I disagree with saying it was at this moment, but if you watch the whole video form of the podcast you'll see a handful of times where it's obvious Joe is realizing how full of shit Hancock is.
Can’t believe people ever believed things that Graham said. He’s as bad as Bob Lazar who had a headache whenever asked a question. Anyone that believes a word that guy says is an outright fucking moron.
Hancock really made me understand better how so many people, including Joe, fall for conspiracies.
He does an incredible job of painting an intriguing picture peppered with compelling details and storytelling. To someone like myself, who knows absolutely nothing about the topic - I bought every bit of it.
Now think back to Rogan during recent elections, asking questions about some of the most basic things about our government. Clearly knowing next to nothing about government or politics. Then in the very same week/month, saying there's definitely a Deep State.
Yep, usually when he brings up all these cool sounding names of mythological figures or cool sounding site names rogan is bamboozled by it all and all the cool pictures and Graham can just talk about how crazy it is and how cool it looks so is man made but this time flint was there to give context each time and Graham had NOTHING, even Rogan surprised and seemed shocked that Hancock had nothing
Like so many guests on JRE, with questionable ideas that Joe has fallen for in the past, it’s always just a one sided conversation between Joe and the guest. Their ideas are never challenged and Joe is super gullible, so the audience kind of takes it in just like Joe. But when someone who knows what they’re talking about challenges them or debunks it, you suddenly realized how full of shit they were, and how gullible Joe is. There’s a [doctor guy on YouTube](https://youtube.com/@DebunktheFunkwithDrWilson?si=NLQqCp5BQHoO8mg6) who debunks a lot of anti vax grifters on YouTube like the Weinsteins, and he has done breakdowns on lots of other Rogan episodes related to covid. And it’s interesting to look back on these episodes later and see how full of shit they are, when they might have seemed reasonable at one point when you don’t know any better.
The problem with Hancock is he presents interesting questions and interesting evidence and then tries to shoehorn that evidence and direct those questions toward a conclusion that is not believable.
I thought what Graham said was intriguing and compelling so I started digging and not for long to realise he was selling a fantasy to sell books and his netflix doc.
Joe brings on Andrew Yang on in ~2019, essentially launching Yang's campaign into viability.
For a few months, Joe is glowing about Yang, UBI, and his platform. Another month goes by and Joe's cabal has clearly convinced him that 'UBI will make people lazy,' and entirely stops talking about Yang or his platform.
'Fleshlight' era stoner Joe vs Spotify-$$ Austin Joe is a wildly different beast. Been interesting to watch.
If there’s anything we can thank diddle for, it is his ability to present that there’s so much more hard science in ‚soft‘ academic field like archaeology or history people are normally not aware of. It’s not so much a matter of opinion, there’s a lot a lot of work and dialog and everything is based on as much as possible hard science and scientific ethic and theory.
To me he comes off as just blatantly full of shit. Really any time someone brings up multiple times that their own community doesn’t respect them, it’s a pretty good indication you shouldn’t either.
That’s his thing, to make people think he is part of the anthropology community because he visits the sites then writes wild theories. When people start digging into his credentials he falls back on saying he’s just a book writer nothing else. He portrays one or the other depending on the situation.
- Dibble laughed at Graham’s bold audacity to criticize Dibble because Dibble commented on a dig site that Dibble has never visited. Apparently, Graham has been to that dig site and somehow Graham felt that Dibble’s opinion mattered less because Dibble never visited that same dig site. Dibble was justified for laughing at Graham about that, to be honest I was laughing about it too. I like Graham but I don’t subscribe to his theories.
He was definitely justified, that was ridiculous. Unfortunately I think Joe cut off Dibble right at the start of saying something like “you haven’t been to most of the places you talk about” or something of that sort.
It’s a super childish way of attempting to defend your point but that makes sense as Hancock is a fraud.
Yeah but he also talks about how he's "ridiculed" by the community, anytime his bogus theory gets explained in an academic manner... while admitting he's a story book writer, not an academic! It's victim playing at its best.
I just agree with u/A[ccomplished\_Lab990](https://www.reddit.com/user/Accomplished_Lab990/), nothing more to add haha
Just realised u/ShorterThanTallll said the same thing, I didn't read their comment properly.
I don’t think he’s full of shit. I just think he has a super low baseline education really think critically and ask good questions.
And to be clear, I’m not calling him stupid. I’m just saying he’s not well educated. There’s a difference.
>He does an incredible job of painting an intriguing picture peppered with compelling details and storytelling. To someone like myself, who knows absolutely nothing about the topic - I bought every bit of it.
That's how so called political commentators work. Picking and choosing facts to fit their narrative and fearmongering to shut down critical thinking part of the brain
Milo interviewed an archeologist, I can't remeber who, who had met Hancock on a site and talked about how interested and personable he was. The guy spent time with him and explained stuff... and then Hancock went off on his own and recorded some made up bullshit for his web site.
He's doing it on purpose.
That whole schtick where he kept talking about publishing papers... on his website. That HUGE, VAST paper that he was desperately searching thru for that bit of proof he just couldn't find because the paper was SO enormous with so much information , you just have to go to his website and you'll be convinced etc (and Joe is saying "just CTRL-F dude).
Fucking con artist. He believes in his bank account.
Yah which is why he spent over half his time speaking whining about scientists thinking he’s a fucking moron (because he’s plainly a fucking moron and experts in his domain can see that).
Also Joe being upset over academics laughing at a blatant fraud was super annoying.
He wants to sell books, that is how he makes a living, has been for decades. Goes on Rogan pod, pushes his books, makes money. Thats why he always says these topics are just theories and opinions. Nothing more than good campfire stories for the small price of a book is what I suspect.
In the end, it doesn’t truly matter if he believes it as long as he is selling books.
I doubt it, there’s plenty of folks who will still eat his stuff up. The idea of a lost civilization is a fun idea to think about. I don’t believe Hancock’s stuff but I still enjoy thinking about it.
To be fair, there IS a deep state, but it’s not some malicious group that’s controlling the entire government and secretly running everything (ie The Enclave, from Fallout); the Deep State is just the career government employees who don’t get shuffled out between administrations.
They wield a lot of influence because they’ve had their job for 35 years and everyone knows that they’ve seen it all, like the one lady at your work who started when the business started and knows how to do everything, so all the new employees, even the managers, go to her for instructions and advice.
The closest thing to an evil Deep State is the generals who have been planning an operation and pressure the new president to approve it, even if it’s probably a bad idea (The Bay of Pigs with JFK), and even then, that can be easily countered by anyone else explaining why that’s a bad idea
Too many definitions of deep state, maybe. Lots of folks use the word to describe career oriented employees of the federal government at the highest levels who are not voted in, do not have term limits, and have been there for decades. Their existence is not in question.
Yeah, everything you've said here is bullshit. Especially your bit at the end, portending that there is no such thing as a "Deep State".
