um and and uh so he he was he is questioning the materialist reference frame of mainstream science and since the most vocal Advocates of mainstream science are materialists who do they do believe that Consciousness is an accidental epiphenomenon of brain activity that there is nothing there is nothing else to it than that he got under a lot of skins the problem that sheldrake has with science and Hancock agrees is that it is locked in a materialist reference frame it judges everything from what we can ascertain from our five senses sight hearing touch smell and taste in other words empirical methods he wants to open it up to that which can be discovered through other means immaterial means the irony here is that what he calls a reference frame is in fact the foundation of modern science because objectivity is the key and only through empiricism can objective evidence be found Hancock is proposing a change in the Paradigm by non-empirical factors and that our subjective experiences should condition our perception of the world and of History am I saying that using material evidence is infallable that it cannot be questioned of course not investigations can be botched because every investigation necessarily requires that the detective makes inferences from The observed about the not observed there's a possibility that the detective makes the wrong inferences but using the material evidence is more objective than using immaterial evidence and it is more rational and rules for conducting the investigation the methodology helps to reduce the number of Errors Hancock wants more subjectivity in science using subjective means of Investigation has no rules how then can it ever be called scientific if you're interested in reading more about how pseudo science and postmodernism are occasional bed fellows I recommend the article pseudo science and postmodernism antagonists or fellow Travelers by physicist Alan soall and if you want to get even more deeply into it check out the book fashionable nonsense by the same author and Jee brickmont some of the observations of which I am sharing with you in this video because because I think they apply here so what I have found in my investigation and what I've shared with you is how certain rhetorical strategies have proven very effective for Graham Hancock when I looked at the actual material evidence that Joe Rogan was most convinced by it kept coming back mainly to two things one he thought Robert shock's geological analysis of the Sphinx enclosure was convincing evidence for an older Sphinx there's certain pieces of new information that in my mind are just undeniable the Robert shock stuff and in all fairness you know Robert shock's depiction of the erosion there have been denters and I've read some some different people's papers but they seem very illogical to me I I looked at it myself I know what water erosion looks like obviously I'm not a geologist but when I look at it and you say that that's wind and sand and and then they show extreme examples of wind and sand erosion it doesn't look the same there's it looks like there's crevices it's been created by water it's really obvious and the other thing is matters related to the comet impact hypothesis well this new information in my eyes it seems It's So substantial and there's so much of it and it's so so much of it fits together it's incredibly difficult to ignore man this uh cemented in my head I mean the idea was already cemented in my head but these images along with your compelling narrative is cemented even further this is amazing but if these are the most compelling pieces of evidence for Joe think about how little that is even if a comet impact during the younger dasas could be established scientifically for a certainty this is not evidence for a lost Advanced civilization even if the Sphinx were 12,000 years old look at it is it Smoking Gun evidence for a lost Advanced civilization and that is why I wanted to highlight how much heavy lifting the rhetoric about the supposed arrogance and close-mindedness of archaeologists the misrepresentations of archaeology the advocacy for a more metaphysical approach to science the call to rise up against the experts does it fills in the holes it makes it seem like there's more than there actually is people might say I'm a spoil sport why can't you let people have fun speculating if hcock were just writing books and coming on to shows sharing all of his interesting outside the box ideas and that's it hey look at this look what I found what if this happened do you think this possibly could have happened that would be one thing I'm sure it wouldn't make as much of a splash but no he's not simply an ideas guy and he doesn't merely play defense he plays offense archaeologists are wrong archaeologists are arrogant jerks they're like religious figures who are trying to Lord it over you they're trying to control your mind they are Elites that you must rebel against we can talk about who threw the first punch but Hancock clearly is helping to drive the conflict he's adding fuel to the fire on purpose if he abandoned this tactic and simply shared all his interesting outside the box ideas and let them land however they landed and he stayed friendly with archaeologists this would go a long way in diffusing the situation and if he's listening I hope he takes the suggestion to heart and abandons all the negativity but alas I fear a desire to sell more books might discourage him from doing this controversy sells I'm one to talk right I make controversial videos