Joe Rogan Experience #2136 - Graham Hancock & Flint Dibble

1. 0:00 – 15:00

   (drumbeats) Joe Rogan podcast,…

   1. GHGraham Hancock0:00

      (drumbeats) Joe Rogan podcast, check it out.

   2. NANarrator0:04

      The Joe Rogan Experience.

   3. JRJoe Rogan0:06

      Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night. All day. (instrumental music) Okay, good. All right. Well, this took a lot of time to organize, but I'm very excited and I'm happy you're both here. Thank you. Uh, Flint, uh, please, uh, introduce yourself to everybody, what you do, and...

   4. FDFlint Dibble0:24

      Yeah. Hi. My name is Flint, and I'm an archeologist. I've done archeology my whole life. Uh, my dad was an archeologist, and, uh, I'm just very passionate about sharing archeology and what we do. I find in general that people don't really understand what modern archeology is about. And so I'm gonna try to get that across while here, you know, that's, that's my goal.

   5. JRJoe Rogan0:43

      Fantastic. Um, take that microphone and try to keep it about a fifth from your, a-

   6. GHGraham Hancock0:47

      I'll just-

   7. JRJoe Rogan0:47

      ... fist from your face.

   8. GHGraham Hancock0:48

      One second. We have to, his, uh, HDMI is not working. It's not going through.

   9. FDFlint Dibble0:52

      Mine is not?

   10. JRJoe Rogan0:52

       Oh, it's okay. All right. We had a bit of a technical issue, but we're up. So Flint, uh, you were just explaining how, uh, your, your passion is archeologists, you're an archeologist and, and you have this opportunity to k- sort of educate people on how archeology is done.

   11. FDFlint Dibble1:07

       Yeah. That's my goal, is to try to share what we do, why we do it, and what our goals are with it. Yeah.

   12. JRJoe Rogan1:13

       Okay. Terrific. Um, and Graham, everybody knows you. You've been on this podcast-

   13. GHGraham Hancock1:18

       Well, l-

   14. JRJoe Rogan1:18

       ... about 10 times.

   15. GHGraham Hancock1:19

       Largely thanks to you, Joe. (clears throat)

   16. JRJoe Rogan1:20

       Oh, I'm very happy. Happy to introduce the world to it. Are we okay, Flint, with the HDMI?

   17. GHGraham Hancock1:24

       I think we've been doing shows together since 2011.

   18. JRJoe Rogan1:27

       You, I think, were one of my first real guests. You might be the first real guest. 'Cause before that, it was just my friends, just comedians.

   19. GHGraham Hancock1:35

       Yeah, yeah.

   20. JRJoe Rogan1:36

       And it was all in my house, and we-

   21. GHGraham Hancock1:37

       It was.

   22. JRJoe Rogan1:37

       ... we ate pizza and it was-

   23. GHGraham Hancock1:39

       Yeah.

   24. JRJoe Rogan1:39

       ... it was fantastic. Um, Jamie's setting everything up, making sure we're good to go. Okay. Um, the way we'd agreed to do b- this is, Flint, you wanted to open and you wanted to do about 10 minutes and just sort of explain things.

   25. FDFlint Dibble1:52

       Yeah.

   26. JRJoe Rogan1:52

       And so we'll let you do that, and then, Graham, you'll have an opportunity to respond.

   27. GHGraham Hancock1:56

       Yeah.

   28. FDFlint Dibble1:56

       Yeah, thank you. Um, Jamie, do you mind pulling up my screen?

   29. JRJoe Rogan2:01

       Here we go.

   30. FDFlint Dibble2:02

       All right. So look, uh, one of the things that I see when I'm online and, or in person sharing archeology is I find it's tough to get across what it is. And so I wanted to start with a fun example. So I understand that maybe not everybody is, can see the screen. So Joe, do you mind actually just kinda describing what this artifact is that you see?
2. 15:00 – 30:00

   Pre-homo, homo sapiens. Yeah,…

   1. JRJoe Rogan15:00

      year-

   2. FDFlint Dibble15:00

      Pre-homo, homo sapiens. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

   3. JRJoe Rogan15:02

      Okay. And but, so, but in terms of what we would consider a Stone Age man or, you know, w- early homo sapien, what, what is like the earliest buildings that we know of? What's the earliest tools that we know of? What do we have?