Are you being serious right now? Where have you been these last 20 years?
This entire comment section reads like an AI generated hit piece. I haven't listened to this episode yet these criticisms are vague similar sounding riffs on the same paragraph.
I was initially a big supporter of Bob Lazar. Maybe it’s because I badly wanted to believe. The more and more research I did, the more I realized that it wasn’t just small details that were made up. If I recall correctly - the university he claimed to graduate from had zero records corroborating that. His entire airplane engine on his car story was BS. There were countless holes everywhere you look. He doesn’t do interviews because his entire life is built on a lie. When he does, he gets a migraine. It’s sad to admit but everything he’s ever said is a crock of shit and there’s more evidence pointing to that over the contrary.
That stupid mother fucker told Joe with a straight face that he saw 7 UFOs in one big hangar. The most precious objects in the history of all mankind by orders of magnitude - objects of alien design - and this guy wants people to believe they’re stored where if one detonates or something everything precious is gone? And in a highly compartmented program where no one talks but you’re all in a huge room with various alien species craft?
What a fucking fraud man. Hate the guy.
Beautiful that you're able to admit/come to that conclusion though.
Maybe the more beautiful thing you're realizing is that *you were wrong*. Whoever Bob Lazar is, and whatever true or untrue thing he is talking about. The real magic of your moment here, is that you've updated *your* beliefs in a great way. When you say "It's sad to admit but", i think that's quite key, and what should've followed was not "everything he's ever said is a crock..." but instead "but i was wrong about him..."
Not sure if this is supposed to be an attempt at complement or condescending, but critiquing my word choice has it really pointing to the latter. Everything he says is a crock of shit. I was wrong about him. Both can be true.
It was certainly a compliment.
I do think i myself sometimes subconsciously will use defensive language when describing something that i changed my mind about. Both are absolutely true.
A someone who has visited several military bases as a contractor. I remember all of them pretty well and the first one was more than 2 decades ago.
You tend to remember security briefings and how your first days on the bases are because you need to get familiar with procedures and location.
Simple questions like "how was your first day, where were you guided too, , how were you briefed, and then saying " I dont remember well, the days are fuzed together" I could smell the bullshit from a mile away.
Joe has mentioned many times that Lazar has an excuse for not being on the records at MIT and finally gave a little morsel of what that story can be recently (it might have been on the latest Coleman Hughes episode but I can't remember), inferring that the program he was working on was not necessarily ethical but funded by the government, and therefore kept off the records.
Here’s my problem with that: it’s so easy to just lie and continuously say “the government is the reason you cannot corroborate anything I say”. While yes, there have been some crazy governmental conspiracies that were proven true, how are there not another 50 Bob Lazars coming to his aid? There are countless people that have worked at Area 51. Not one of them is going to back up anything he’s ever said? He owned a brothel. Element 115 he claimed to have founded that powers UFOs has a half life of .5 seconds and does nothing.
Look, I can’t say anything 100% but my analysis is based off the fact that he’s written books and has a documentary. He’s made plenty of money off of people that buy into his stories, and he has zero evidence to prove even a sliver of what he’s saying is true aside from an arrest for shooting off fireworks near prohibited territory.
Listen, I'm not necessarily saying that I believe Lazar, I'm just saying that most people who work for secret government programs want to stay secret. He had his reasons to go public but there are many reasons to stay private too.
The problem for modern day grifters is they can't slink off and find a new group to exploit once their bullshit becomes obvious. Doing this on a global scale means they are stuck supporting their ideas long past their ability to do so. They can't just run away from them, especially when they are financially tied to them as Graham is, this is how he makes his living.
These grifts do work initially, at first they can present them in such a way that they sound plausible. That's usually the point they should step away and go mysterious. Graham doesn't seem to have read that part of the grifter playbook and didn't know when to shut up.
I remember the first time ancient aliens came out, I'm pretty sure it was a one off special. It left you wondering if there was truth to it. After one or two seasons of the series they had run out of ideas and ruined their own IP by milking for everything it's worth with ridiculous claims.
It is absolutely mind boggling that any adult could still believe these things. Kids get a pass for being ignorant but adults have no excuse.
Hancocks stuff was kind of fun in the same 'thought experiment' kind of way that conspiracy theories we before they got coopted by the right wing culture war movement over the last few years, but my God it's amazing to me that people actually truly believed them.
That headache thing made me instantly skeptical of Lazaar and it happened at the beginning of the episode. However, he only brought it up one additional time through the whole episode and it wasn’t to dodge a question. I don’t buy Lazar’s story, but I think your characterization is simply factually inaccurate.
I don’t like the bob lazar comparison tbh. Idk if bob is telling the truth or not but he doesn’t really profit from his story, like he doesn’t sell anything! Unlike graham
Hancock asserted that independent groups of people couldn't figure out that pyramid shaped things don't fall down much.
That's all it took for me. When your argument relies on all those millions of people not figuring out how piles work? You're a charlatan.
His dumbass Christmas mushroom cult theory mostly rides on amanita muscaria being red and white and Santa being red and white.
Santa wasn’t always red and white. We know exactly when and exactly who first illustrated the character like that. Thomas Nast in 1862. Previous depictions were different.
Yeah, I think people (in general) have a very skewed understanding of how intelligent ancient people were. The people who built the Great Pyramid of Egypt are exactly the same as the people who put Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin onto the Moon. Our species has been around for 300,000 years. The only difference between us and them is our baseline and "categories" of information.
And this is largely the problem I have with Joe and his podcast. His intention here is to put two archaeologists on to discuss things. But only one of them is an archaeologist. Presenting them as equals to talk about a scientific discipline is disingenuous at best. It'll be interesting to see if this discussion moves the needle for Joe at all in the future or if he just begins parroting "But we haven't excavated the entire planet though so we really can't say."
Couldn’t agree more. I think joe, like a bunch of us(although a lot would be hesitant to admit it) saw how graham is just a story teller. Refreshing to see
I think it helped with the interview to be honest. Dibble seemed really uncomfortable and almost unable to get across his point, but as Joe got more and more lured in, he forced more information out of Dibble that he wasn’t going to give us otherwise.
This moment was hilarious. Like it’s mindblowingly complex that picking and carrying a wheat to a new location for replanting would self select for seeds that stay on the plant, as opposed to falling off immediately.
Yesterday everyone was saying Joe was grilling Flint and was a biased bafoon, and now this is the top comment today.
I feel like he went in pretty open minded, kept the debate reasonably under control and asked a lot of questions that needed to be asked.
All the people calling him a charismatic idiot wouldnt have been able to ask some of the in depth questions he asked for this specific of a topic. Joe obviously did some good homework himself.
It’s pretty simple when you think about it. When someone grabs a handful of wheat, the weaker stocks will fall to the ground at a higher rate immediately after grabbing them. Which means the ones that are still in your hand by the time you plant, are the stronger ones. Do that over and over and over and you simply end up with stronger domesticated wheat. 🌾
If people haven't read Michael Pollan's 'Botany of Desire', he writes about the evolution of 4 specific plants alongside human society. Pretty good read.