all the time and I know this gets me more views but one thing I try really hard not to do is disseminate misinformation in fact the videos are about correcting misinformation I also do my best to assume people have good intentions it takes a lot for me to conclude that someone is lying on purpose for example so I hope that this coupled with the fact that the purpose of my videos is to educate will make them more valuable I have no wish to prevent anyone from speaking about anything what I've criticized is the pretention of Mr Hancock to offer profound insights on subjects that he understands at best at the level of popularizations he says that no one should make pronouncements about psychedelics if they have never used them before but he feels entirely comfortable making pronouncements about archaeology even though he never has done it he's susceptible to cognitive pitfalls just like everyone else but unlike scientists he is agenda driven rather than data driven maybe that's okay if he's just a journalist he can write all the op EDS he wants I just think that people should understand that about him and more importantly that they should take what he says about archaeology and archaeologists with a grain of salt knowing that it is in his interest to present them in a certain light there is one other element to Hancock's mindset that I think is worth commenting on and we have seen some examples of it already but let's look at one final clip one of the Intriguing things that has happened with me and your show is an important part of this is that when I go around giving public events doing a Public Presentation uh of my work the demography of the audience is is extremely interesting and this is true whether I'm giving the talk in Britain whether I'm giving it in Canada whether I'm giving it in America part of the audience are older people who read me in the 1990s who got on to my work with Fingerprints of the Gods in 1995 and they've stuck with me and they've carried on reading my work but another part of the audience a very big part of the audience uh consists to a large extent of young people most of whom are men but there are women amongst them as well and what those mainly young men come up to me and say at the end of the event is we first encountered your work on Joe Rogan's show and it completely opened our minds it changed it I've had so many young men say this has changed my life and then I asked myself well why should a different take on the past change people's lives why should people feel that their lives have been changed by a different take on the past which I add they would not know about unless you'd had the good grace to to bring me on the on on your show this these ideas would not be known but they are known because of the amazing Outreach of your show and the answer to that question why does it why does it change a person's life is that once we realize that we have been misinformed about our past that everything that we've built our idea of who we are upon and of where we're going as a culture may be founded on falsehoods and perhaps even deliberate lies once that is realized then all the questions about the nature of the society we live in become open Hancock speaks of helping young men to realize that they have been misinformed about the past how a journalist who is only suggesting new ideas can help people to realize they've been lied to about history I don't know and he says that the result of this and he presents it as a good thing is that these young men have learned to trust no one Hancock's Outlook is extremely cynical and he thinks spreading this cynicism is of benefit to society people find this appealing because it means they don't have to listen to The Experts you can believe whatever you want we're dealing with post-modern deconstructionist thought this way of viewing the world is impossible to argue with because it rests on a subjective Foundation it is irrational at its core and by irrational I mean it isn't governed by reason there may be some reasoning that can be found in it but that reasoning is subject to the feelings of the person cynicism can lead not only to distrust of authority but to the belief that everyone is motivated by selfish interests that most people are not sincere it can and does lead to pessimism and fatalism psychologists say it can cause depression it can wreck your life I do think that being skeptical and asking questions is healthy but to believe that everything that we have learned our whole lives is a lie no anyway ultimately this video isn't really about Graham Hancock it's about the next Graham Hancock and the next one and it isn't really about Joe Rogan it's about you and me thank you for watching all the way to the end if you like what this channel is doing and you want to support it you can become a patron over at patreon.com worldof Antiquity even a onetime super thanks will help you might like my little ebooklet why ancient history matters it's designed to persuade people that the subject is important even in the modern world you might also wish to use it to help spread the word so feel free to share it with someone you know it's free for anyone who wants it I've left the link in the description box below the video for you to grab a copy catch you later

Channel: World of Antiquity

Views: 117,864

Keywords: joe rogan, graham hancock, lost civilization, pseudoarchaeology, pseudoscience, ancient civilizations, ancient history, archaeology

Id: IeIj_rNYhCU

Length: 123min 16sec (7396 seconds)

Published: Wed May 01 2024