   4. FDFlint Dibble15:19

      The earliest tools we know of are many hundreds of thousands of years. Right? Um, before modern homo sapiens.

   5. JRJoe Rogan15:24

      Similar to the ones you just showed us?

   6. FDFlint Dibble15:26

      Yeah. Well, they're bigger. They're probably... This isn't quite it either. This is a Middle Paleolithic style core that my dad made. But uh, the earliest stone tools are quite large, um, many of them. But as time goes on, they become smaller and smaller because humans become more efficient at using this raw material. Right? Because there's only a few different kinds of stones that you can knap. That's what's called a conchoidal fracture. I'll pass some of these around at some point. We'll do a show and tell, and I'll show you how we can tell the difference between kind of a, a manmade stone tool versus just a piece of shatter, like a rock.

   7. JRJoe Rogan15:56

      I actually just watched a documentary on it, or a YouTube video, I should say. And it was really fascinating watching them knap them.

   8. FDFlint Dibble16:02

      Yeah, exactly.

   9. JRJoe Rogan16:02

      How they do it with like a piece of leather on their leg and they, they knock the top of it. It's very interesting.

   10. FDFlint Dibble16:07

       You even have some lovely deer antler that could be used for that, right? (laughs)

   11. JRJoe Rogan16:10

       Yeah. Yeah, it's pretty cool.

   12. FDFlint Dibble16:11

       Yeah.

   13. JRJoe Rogan16:12

       Uh, okay, so continue. So you were saying that, um, we have a very clear chain... Essentially you're saying there's a clear chain between, um, what we know of in terms of like hunter-gatherers, and then more modern civilizations, and it's a pretty linear line.

   14. FDFlint Dibble16:27

       No, I don't see it as a linear line. I actually-

   15. JRJoe Rogan16:29

       Not, not, not linear, that's a bad... But that you know at what point in time it started, I should say.

   16. FDFlint Dibble16:34

       I think what we can say is we can understand, start pinpointing the starts of domestication and things like that.

   17. JRJoe Rogan16:40

       Mm-hmm.

   18. FDFlint Dibble16:40

       But I think that what this big data set that we now have shows is there is no linear trajectory to human culture. It's actually very heterogeneous, what happens. It's different in different areas of the world.

   19. JRJoe Rogan16:51

       Right.

   20. FDFlint Dibble16:51

       And therefore we need to understand the local context to understand them. And that's really what it's picturing. I mean, in many ways, like I think Graham's TV show is, is fun and interesting TV, but I think it misrepresents what we think of as the birth of civilization. We don't really...... write or teach about that anymore. It's very different in different places. Even the very term civilization is something that everybody has a different definition for. So we almost never use it.

   21. JRJoe Rogan17:17

       Mm-hmm.

   22. FDFlint Dibble17:17

       I never use the term civilization while teaching or writing, for example. It's just, it's a term that you can use to mean anything.

   23. JRJoe Rogan17:24

       Okay.

   24. FDFlint Dibble17:24

       And so, it's like this- this, uh, this grand narrative approach to human pre-history is something that's from the 20th century and not really a component of 21st century archeology, is what I would say.

   25. JRJoe Rogan17:35

       Got it. Okay.