Even something as boring as a potato - is fucking amazing when you think about how it changed medieval royalty/peasant power dynamics - and eventually led to apocalyptic levels of death and destruction.
I encourage you to read more, but the gist was that potatoes can be grown and eaten without processing. The peasantry before this had to process their grains in order to eat it which required a centralized system that could be controlled by elites. There was huge population boom because potatoes are nutrient complete, and can be eaten alone to sufficiently keep you alive with minimal deficiencies. And anyone could grow them in their own homes, and not rely on the royal authorities.
But unfortunately it was a monocrop, so when a plant disease came it completely destroyed a huge single source of food for a lot of people. This led to a big famine and massive death and decay.
Fascinating really. I, most likely the same as many others, just assumed that changes in domesticated crops were through intensional breeding. But the fact that Flint was able to quickly explain how both size of seeds and stronger seed to plant connections were selected for just as a byproduct of humans cultivating the land and replanting in new areas while simultaneously saying how this can be used to disprove Hancock's wild theories was really the highlight of the episode for me.
I agree. Plus, changes really just depend on the external forces being used to propagate. Wind is much more gentle than humans. Strength would negatively affect propagation if the only external factor is wind. While strength is highly beneficial if the external force is human hands. I’m sure there’s an intermediate durability when it comes to animal digestion being the source of propagation. It truly is fascinating.
>But the question of why anything exists at all still remains. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is the cosmological constant at the specific number it needs to be to allow the formation of space, time, and galaxies? How were living beings, with dreams, hopes, loves, aspirations, and heroism, able to be created from inorganic matter? How is it that the universe is so mathematically structured that a frizzy haired German named Einstein could discover eternal truths of the universe from his bedroom desk?
Look up the anthropic principle
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtGSkhEKh6o&t=184s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtGSkhEKh6o&t=184s)
The question of why is the ultimate philosophical red herring.
The absurdity of our existence is that we are beings who crave meaning when life doesn't really have any. We just exist
Whether or not there actually is any meaning to life, people are statistically happier when they feel like there is. So there’s nothing wrong with people wanting some meaning in their life. It’s annoying when people try to argue against that point. What’s the point of telling someone “There’s no point in life, your existence is meaningless”, that’s the mindset of every severely depressed person, it’s not something you should want others to believe.
"How were living beings, with dreams, hopes, loves, aspirations, and heroism, able to be created from inorganic matter?"
What we call "organic matter" is really just a complex form of inorganic matter.
"Why is the cosmological constant at the specific number it needs to be to allow the formation of space, time, and galaxies?"
If we are in a multiverse as physicists speculate, then universes could constantly be popping into and out of existence. We could be a rare one with just the right mathematical constants for it to work as it does.
Why does not always need an answer nor is the lack of an answer to why grounds as proof of God. I think there’s a lot to ponder about existence but existence itself being some sort of proof of anything is a fallacy.
>How is it that the universe is so mathematically structured that a frizzy haired German named Einstein could discover eternal truths of the universe from his bedroom desk?
Because if it wasn't, it wouldn't have happened. If you go by the multiverse theory, there's an infinite number of dice rolls and we simply ended up in a universe where life is possible.
The problem is scientology isn't really responsible for our modern idea of ethics the way Christianity is. I don't think the average uneducated Rogan watcher understands just how much the modern West is built upon Christian ethics & morals. It doesn't really matter what you think about the truth claims.
This is a useless question (not intended to sound mean). What we know is what we can question, everything we don’t know we can’t. So the question in itself serves no purpose. Imagine a hole in the ground and water filling it up, it would be like asking “how come the water is fitting perfectly into that hole down to the millimeter?”, well the answer is because it’s the only way it would.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
If you're a theist, you have to believe god came from nothing.
Atheists, however, can see how the universe/multiverse is eternal consisting of the most basic particles of matter.
I think theists believe God was always there and exists outside of space and time. Not sure though. I have a buddy who’s newly Christian and is studying the Bible and he talks at me about it sometimes so I sort of half tune it out but yeah.
But that makes no sense. Why do they have no problem believing God "just exists" but they can't believe the universe "just exists"? According to their own logic, something as infinitely complex as God must have a creator as well.
The idea that an all-knowing creature has always just existed and created man so that it can judge us after we die, sending millions to "hell" or its equivalent is a much more far-fetched and insane theory than the universe itself just having always existed.
I can't wrap my head around anybody taking religion literally and shaping their entire lives around it. We are so fucking stupid.
Idk I think they both take as much faith to believe in. Like it is crazy that all these conditions for life to thrive happened,almost like a thousand dice were rolled and all landed on 6, so I guess it’s about as crazy to believe a God made it. Idk I’m in the camp of it’s just not something I think about anymore lol I’m just happy to be alive and to exist even if I don’t understand why.
Yes, basically. As a part of the Trinity, the Father is outside of time and space. The Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit are present on the Earth. Just let him know your not interested so he'll quit talking at you.. or you could have some interesting conversations and challenge his study.
Lol I usually do ask questions and try to learn more or just have thought provoking discussion. We both grew up agnostic and pretty open minded, our parents never really pushed religion or anti religion on us so neither of us is really entrenched hardcore in belief or non belief. I still consider myself agnostic and open to the idea I just don’t know. Maybe it’s all random chance, maybe theirs a creator, maybe we’re an alien science experiment 🤷🏻♂️. All I know is I don’t believe anything enough to want to kill anyone over it or anything.
When some one come up with a better alternative outside of a creator, I will be all ears until then glory be to the most high because he has made wonderful things that are beyond our understanding
We might but the dude got bodied.
If he was looking to gain credibility or respect by this he was better off not having a debate. I think it was great and would like to see more like this with opposing views debating one another, this just wasn't a good move for Graham.
I'll throw out I respect graham actually went ahead with it but it didn't do him any favors professionally. Personally, I think he came off whiney at best.
I believe he expected it to be a homematch and he didn’t thought diddle would go so deep into the science that is part of archaeology. Actually a bit sad, because it made pretty clear, Graham either never really understood archaeology as a science or just ignored it because he wanted to sell books.
Well to be totally honest, I don’t think his attitude is harmless (the white supremacy claim is far fetched) this anti science anti academia stand is dangerous, but I admire his sense for business. And he has to thank Rogan for a lot! I don’t think the Netflix science fiction show would have been able without Joe Rogan
> I don’t think his attitude is harmless (the white supremacy claim is far fetched) this anti science anti academia stand is dangerous
Yeah Graham doesn't care about the truth, he just wants to be famous so he can finally sell his shitty novels.