   26. FDFlint Dibble17:35

       Yeah. And so, I- I just wanna end with a couple questions for Graham, if he's willing. Um, in- in- at different times, he's described that the civilization that he's looking for from 12,000 years ago, it was advanced as, say our own civilization in the late 18th or early 19th century. And so, you know, as an archeologist, we study technology. We study the material remains of the past. And so I- I wonder what we're trying to look for, right? And so, I know that this is kinda how the last conversation with Michael Shermer started. (laughs) And so, I get that. But I do wanna just quickly say, Graham has- has acknowledged that there's a good chance there's no metallurgy, for example, um, with this civilization. He said maybe a decision was made not to use metals. And I'd say we could definitively prove there was no large-scale metallurgy in the Ice Age. If you look at ice cores in- in the Arctic, right, we can track metallurgy of the Roman period, of medieval periods, based on lead emissions that end up in these ice cores. And there are no emissions from metallurgy in the- in the Ice Age. So we can be sure that there's no global metallurgical civilization that's doing a lot of mining and smelting. Certainly, they're not doing- burning fossil fuels like they might be in the 18th or 19th century. So we know that could not have been around that early, 'cause it would show up in the atmosphere. Likewise, we can think about shipwrecks, right? Graham has mentioned that the bulk of marine archeology has focused on shipwrecks and not the continental shelves. And so the thing is, at this point, we have something like three million shipwrecks from around the world. And so one of my questions for Graham is if this is a global civilization with ships, why is it that we don't have shipwrecks from this global civilization? I see this as a big, big problem. If we're looking for an- a- a civilization that's traversing the oceans, we should find these shipwrecks. And similarly, these shipwrecks are located near the coast. They're located on the submerged continental shelves. We are actually exploring these submerged continental shelves in detail. We're able to find scattered ephemeral shipwrecks, but not monuments of some sort of civilization.

   27. JRJoe Rogan19:37

       And these shipwrecks, what's the oldest one that we've found so far?

   28. FDFlint Dibble19:40

       Um, well, there was one that was just published from about, I think it was about 6,000, 7,000 years ago, off the coast of Italy that I saw. Um, something around there would s- say, what I'd say is around the oldest that we have. Yeah.

   29. JRJoe Rogan19:51

       And at what point in time do- these are mostly wooden boats?

   30. FDFlint Dibble19:54

       Yeah, these are mostly wooden boats. Yeah.
3. 30:00 – 45:00

   I don't have audio…

   1. GHGraham Hancock30:00

      had been, uh, at, at Blue Fish Cave. There's the, the, the, the publication from 2017, I think. Um, uh, yes, uh, January 2017, confirming that all along, Jacques Cinq Mars had been right, and that the ruining and destruction of his reputation, uh, for saying something that other archaeologists disagreed with had been wholly unnecessary. And, and again, the Smithsonian, "The study raises serious questions about the effect of the bitter decades-long debate over the peopling of the New World. Did archaeologists in the mainstream marginalize dissenting voices on this key issue, and if so, what was the impact on North American archaeology? Did the intense criticism of pre-Clovis sites produce a chilling effect, stifling new ideas and hobbling the search for early, uh, for, for, for, for early sites?" So, here's Clovis debunked, and you're telling me that it was debunked in the '90s, Flint, but here's Clovis being debunked again in 2007, National Geographic. Uh, here's Clovis being debunked in 2012. I mean, for a theory that was debunked in the 1990s, it's weird to see it still being debunked in 2012. It's like there's something still there to debunk, isn't there? Um, and, and, and, uh, Wikipedia entry, uh, recently the scientific consensus has changed to acknowledge the presence of pre-Clovis cultures in the America, ending the Clovis First consensus. This was a piece from the 15th of April, 2023. My God, here's the bink, big think, uh, April 2022. Clovis apparently still needs to be debunked. It's like a zombie. It keeps on haunting archaeology, and people keep on having to debunk it. Uh, and I'd like to just mention Tom Dillehay. Tom Dillehay, um, discovered the site of, e- excavated the site of Monte Verde in Chile. And he found evidence that human beings had been there 14,000, maybe as much as 18,000 years ago, uh, in the deep south of South America. Uh, and again, the archaeology that Flint would like us to believe exists would have welcomed that find, but no. That find was not welcomed. That find was massively attacked, particularly by American archaeologists. Um, and, uh, w- what we now know that, uh, uh, that, um, Tom Dillehay has been, uh, vindicated, um, and that he was absolutely correct all along that human beings were, uh, in Monte Verde thousands of years before Clovis. Um, and, um, th- he was eventually vindicated. Now, what I want to do, if you don't mind, is just play a tiny little clip from Tom Dillehay himself.