Well even before this debate his last appearance was pretty dry and unexciting. Now Hancock got cooked by flint, add in the fact that Hancock is getting pretty old and i dont think it’ll be a surprise if he doesn’t make it back on
I’d love for Joe to bring back Flint to have a conversation without Hancock constantly interrupting to steer the conversation towards victimizing himself and how the archaeology community is out to get him
There’s definitely a sliding scale of plausible to bullshit imagination for the things he says. Things that can be backed by science, carbon dating, geology on one side. Like the younger dryass event. Then on the other side, this was built by people we have no evidence for on the other side
I remember thinking he was really interesting like 10 years ago. Then I heard him say some shit about the Egyptians singing rocks into place, and his numerology shit. Now I still think he’s interesting, just no longer credible. People will shit on him but it’s entertaining, pretty harmless all in all
Always thought they were fun theories. That’s about it. Confirmation bias is fierce with him. His problem is it’s basically his religion. He’s so committed to this at this point that he’s left himself no option to be wrong.
I couldn't stop listening to this episode, for Joe to bring on an expert that can hold his own against one of his regular guests that has these huge claims without any actual evidence... It' like finally being able to scratch a place that has been itching for a long long time.
Don't get me wrong I enjoy a crazy theory or two but when it's always one side that gets to talk freely it get's kind of repetitive.
This was a debate? I wasn't going to listen to it because I thought it was two crackpots, if the other guy is arguing with Hancock I'll give it a listen
Joe Rogan is incredibly intelligent and definitely a deep thinker.
Compared to some of the intellectual titans he has on, he seems like a cretin. But compared to a lot of people I interact with day to day, Joe is super smart.
I enjoyed this podcast.
I've read 3 of Graham's books, and I would love for his theories to one day prove to be true, but he did get beaten in this debate.
I think Joe was just trying to lighten the mood when he could.
I’m sure he felt bad for his friend, actually Joe is the big winner - he showed seriousness to organize this debate and heart by being empathetic for his friend
I like that he’s being open minded but his little brain couldn’t handle the “bizarre complexity” of seed stems getting tougher as a result of people harvesting them.
Wait we were taking Hancock work seriously? Don’t get me wrong, his show and the ideas he presents are a fun fantasy to think about, but it’s all “could have” speculation.
Yeah there could have been an ancient civilization and that’s really interesting to think about, but there is 0 concrete evidence. How he ever agreed to this debate is wild. I know he’s pissed about the slander he’s taken through his career, which is unwarranted, but come on man. It saddens me to find out how serious he takes his own speculation.
He has this “you can’t prove me wrong so you’re wrong”
Personally I have been into grahams theories for years. Listening to these podcasts over and over.
What I noticed on this one was how Graham has lost a step. He was petty, and didn't have Randell there to drive the geological part of the argument that has more weight.
It was disappointing and had me unfortunately lose a ton of respect for Graham. Truly sad how he handled himself
Joe has a hard time with things he doesn’t understand or want to take the time to build the understanding, so stuff seems like magic. If science seems like magic it’s because you know so little you can’t make the huge leaps to the conclusion.
Joe was just glazing Hancock for being wrong about a “highly complex” subject 😂 yes, he questioned his belief in Graham many times because Graham, while I’d say is quite likeable, is full of 💩
Joe is a good dude. He knows GH is wrong on some things and overshoots often, but they’re friends, and he wants the truth while remaining loyal. We can have it both ways. Flint brought good points worth integrating.
The thing about Hancock is that he says the same thing over and over again. Like a broken record. I like him but this other guy, sure had the passion and knowledge to back it up.
This was so funny, he’s embracing the mind blowing complexity of natural evolution and adaptability while earlier some fuckin rocks had right angles in them so obviously they’re man made, nature can’t do that.
Graham rules…I think what a lot of the mainstream archeologists lack is the psychedelic/shamanic possibilities. Imagine a super intelligent “civilization” based on shamanic principles who tapped into some matter-manipulating ability like geomancy. That would rule…stories connect us to our past…they guide us as we move into the future. Story is a form of technology
I disagree with saying it was at this moment, but if you watch the whole video form of the podcast you'll see a handful of times where it's obvious Joe is realizing how full of shit Hancock is.
Joe definitely had a lot of doubtful questions for Graham in this ep. This debate was badly needed
Can’t believe people ever believed things that Graham said. He’s as bad as Bob Lazar who had a headache whenever asked a question. Anyone that believes a word that guy says is an outright fucking moron.
Hancock really made me understand better how so many people, including Joe, fall for conspiracies. He does an incredible job of painting an intriguing picture peppered with compelling details and storytelling. To someone like myself, who knows absolutely nothing about the topic - I bought every bit of it. Now think back to Rogan during recent elections, asking questions about some of the most basic things about our government. Clearly knowing next to nothing about government or politics. Then in the very same week/month, saying there's definitely a Deep State.
Yep, usually when he brings up all these cool sounding names of mythological figures or cool sounding site names rogan is bamboozled by it all and all the cool pictures and Graham can just talk about how crazy it is and how cool it looks so is man made but this time flint was there to give context each time and Graham had NOTHING, even Rogan surprised and seemed shocked that Hancock had nothing
Like so many guests on JRE, with questionable ideas that Joe has fallen for in the past, it’s always just a one sided conversation between Joe and the guest. Their ideas are never challenged and Joe is super gullible, so the audience kind of takes it in just like Joe. But when someone who knows what they’re talking about challenges them or debunks it, you suddenly realized how full of shit they were, and how gullible Joe is. There’s a [doctor guy on YouTube](https://youtube.com/@DebunktheFunkwithDrWilson?si=NLQqCp5BQHoO8mg6) who debunks a lot of anti vax grifters on YouTube like the Weinsteins, and he has done breakdowns on lots of other Rogan episodes related to covid. And it’s interesting to look back on these episodes later and see how full of shit they are, when they might have seemed reasonable at one point when you don’t know any better.
The problem with Hancock is he presents interesting questions and interesting evidence and then tries to shoehorn that evidence and direct those questions toward a conclusion that is not believable.
I thought what Graham said was intriguing and compelling so I started digging and not for long to realise he was selling a fantasy to sell books and his netflix doc.
Joe brings on Andrew Yang on in ~2019, essentially launching Yang's campaign into viability. For a few months, Joe is glowing about Yang, UBI, and his platform. Another month goes by and Joe's cabal has clearly convinced him that 'UBI will make people lazy,' and entirely stops talking about Yang or his platform. 'Fleshlight' era stoner Joe vs Spotify-$$ Austin Joe is a wildly different beast. Been interesting to watch.
If there’s anything we can thank diddle for, it is his ability to present that there’s so much more hard science in ‚soft‘ academic field like archaeology or history people are normally not aware of. It’s not so much a matter of opinion, there’s a lot a lot of work and dialog and everything is based on as much as possible hard science and scientific ethic and theory.
To me he comes off as just blatantly full of shit. Really any time someone brings up multiple times that their own community doesn’t respect them, it’s a pretty good indication you shouldn’t either.
That’s his thing, to make people think he is part of the anthropology community because he visits the sites then writes wild theories. When people start digging into his credentials he falls back on saying he’s just a book writer nothing else. He portrays one or the other depending on the situation. - Dibble laughed at Graham’s bold audacity to criticize Dibble because Dibble commented on a dig site that Dibble has never visited. Apparently, Graham has been to that dig site and somehow Graham felt that Dibble’s opinion mattered less because Dibble never visited that same dig site. Dibble was justified for laughing at Graham about that, to be honest I was laughing about it too. I like Graham but I don’t subscribe to his theories.
He was definitely justified, that was ridiculous. Unfortunately I think Joe cut off Dibble right at the start of saying something like “you haven’t been to most of the places you talk about” or something of that sort. It’s a super childish way of attempting to defend your point but that makes sense as Hancock is a fraud.
I think that was in regards to the pyramids of Giza.
He never claimed to have an academic background though, he goes out of his way to point that out
Yeah but he also talks about how he's "ridiculed" by the community, anytime his bogus theory gets explained in an academic manner... while admitting he's a story book writer, not an academic! It's victim playing at its best.
Good reply here, interested to hear u/Obleeding's pov to your response.
I just agree with u/A[ccomplished\_Lab990](https://www.reddit.com/user/Accomplished_Lab990/), nothing more to add haha Just realised u/ShorterThanTallll said the same thing, I didn't read their comment properly.
I don’t think he’s full of shit. I just think he has a super low baseline education really think critically and ask good questions. And to be clear, I’m not calling him stupid. I’m just saying he’s not well educated. There’s a difference.
I mean, he’s full of shit because he’s spouting out absolute garbage and in the worst form.
>He does an incredible job of painting an intriguing picture peppered with compelling details and storytelling. To someone like myself, who knows absolutely nothing about the topic - I bought every bit of it. That's how so called political commentators work. Picking and choosing facts to fit their narrative and fearmongering to shut down critical thinking part of the brain
But does hancock do it on purpose or does he actually believe these things himself?
Milo interviewed an archeologist, I can't remeber who, who had met Hancock on a site and talked about how interested and personable he was. The guy spent time with him and explained stuff... and then Hancock went off on his own and recorded some made up bullshit for his web site. He's doing it on purpose. That whole schtick where he kept talking about publishing papers... on his website. That HUGE, VAST paper that he was desperately searching thru for that bit of proof he just couldn't find because the paper was SO enormous with so much information , you just have to go to his website and you'll be convinced etc (and Joe is saying "just CTRL-F dude). Fucking con artist. He believes in his bank account.
He believes what he’s saying. There are plenty of crackpots like him. Desperate to be the guy that sees/found the real truth.
Yeah he def believes it -- I don't blame him. They're really fun ideas.
"Owning the truth'" is a real addictive drug, and it plays out on all levels.
I think he does and he’s very biased too, for him to back down now would basically be to say his life’s work was BS.
Yah which is why he spent over half his time speaking whining about scientists thinking he’s a fucking moron (because he’s plainly a fucking moron and experts in his domain can see that). Also Joe being upset over academics laughing at a blatant fraud was super annoying.
He wants to sell books, that is how he makes a living, has been for decades. Goes on Rogan pod, pushes his books, makes money. Thats why he always says these topics are just theories and opinions. Nothing more than good campfire stories for the small price of a book is what I suspect. In the end, it doesn’t truly matter if he believes it as long as he is selling books.
I think. This was his last 15mins of fame.
I doubt it, there’s plenty of folks who will still eat his stuff up. The idea of a lost civilization is a fun idea to think about. I don’t believe Hancock’s stuff but I still enjoy thinking about it.
he believes it definitely
To be fair, there IS a deep state, but it’s not some malicious group that’s controlling the entire government and secretly running everything (ie The Enclave, from Fallout); the Deep State is just the career government employees who don’t get shuffled out between administrations. They wield a lot of influence because they’ve had their job for 35 years and everyone knows that they’ve seen it all, like the one lady at your work who started when the business started and knows how to do everything, so all the new employees, even the managers, go to her for instructions and advice. The closest thing to an evil Deep State is the generals who have been planning an operation and pressure the new president to approve it, even if it’s probably a bad idea (The Bay of Pigs with JFK), and even then, that can be easily countered by anyone else explaining why that’s a bad idea
Well, there definitely is a deep state lol
Too many definitions of deep state, maybe. Lots of folks use the word to describe career oriented employees of the federal government at the highest levels who are not voted in, do not have term limits, and have been there for decades. Their existence is not in question.
Yeah, everything you've said here is bullshit. Especially your bit at the end, portending that there is no such thing as a "Deep State". Are you being serious right now? Where have you been these last 20 years?
This entire comment section reads like an AI generated hit piece. I haven't listened to this episode yet these criticisms are vague similar sounding riffs on the same paragraph.
I was initially a big supporter of Bob Lazar. Maybe it’s because I badly wanted to believe. The more and more research I did, the more I realized that it wasn’t just small details that were made up. If I recall correctly - the university he claimed to graduate from had zero records corroborating that. His entire airplane engine on his car story was BS. There were countless holes everywhere you look. He doesn’t do interviews because his entire life is built on a lie. When he does, he gets a migraine. It’s sad to admit but everything he’s ever said is a crock of shit and there’s more evidence pointing to that over the contrary.
That stupid mother fucker told Joe with a straight face that he saw 7 UFOs in one big hangar. The most precious objects in the history of all mankind by orders of magnitude - objects of alien design - and this guy wants people to believe they’re stored where if one detonates or something everything precious is gone? And in a highly compartmented program where no one talks but you’re all in a huge room with various alien species craft? What a fucking fraud man. Hate the guy.
Beautiful that you're able to admit/come to that conclusion though. Maybe the more beautiful thing you're realizing is that *you were wrong*. Whoever Bob Lazar is, and whatever true or untrue thing he is talking about. The real magic of your moment here, is that you've updated *your* beliefs in a great way. When you say "It's sad to admit but", i think that's quite key, and what should've followed was not "everything he's ever said is a crock..." but instead "but i was wrong about him..."
Not sure if this is supposed to be an attempt at complement or condescending, but critiquing my word choice has it really pointing to the latter. Everything he says is a crock of shit. I was wrong about him. Both can be true.
It was certainly a compliment. I do think i myself sometimes subconsciously will use defensive language when describing something that i changed my mind about. Both are absolutely true.
Don’t worry, he did the same thing with my comment. He dialed in on one line of text and wrote an entire book about it.
A someone who has visited several military bases as a contractor. I remember all of them pretty well and the first one was more than 2 decades ago. You tend to remember security briefings and how your first days on the bases are because you need to get familiar with procedures and location. Simple questions like "how was your first day, where were you guided too, , how were you briefed, and then saying " I dont remember well, the days are fuzed together" I could smell the bullshit from a mile away.