   2. NANarrator32:46

      I don't have audio set up for you to do that.

   3. JRJoe Rogan32:49

      Can you send it to him?

   4. NANarrator32:51

      I just have the HDMI cable.

   5. JRJoe Rogan32:52

      Right, but if he sends it, sends it to you, can you do that?

   6. NANarrator32:55

      Sure.

   7. JRJoe Rogan32:55

      Okay.

   8. GHGraham Hancock32:57

      How do I send it to you?

   9. JRJoe Rogan32:58

      You can Air-

   10. GHGraham Hancock32:58

       Send it to me.

   11. JRJoe Rogan32:58

       ... drop it to him?

   12. NANarrator32:58

       AirDrop, you have a Mac.

   13. GHGraham Hancock33:00

       Hmm?

   14. JRJoe Rogan33:02

       We'll pause.

   15. GHGraham Hancock33:03

       Yeah.

   16. After a slight technical hitch.

   17. Okay, we're back.

   18. Uh, after a slight technical hitch. Uh, let's play this clip from Tom Dillehay, uh, who was the, um, discoverer and excavator of Monte Verde.

   19. GUGuest (short clip, unidentified)33:22

       I put together an interdisciplinary research team of people, got National Geographic funding and National Science Foundation funding. Um, and, uh, that went pretty well, the way we expected it to, and I found that the scientists were open-minded. Uh, this includes archaeologists. We had Australian, Chilean, uh, and Argentinian archaeologists working with us. Ac- accumulatively speaking, th- those people, besides myself, probably had close to 100 years of experience amongst them. Um, what surprised me on the other side of the coin was the stiff, uh, close-mindedness of many North American archaeologists. But I s- some of the North American colleagues, um, were very difficult to deal with and I, I think at times presenting a very unhealthy, uh, atmosphere, uh, cutting us off before we could present the data at meetings, uh, not talking with us about it, uh, refusing to even look at the data, th- this sort of thing.

   20. GHGraham Hancock34:27

       So, um, I think I've ... (coughs) I think I've got a few minutes left of my presentation time, and I would like to deal with the issue that Flint has mentioned of, uh, archaeology somehow knowing that there was no lost civilization. Um, if we could call this up on the screen, Jamie. So, the Society for American Archaeology, of which Flint is a member, uh, wrote an open letter to Netflix shortly after the release of my show, Ancient Apocalypse, uh, really asking Netflix to cancel the show. Not to cancel it, this is quite cleverly put. They said, "Don't care." They, they said, "Reclassify it as science fiction." Now, to my mind, what is the result of 30-plus years of work on my part being reclassified as science fiction is as good as, uh, canceling it. So, Netflix did not reclassify it as science fiction, but, but archaeology, the Society for American Archaeology, uh, says that, uh, it really sees, uh, no evidence, uh, for, uh, an advanced, uh, lost a- lost civilization of the Ice Age, and that, uh, it's simply, my series is simply, uh, entertainment with ideological goals. So, I want to get into the, the parts of the world that, um...... that archaeology has not looked at, that have been unders-

   21. GUGuest (short clip, unidentified)36:00

       It's kinda interesting though, from that statement, the, just the last thing. Contrary to Hancock's claims, archeology does not willfully ignore credible evidence, nor does it seek to suppress it in a conspiratorial fashion.

   22. GHGraham Hancock36:12

       Yeah.

   23. GUGuest (short clip, unidentified)36:12

       But we just showed that.