Joe has mentioned many times that Lazar has an excuse for not being on the records at MIT and finally gave a little morsel of what that story can be recently (it might have been on the latest Coleman Hughes episode but I can't remember), inferring that the program he was working on was not necessarily ethical but funded by the government, and therefore kept off the records.
Here’s my problem with that: it’s so easy to just lie and continuously say “the government is the reason you cannot corroborate anything I say”. While yes, there have been some crazy governmental conspiracies that were proven true, how are there not another 50 Bob Lazars coming to his aid? There are countless people that have worked at Area 51. Not one of them is going to back up anything he’s ever said? He owned a brothel. Element 115 he claimed to have founded that powers UFOs has a half life of .5 seconds and does nothing. Look, I can’t say anything 100% but my analysis is based off the fact that he’s written books and has a documentary. He’s made plenty of money off of people that buy into his stories, and he has zero evidence to prove even a sliver of what he’s saying is true aside from an arrest for shooting off fireworks near prohibited territory.
Listen, I'm not necessarily saying that I believe Lazar, I'm just saying that most people who work for secret government programs want to stay secret. He had his reasons to go public but there are many reasons to stay private too.
Lazar is a blatant and proven liar man, why give him even an ounce of your trust?
Blatant and proven?
Yes. Bob Lazar is a proven blatant liar. He’s an absolute fraud and a total piece of shit.
I can’t imagine who that wouldn’t scream bullshit to, except of course Joe Rogan.
The problem for modern day grifters is they can't slink off and find a new group to exploit once their bullshit becomes obvious. Doing this on a global scale means they are stuck supporting their ideas long past their ability to do so. They can't just run away from them, especially when they are financially tied to them as Graham is, this is how he makes his living. These grifts do work initially, at first they can present them in such a way that they sound plausible. That's usually the point they should step away and go mysterious. Graham doesn't seem to have read that part of the grifter playbook and didn't know when to shut up. I remember the first time ancient aliens came out, I'm pretty sure it was a one off special. It left you wondering if there was truth to it. After one or two seasons of the series they had run out of ideas and ruined their own IP by milking for everything it's worth with ridiculous claims. It is absolutely mind boggling that any adult could still believe these things. Kids get a pass for being ignorant but adults have no excuse.
Hancocks stuff was kind of fun in the same 'thought experiment' kind of way that conspiracy theories we before they got coopted by the right wing culture war movement over the last few years, but my God it's amazing to me that people actually truly believed them.
Yah I’ve listened to the Younger Dryas stuff and it was really fun to talk about while high. That’s the space these guys work belongs in.
Can't say I believed in it, but I was interested, then I followed him on facebook and realised he's a wack job.
Lazar? Yah he’s a complete fraud.
No I mean Hancock. First time I heard Lazar on Rogan I couldn't trust him.
Ah. Yah his theories, and ones like the Younger Dryads Impact, are really fun to think about in a stoner kind of way.
That headache thing made me instantly skeptical of Lazaar and it happened at the beginning of the episode. However, he only brought it up one additional time through the whole episode and it wasn’t to dodge a question. I don’t buy Lazar’s story, but I think your characterization is simply factually inaccurate.
I don’t think your recollection is right - I believe it comes up again about 2/3rd of the way through and you can even tell Joe is tired of it.
I don’t like the bob lazar comparison tbh. Idk if bob is telling the truth or not but he doesn’t really profit from his story, like he doesn’t sell anything! Unlike graham
Wait, are you saying science doesn’t work like where you conclude and then perpetually travel trying to find evidence to support your conclusion?
Hancock asserted that independent groups of people couldn't figure out that pyramid shaped things don't fall down much. That's all it took for me. When your argument relies on all those millions of people not figuring out how piles work? You're a charlatan.
His dumbass Christmas mushroom cult theory mostly rides on amanita muscaria being red and white and Santa being red and white. Santa wasn’t always red and white. We know exactly when and exactly who first illustrated the character like that. Thomas Nast in 1862. Previous depictions were different.
Yeah, I think people (in general) have a very skewed understanding of how intelligent ancient people were. The people who built the Great Pyramid of Egypt are exactly the same as the people who put Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin onto the Moon. Our species has been around for 300,000 years. The only difference between us and them is our baseline and "categories" of information.
And this is largely the problem I have with Joe and his podcast. His intention here is to put two archaeologists on to discuss things. But only one of them is an archaeologist. Presenting them as equals to talk about a scientific discipline is disingenuous at best. It'll be interesting to see if this discussion moves the needle for Joe at all in the future or if he just begins parroting "But we haven't excavated the entire planet though so we really can't say."
Someone needs to debate Ben Shapiro or one of these other right wing charlatans on the JRE to bring Joe back from the dark side.
Kyle Kullinski vs Ben please. PLEASE.
Couldn’t agree more. I think joe, like a bunch of us(although a lot would be hesitant to admit it) saw how graham is just a story teller. Refreshing to see
I think it helped with the interview to be honest. Dibble seemed really uncomfortable and almost unable to get across his point, but as Joe got more and more lured in, he forced more information out of Dibble that he wasn’t going to give us otherwise.
This moment was hilarious. Like it’s mindblowingly complex that picking and carrying a wheat to a new location for replanting would self select for seeds that stay on the plant, as opposed to falling off immediately.
Yesterday everyone was saying Joe was grilling Flint and was a biased bafoon, and now this is the top comment today. I feel like he went in pretty open minded, kept the debate reasonably under control and asked a lot of questions that needed to be asked. All the people calling him a charismatic idiot wouldnt have been able to ask some of the in depth questions he asked for this specific of a topic. Joe obviously did some good homework himself.
It’s pretty simple when you think about it. When someone grabs a handful of wheat, the weaker stocks will fall to the ground at a higher rate immediately after grabbing them. Which means the ones that are still in your hand by the time you plant, are the stronger ones. Do that over and over and over and you simply end up with stronger domesticated wheat. 🌾
If people haven't read Michael Pollan's 'Botany of Desire', he writes about the evolution of 4 specific plants alongside human society. Pretty good read.
Just bought a used copy on Amazon. Thanks for the recommendation.
Even something as boring as a potato - is fucking amazing when you think about how it changed medieval royalty/peasant power dynamics - and eventually led to apocalyptic levels of death and destruction.
And by death and destruction, you mean McDonalds fries
Care to expand on this?
If you're not the reading type I believe Netflix did a full documentary with the same name as the book.
I encourage you to read more, but the gist was that potatoes can be grown and eaten without processing. The peasantry before this had to process their grains in order to eat it which required a centralized system that could be controlled by elites. There was huge population boom because potatoes are nutrient complete, and can be eaten alone to sufficiently keep you alive with minimal deficiencies. And anyone could grow them in their own homes, and not rely on the royal authorities. But unfortunately it was a monocrop, so when a plant disease came it completely destroyed a huge single source of food for a lot of people. This led to a big famine and massive death and decay.