   24. GHGraham Hancock36:14

       Yeah, we just showed in the case of Tom Dillehay that his evidence was suppressed, that in the case of Jacques Hunquarras, his evidence was suppressed, that archaeology was not open-minded about the work of these guys, that they suffered, uh, humiliation and, uh, great difficulty in ad- in advancing their work. And furthermore, I'd like to make another point clear at this point, Flint. I don't think there's an archaeological conspiracy against me. (laughs) I'm not so conceited. I don't imagine there's a conspiracy. I don't think archaeologists are sitting together in a cabal conspiring against me. I think that archaeology is locked into a mindset about the past, where my ideas simply seem preposterous, and I think it's very annoying to archaeology that those ideas have some resonance, uh, with the, with the public. But I absolutely refute any suggestion that I have ever said that archaeology is involved in a conspiracy against me or is trying to suppress my work. That is, that is not the case. Um, look, there's the Sahara Desert. A fair bit of archeology has been done in the Sahara Desert, but we're looking at 9.2 million square kilometers of the Sahara Desert. Tell me how much of the Sahara you think has actually been excavated, Flint, by archaeologists.

   25. FDFlint Dibble37:25

       I'd say a bunch of it has been surveyed, including by my dad.

   26. GHGraham Hancock37:28

       No, no, no. How much has, how much has actually been excavated? What sort of percent do you have in mind?

   27. FDFlint Dibble37:32

       Well, a lot of sort of desert archeology does not have excavation. It's eroded away due to the wind, and so-

   28. GHGraham Hancock37:37

       Oh, so what, what's your answer to my question? How did, how, how much does archaeology really know about the past of the Sahara?

   29. FDFlint Dibble37:45

       Well, we understand about the domestication of pearl millet in the Sahara, from when the Sahara was a much more, uh, much of it was actually more habitable because it was not desert, so we can see the domestication of pearl millet and sorghum.

   30. GHGraham Hancock37:57

       No.
4. 45:00 – 1:00:00

   I see no evidence…

   1. GHGraham Hancock45:00

      end of the tunnel, you see ahead of you these two massive megalithic blocks, um, directly in view from the tunnel. Uh, that's a shot that Santha took of me diving beside those megalithic blocks just to give you a sense of the scale of them. They're enormous. No, they did not fall from a cliff above. There is no cliff above. Uh, and there's the- they're in context. We're looking at a huge rocky outcrop with these two megalithic blocks on the side. But let's go round to the right of that rocky outcrop and we find a rock hewn area, uh, with steps, and those steps, uh, archaeologists tend to argue this is all completely natural. I have done more than 200 dives at Yonaguni. Santha and I risked our lives. We are not dilettantes. We are in this out of conviction. We're in this out of passion for our subject. We've done more than 200 dives at Yonaguni. I've been hands on with this structure and all the other structures around it and I am absolutely confident that we're looking at a rock hewn structured, uh, natural rock face that was cut and shaped by human beings. Uh, here at Kerama, we're looking at a stone circle underwater, depth 30 plus meters, 32 meters I think, been submerged again for more than 13,000 years. Um, there I'm videoing for scale. You can see somebody down that, beside that central megalith. Flynn, do you think nature made that?

   2. FDFlint Dibble46:30

      I see no evidence (laughs) of it being manmade if that's what you're saying. (laughs)

   3. GHGraham Hancock46:32

      You, you, you see no evidence of that being manmade?

   4. FDFlint Dibble46:34

      No.

   5. GHGraham Hancock46:34

      You see a central upright. You see uprights surrounding it. You see the outer cur- the inner curve of the outer megalith matching the outer curve of the central megalith and to you that's, that's not even interesting?

   6. FDFlint Dibble46:46

      I mean, even the photos you were showing at Yonaguni showed a lot of natural fractures along straight lines, and so I think that it's really easy to confuse what can happen naturally and geologically with something that looks kind of anthropogenic, but this does not look manmade to me. It does not look like anything I've ever seen.