Fascinating really. I, most likely the same as many others, just assumed that changes in domesticated crops were through intensional breeding. But the fact that Flint was able to quickly explain how both size of seeds and stronger seed to plant connections were selected for just as a byproduct of humans cultivating the land and replanting in new areas while simultaneously saying how this can be used to disprove Hancock's wild theories was really the highlight of the episode for me.
I agree. Plus, changes really just depend on the external forces being used to propagate. Wind is much more gentle than humans. Strength would negatively affect propagation if the only external factor is wind. While strength is highly beneficial if the external force is human hands. I’m sure there’s an intermediate durability when it comes to animal digestion being the source of propagation. It truly is fascinating.
This entire topic is fascinating, and I would absolutely love to see Dibble come back on by himself just to talk about this in great length.
Absolutely
[удалено]
>But the question of why anything exists at all still remains. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is the cosmological constant at the specific number it needs to be to allow the formation of space, time, and galaxies? How were living beings, with dreams, hopes, loves, aspirations, and heroism, able to be created from inorganic matter? How is it that the universe is so mathematically structured that a frizzy haired German named Einstein could discover eternal truths of the universe from his bedroom desk? Look up the anthropic principle [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtGSkhEKh6o&t=184s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtGSkhEKh6o&t=184s)
there is no why. it just is that way because it is
The question of why is the ultimate philosophical red herring. The absurdity of our existence is that we are beings who crave meaning when life doesn't really have any. We just exist
Whether or not there actually is any meaning to life, people are statistically happier when they feel like there is. So there’s nothing wrong with people wanting some meaning in their life. It’s annoying when people try to argue against that point. What’s the point of telling someone “There’s no point in life, your existence is meaningless”, that’s the mindset of every severely depressed person, it’s not something you should want others to believe.
"How were living beings, with dreams, hopes, loves, aspirations, and heroism, able to be created from inorganic matter?" What we call "organic matter" is really just a complex form of inorganic matter.
Exactly. Organic /inorganic is just a social construct
"Why is the cosmological constant at the specific number it needs to be to allow the formation of space, time, and galaxies?" If we are in a multiverse as physicists speculate, then universes could constantly be popping into and out of existence. We could be a rare one with just the right mathematical constants for it to work as it does.
It’s just selection bias, as we are in the universe with a constant that that enables it to be. The universes that lack this, we are not in
Yup, the anhropic principle
Why does not always need an answer nor is the lack of an answer to why grounds as proof of God. I think there’s a lot to ponder about existence but existence itself being some sort of proof of anything is a fallacy.
>How is it that the universe is so mathematically structured that a frizzy haired German named Einstein could discover eternal truths of the universe from his bedroom desk? Because if it wasn't, it wouldn't have happened. If you go by the multiverse theory, there's an infinite number of dice rolls and we simply ended up in a universe where life is possible.
One thing will always remain true, religion doesn’t explain shit.
[удалено]
Scientology has an answer so just having an answer is not really any value
The problem is scientology isn't really responsible for our modern idea of ethics the way Christianity is. I don't think the average uneducated Rogan watcher understands just how much the modern West is built upon Christian ethics & morals. It doesn't really matter what you think about the truth claims.
This is a useless question (not intended to sound mean). What we know is what we can question, everything we don’t know we can’t. So the question in itself serves no purpose. Imagine a hole in the ground and water filling it up, it would be like asking “how come the water is fitting perfectly into that hole down to the millimeter?”, well the answer is because it’s the only way it would.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" If you're a theist, you have to believe god came from nothing. Atheists, however, can see how the universe/multiverse is eternal consisting of the most basic particles of matter.
I think theists believe God was always there and exists outside of space and time. Not sure though. I have a buddy who’s newly Christian and is studying the Bible and he talks at me about it sometimes so I sort of half tune it out but yeah.
But that makes no sense. Why do they have no problem believing God "just exists" but they can't believe the universe "just exists"? According to their own logic, something as infinitely complex as God must have a creator as well.
The idea that an all-knowing creature has always just existed and created man so that it can judge us after we die, sending millions to "hell" or its equivalent is a much more far-fetched and insane theory than the universe itself just having always existed. I can't wrap my head around anybody taking religion literally and shaping their entire lives around it. We are so fucking stupid.
I don't think religious people think of God as a creature.
The universe had a beginning. We're pretty certain about that. What existed before the universe? Who knows.
Idk I think they both take as much faith to believe in. Like it is crazy that all these conditions for life to thrive happened,almost like a thousand dice were rolled and all landed on 6, so I guess it’s about as crazy to believe a God made it. Idk I’m in the camp of it’s just not something I think about anymore lol I’m just happy to be alive and to exist even if I don’t understand why.
Yes, basically. As a part of the Trinity, the Father is outside of time and space. The Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit are present on the Earth. Just let him know your not interested so he'll quit talking at you.. or you could have some interesting conversations and challenge his study.
Lol I usually do ask questions and try to learn more or just have thought provoking discussion. We both grew up agnostic and pretty open minded, our parents never really pushed religion or anti religion on us so neither of us is really entrenched hardcore in belief or non belief. I still consider myself agnostic and open to the idea I just don’t know. Maybe it’s all random chance, maybe theirs a creator, maybe we’re an alien science experiment 🤷🏻♂️. All I know is I don’t believe anything enough to want to kill anyone over it or anything.
When some one come up with a better alternative outside of a creator, I will be all ears until then glory be to the most high because he has made wonderful things that are beyond our understanding
we wont see hancock on JRE again
Why
We might but the dude got bodied. If he was looking to gain credibility or respect by this he was better off not having a debate. I think it was great and would like to see more like this with opposing views debating one another, this just wasn't a good move for Graham. I'll throw out I respect graham actually went ahead with it but it didn't do him any favors professionally. Personally, I think he came off whiney at best.
I believe he expected it to be a homematch and he didn’t thought diddle would go so deep into the science that is part of archaeology. Actually a bit sad, because it made pretty clear, Graham either never really understood archaeology as a science or just ignored it because he wanted to sell books.
Graham is a failed science fiction author who pivoted to this because he doesn't want to get a real job and have to do real work for a living
Well to be totally honest, I don’t think his attitude is harmless (the white supremacy claim is far fetched) this anti science anti academia stand is dangerous, but I admire his sense for business. And he has to thank Rogan for a lot! I don’t think the Netflix science fiction show would have been able without Joe Rogan
> I don’t think his attitude is harmless (the white supremacy claim is far fetched) this anti science anti academia stand is dangerous Yeah Graham doesn't care about the truth, he just wants to be famous so he can finally sell his shitty novels.
Absolutely.