   7. GHGraham Hancock47:01

      Well, that's interesting because I took a geologist diving there, Wolf Wichman. Um, uh, he's very skeptical. He, he was skeptical about Yonaguni, but he did confess after we came up from the dive at Kerama that there's no way, in his opinion, that this could have been made by, by nature. This is a rock wall, um, off, uh, Taiwan. Uh, again, Santha and I went diving there. That's a local diver called Steve Shea. Uh, he's showing us this rock wall. Uh, we can get in close to it. We can see a sort of pediment in front of it. And if you get up close, you can see that it is actually made of individual blocks, uh, put together. Uh, let's go to India, southeast coast of India. Uh, my wife Santha, uh, was born in Malaysia but, uh, she's of Tamil, South Indian origin, so we had a great advantage, uh, in South India-... in talking to local fishermen and divers because Santha speaks the Tamil language fluently. Uh, and we had asked them, "Are there any structures underwater off here?" And they said, "You bet there are. There are... there's a whole city underwater off here. And we've complained to the government about it because we keep catching our nets on it, and fishermen have to go down, and sometimes they die trying to free- free the nets. We'd like the whole thing cleared away." So we said, "Would you... would you take us out there and show us?" Um, and it took some time to put it together. This was an expedition with the Scientific Exploration Society in Britain that I put together. As you can see, it's a very (laughs) low-tech expedition. Um, but when we got out there... Come on, Flint, tell me these are man-made. Tell me these are natural blocks.

   8. FDFlint Dibble48:28

      (laughs) That is a very blurry picture, Graham.

   9. GHGraham Hancock48:30

      Well, just tell me it's a... tell me they're natural blocks. Tell me-

   10. FDFlint Dibble48:32

       I cannot tell for sure from... with these photos.

   11. GHGraham Hancock48:34

       Okay. T- there, I'm putting my diving knife between two blocks. And there, and then a curved wall. Um, actually, the team from the National Institute of Oceanography in India, uh, who were with us, were intrigued by this. Uh-

   12. JRJoe Rogan48:51

       Do you have any more photos of that, that are maybe more convincing?

   13. GHGraham Hancock48:55

       Uh, no. That's... that's... that's... that's... that's what I've got. Um, but, uh, I'm trying to keep it short.

   14. JRJoe Rogan49:00

       Right. Some of them do have characteristics of stone walls, for sure, but it's hard to tell.

   15. GHGraham Hancock49:04

       That's the t- that's the top of a stone wall. The rest of it's buried in sand, on the left there. On the right, a stone wall with a standout feature above it. Um, to suggest that these things are... are... are natural seems, to me, uh, completely absurd. And my point is that... that if Santha and I, with no external funding... The only funding we have... I've never had financial sponsorship from anybody. The only funding that we have, um, is, uh, the kind readers who b- buy my books and, uh, allow us to undertake this research. And we've risked our lives for... for 30 years investigating this research. And if we can find structures of this nature underwater on our very limited basis, then I would imagine that a detailed archaeological survey would find much more. So, the submerged continental shelves, the Sahara Desert, and the Amazon alone, these are three large underserved areas by archaeology. And I think it's premature for archaeology to say that, uh, they can rule out any possibility of a lost civilization while there's so much of the Earth that remains to be studied. And actually, how much of the, uh, so-called developed industrial countries, how much of land area of those countries have been investigated?

   16. FDFlint Dibble50:17

       I mean... So look, A, I fully agree with you that I'd like to see more archaeology done in ethical, informed ways. I am not trying to argue against searching for sites in the Sahara, Braz- the Amazon, or underwater. Um, I think we can hopefully agree (laughs) that more archaeology needs to be done. I would say in developed countries, our coverage is even better though, mainly due to the fact that laws require archaeological excavation and survey prior to construction. So whenever there's sort of construction going on in cities, there's archaeology happening. Whenever pipelines or highways or things like that are being done, there's survey and there's excavation. And so, I mean, at this point our... our... our numbers of archaeological sites are well in the millions, right? And billions of artifacts that have been found. And so there... we... i- it's not... I'm not trying to say it's perfect though. And at the same time, the kind of excavations that happen sort of on a rescue basis before construction, they're not gonna have the same kind of investment that a... an academic, uh, project will have. On the other hand, an academic project is gonna make a much smaller hole, you know, because w- we are focusing on maximizing the evidence that we can get. And so, you know, I... nobody... in no way am I trying to say that archaeology has perfect coverage, but we do have quite a bit of coverage that people are unfamiliar with. And we do have quite a bit of coverage of this late Ice Age period where we have many, (laughs) many thousands of sites from ephemeral hunter-gatherers underwater, above wa- above water-

   17. GHGraham Hancock51:43

       Right.

   18. FDFlint Dibble51:43

       ... and elsewhere.

   19. GHGraham Hancock51:44

       C- Do y- As we do above water.

   20. FDFlint Dibble51:45

       Yeah.

   21. JRJoe Rogan51:45

       Would you mind showing Yonaguni again?

   22. GHGraham Hancock51:48

       No.

   23. JRJoe Rogan51:48

       'Cause tho- those other images aren't nearly as compelling to me as, uh, some of the right angles and what loo- looks like passageways and that curved surface underground.

   24. GHGraham Hancock51:58

       Sure.

   25. JRJoe Rogan51:59

       That, to me, that's a wild one. See the other stuff, I'm like, things look weird in nature sometimes, and I'm not an expert. And so I look at that, I'm like, "That's blurry, it's green, it's odd." Yeah, it's odd. Maybe if you were there physically, you would have a different impression of it. Maybe it would look more like a... a stone wall. But Yonaguni, to me-

   26. GHGraham Hancock52:18

       Show-

   27. JRJoe Rogan52:18

       ... blows me away. The... This blows me away, but the other image blows me away of the... the curved front of that feature and what-

   28. GHGraham Hancock52:26

       So...

   29. JRJoe Rogan52:26

       ... looks like steps to the right of it.

   30. GHGraham Hancock52:28

       So there's that tunnel. Uh-
5. 1:00:00 – 1:15:00

   Yeah.…

   1. FDFlint Dibble1:00:03

      This is a site in the Aegean, and this is an example of kind of what a ... I mean, I can boot it up on my computer if you like.

   2. GHGraham Hancock1:00:09

      Yeah.

   3. FDFlint Dibble1:00:13

      So, if you look at this, you have very clear stone courses, for example, underwater. And it's not just sort of stone courses and walls that we find. This is from a few thousand years ago. What we find actually are a ton of artifacts with it, right? They dive, they excavate, they pull up ceramics, they pull up stone tools, and they- they- they are able to, therefore, show that this was an occupied place. This is obviously not due to sea level rise. This is due to tectonic activity that this is now underwater. Helike off the north coast of Greece also is another one that people have suggested might have inspired Plato's Atlantis, because it happened during Plato's lifetime that that city was submerged underwater. And so we actually do find, you know, from more recent times, actual underwater sites, um, aplenty.

   4. JRJoe Rogan1:00:57

      And Pavlopetri, uh, what year was that? That it was submerged.

   5. FDFlint Dibble1:01:00

      Uh, I think it's from about 3,000 ... Oh, 3,000 years ago or so. So like 1,000 BC-ish. I- I could be off by a couple hundred years.

   6. GHGraham Hancock1:01:06

      Are you saying there was a natural box at Pavlopetri?

   7. FDFlint Dibble1:01:08

      No. (laughs) I'm saying you can see- see clear stone courses that looks exactly like the type of architecture we have above ground.

   8. GHGraham Hancock1:01:14

      Mm-hmm.

   9. FDFlint Dibble1:01:15

      And so the same kind of stone courses. What you have at Yonaguni-

   10. GHGraham Hancock1:01:18

       You would expect that from the historic period, no?

   11. FDFlint Dibble1:01:19

       Huh?

   12. GHGraham Hancock1:01:20

       You would expect that from the historic period.