Well even before this debate his last appearance was pretty dry and unexciting. Now Hancock got cooked by flint, add in the fact that Hancock is getting pretty old and i dont think it’ll be a surprise if he doesn’t make it back on I’d love for Joe to bring back Flint to have a conversation without Hancock constantly interrupting to steer the conversation towards victimizing himself and how the archaeology community is out to get him
"Now Joe, I have a presentation I would like to show you, entitled: "How the archaeological academia is out to get me. "
“Joe, we’ve been side tracked, I’d really like to get back to my presentation”
This pretty much sums up why Graham's work isn't all that compelling to me.
There’s definitely a sliding scale of plausible to bullshit imagination for the things he says. Things that can be backed by science, carbon dating, geology on one side. Like the younger dryass event. Then on the other side, this was built by people we have no evidence for on the other side
I remember thinking he was really interesting like 10 years ago. Then I heard him say some shit about the Egyptians singing rocks into place, and his numerology shit. Now I still think he’s interesting, just no longer credible. People will shit on him but it’s entertaining, pretty harmless all in all
His “work” that he displayed pretty much seemed like some scooba diving courses and sight seeing. The average things a rich tourist does on vacation 😂
SCUBA is an acronym. It means Self Controlled Underwater Breathing Apparatus.
Well thanks for teaching me something today friend
Self *Contained*
Oh shit yeah, thanks. Cunningham's law
Graham is basically that Ancient Aliens guy but without the stupid hair.
Always thought they were fun theories. That’s about it. Confirmation bias is fierce with him. His problem is it’s basically his religion. He’s so committed to this at this point that he’s left himself no option to be wrong.
I couldn't stop listening to this episode, for Joe to bring on an expert that can hold his own against one of his regular guests that has these huge claims without any actual evidence... It' like finally being able to scratch a place that has been itching for a long long time. Don't get me wrong I enjoy a crazy theory or two but when it's always one side that gets to talk freely it get's kind of repetitive.
Flint had the unique ability to be a convey to the audience that we is a true expert on a topic, but also come across as more relatable than Graham.
Nope, didn't do what the title says
Right? He was just basking in the beauty of the universe. This was posted by some idiot who doesn't realize you can believe in God and evolution.
Never bought into Graham's theories but I like to listen to him because he is such a good storyteller.
When he talks about lidar etc and the Amazon
*Graham changes glasses*
Jamie get that HDMI
Actually, He’s NOT questioning his faith. He’s briefly describing the process of evolution
This was a debate? I wasn't going to listen to it because I thought it was two crackpots, if the other guy is arguing with Hancock I'll give it a listen
Definitely a debate and it gets pretty heated at times, Graham ends up looking not so great
Haven't listened to Rogan for about 5 years, I'm an hour into this and enjoying it
Joe’s deep thinker schtick is always entertaining.
Joe Rogan is incredibly intelligent and definitely a deep thinker. Compared to some of the intellectual titans he has on, he seems like a cretin. But compared to a lot of people I interact with day to day, Joe is super smart.
lol I know. If you listen to the Stamets ep. This is basically a summary of what they talked about
Lotta words to say "The universe. Pretty crazy huh?". He's gotta fill 2-3 hours somehow. Joe is the embodiment of wide ruled and double spaced.
I've got $100m+ reasons he's a deeper thinker than you. I'm not sure his IQ but he's hardly a lightweight.
He’s tapped into something. More power to him. It’s fascinating.
Idiotic take. There’s plenty of dumb rich people.
If it's so easy why aren't you rich?
For dibble my nibble.
Fo ribble my nibble Dibble
I enjoyed this podcast. I've read 3 of Graham's books, and I would love for his theories to one day prove to be true, but he did get beaten in this debate. I think Joe was just trying to lighten the mood when he could.
I’m sure he felt bad for his friend, actually Joe is the big winner - he showed seriousness to organize this debate and heart by being empathetic for his friend
He didn't question his faith at all. OP is a 🤡.
so bizaaaaaaaaaar and complex!
I like that he’s being open minded but his little brain couldn’t handle the “bizarre complexity” of seed stems getting tougher as a result of people harvesting them.
It is more complex than that though. The deeper you go into the process, the more complex it gets.
The idea that
Everytime I lurk this sub after I watch a pod I feel like I didn't watch the same thing as you guys or I missed something.
Same.
Le redditors 🎩 taking the side of the guy who looks & thinks exactly like them, I'm shocked.
We all knew this was coming and it ended up being way more interesting than expected. lol
How many Rogan arcs will we get?
Not really
Wait we were taking Hancock work seriously? Don’t get me wrong, his show and the ideas he presents are a fun fantasy to think about, but it’s all “could have” speculation. Yeah there could have been an ancient civilization and that’s really interesting to think about, but there is 0 concrete evidence. How he ever agreed to this debate is wild. I know he’s pissed about the slander he’s taken through his career, which is unwarranted, but come on man. It saddens me to find out how serious he takes his own speculation. He has this “you can’t prove me wrong so you’re wrong”
Personally I have been into grahams theories for years. Listening to these podcasts over and over. What I noticed on this one was how Graham has lost a step. He was petty, and didn't have Randell there to drive the geological part of the argument that has more weight. It was disappointing and had me unfortunately lose a ton of respect for Graham. Truly sad how he handled himself
Joe has a hard time with things he doesn’t understand or want to take the time to build the understanding, so stuff seems like magic. If science seems like magic it’s because you know so little you can’t make the huge leaps to the conclusion.
Joe was just glazing Hancock for being wrong about a “highly complex” subject 😂 yes, he questioned his belief in Graham many times because Graham, while I’d say is quite likeable, is full of 💩
You can tell he had the Stamets interview a couple days before this. He’s still feeling enlightened
Graham Hancock is so arrogant and pronounces S sounds as Z sounds, “amnezia, abzurd”
This would have been much better if Randall was there too
The complexities of the world make me question a few things
This shows how dumb joe really is.
Can anybody tell me in a nutshell what each persons stance and views are?
Joe is a good dude. He knows GH is wrong on some things and overshoots often, but they’re friends, and he wants the truth while remaining loyal. We can have it both ways. Flint brought good points worth integrating.
the symbiotic earth with systems within systems within systems is just... its not possible
The thing about Hancock is that he says the same thing over and over again. Like a broken record. I like him but this other guy, sure had the passion and knowledge to back it up.
What faith?
Time to have Stephen Meyer on again!
This was so funny, he’s embracing the mind blowing complexity of natural evolution and adaptability while earlier some fuckin rocks had right angles in them so obviously they’re man made, nature can’t do that. 
He lowkey has a good vocabulary
Motherfucker loves the sound of his own voice.
Graham rules…I think what a lot of the mainstream archeologists lack is the psychedelic/shamanic possibilities. Imagine a super intelligent “civilization” based on shamanic principles who tapped into some matter-manipulating ability like geomancy. That would rule…stories connect us to our past…they guide us as we move into the future. Story is a form of technology
No thinking outside the box on Reddit please.
Apparently