   13. FDFlint Dibble1:01:21

       Yeah. We would. And so I would expect, though, if you're gonna make an argument for something like Yonaguni, that it would look like architecture, maybe (laughs) even the type of architecture that you have-

   14. GHGraham Hancock1:01:30

       Looks like megalithic architecture to me. Looks like rock-hewn architecture. It looks like the rock-hewn areas at Sacsayhuaman, uh, for example. Jamie actually pulled up some pages of those steps.

   15. FDFlint Dibble1:01:38

       No. We see many different blocks at Sacsayhuaman. We see multiple courses of blocks stacked one on top of each other.

   16. GHGraham Hancock1:01:42

       Do you know Sacsayhuaman? Have you been there?

   17. FDFlint Dibble1:01:44

       No. I've never been there, Graham.

   18. GHGraham Hancock1:01:45

       So, how can you possibly talk about it?

   19. FDFlint Dibble1:01:46

       'Cause I've seen photos of it.

   20. GHGraham Hancock1:01:47

       Well, I've been there dozens of times and, in fact, I'm a-

   21. FDFlint Dibble1:01:49

       Wait, wait. How can you actually talk about archeology without ever ex-

   22. GHGraham Hancock1:01:51

       I was there- I was there- I was there just a few weeks ago.

   23. FDFlint Dibble1:01:53

       Wait a second. (laughs)

   24. JRJoe Rogan1:01:54

       Okay. But let's- let's look at the images so we can discuss this.

   25. GHGraham Hancock1:01:56

       Let's look at- let's look at the images because Sacsayhuaman is a very complicated site. Yes, there are huge blocks in the zigzag walls at Sacsayhuaman, but there are also huge rock-cut areas with steps in them.

   26. FDFlint Dibble1:02:06

       I don't understand how being there lets you talk about it better than me. You've been there as a tourist to see how archeologists have conserved it and preserved it and presented it for people coming by. That is not the same thing as excavating a site. That is not the same thing with understanding archeological literature.

   27. GHGraham Hancock1:02:19

       Well, it's just obvi-

   28. FDFlint Dibble1:02:20

       To tell me that I've not been there, so I cannot talk about archeology-

   29. GHGraham Hancock1:02:22

       It's- it's obvious that you're ignorant of the site-

   30. FDFlint Dibble1:02:24

       (laughs)
6. 1:15:00 – 1:16:38

   Okay. …

   1. GHGraham Hancock1:15:00

   2. FDFlint Dibble1:15:00

      Okay.

   3. GHGraham Hancock1:15:01

      Enormous amount of, uh, submerged material there. I'm not disputing (laughs) that, that we're gonna find, that we're gonna find hunter-gatherer sites underwater. I'm simply saying, and you seem to keep evading this issue, that not enough has been done to rule out the possibility of a lost civilization. There were hunter-gatherers all over the world during the Ice Age, and of course we're gonna find hunter-gatherer sites underwater. But to say that we've done enough underwater archeology to rule out the possibility that something very surprising might be found underwater, to me, is actually dishonest. There's just not enough been done. There's not enough been done in the Sahara, there's not enough been done in the Amazon, and there's not been done enough on those 27 million square kilometers of submerged continental shelves. The whole area between, uh, the Malaysian peninsula, the Indonesian islands, out over to New Guinea and Australia, the, the submerged Sunda Shelf and the, and, and the, the, the Sahul, uh, area, to me is absolutely fascinating and not enough underwater archeology has been done there to rule out the possibility. I'm not saying that we're not gonna find hunter-gatherer sites. Of course we are. But I'm saying that for archeology to claim, uh, and to quite viciously and unpleasantly attack me for suggesting the possibility that there might be a lost civilization, to make that claim while having failed thus far to investigate thoroughly the vast areas of the submerged continental shelves, the vast areas of the Amazon Rainforest, the vast areas of the Sahara Desert that have not been investigated, that claim is premature and that claim is disingenuous.

Episode duration: 4:26:58