Welcome to Duality Check, the podcast where two brothers embark on a thrilling journey
through the realms of scientific inquiry, the enigmatic mysteries of the past, and the uncharted
territories of spirituality. Join us as we explore the wonders of our world and beyond, all while
embracing the roles of curious bystanders rather than experts. Together we'll unravel the intricate
tapestry of existence, blending the dichotomies of knowledge and wonder. Get ready to question,
ponder, and delve into the dualities that shape our understanding of reality on Duality Check.
I'm Drew. And I'm Dean. And today we kind of called it an audible. A little bit. Yeah. We
had just got back from a little family vacation. It was nice. We went up to the Redwoods in
California. It's. freaking gorgeous. Beautiful. Yeah, we had like a- Had some amazing hikes
and- It was calling for rain while we were there, but we got two days in and it was just like,
by day two it was just like this like really cool mist. Yeah, yeah. Wasn't really a rain
until the nighttime. It was more of like a mist, even through your whole hike. Yeah, it was
supposed to rain that entire day, but on the hike, well, I think- The trees may have just
absorbed a lot of it, but yeah, it was just every so often we could feel a little bit of
rain, but It's probably just coming from the canopy. Mostly just some like mistiness and
yeah, a lot of times it didn't rain. So the weather, yeah. Going in the redwoods. Going
into the weekend, it was just like, it's going to rain. And we're like, oh no, doom, doom.
Yeah. So we ended up camping one night and then we stayed at the Airbnb, the rental house for
like the rest of the time. That's right. Yeah. It was fun though, having everybody under one
house for a couple nights. Yeah, we got a big family. We have a big family. We had some friends
there. Yeah. Yeah, it was a good time. So, uh, we're playing catch up a little bit. We're
playing a little bit of catch up, but, uh, regardless of that, this, uh, Joe Rogan episode came out.
A perfect timing. As soon as it came out, I texted Drew. I was like, Hey, you listen to
this yet? I was like halfway through at the time and I was like, I was like, um, yeah,
cause I was supposed to do a lot of reading of the, you know, I was going to do a lot of
reading during this trip and stuff and the boys didn't sleep great. So I was just like, nah,
I'm sleeping. I tried to stay up the first night and I read it like a few, few pages, but I
was just like, no, this is vacation. So yeah, so we were going to do a secret history of
the world episode. Obviously that was our plan. And now, well, I guess not, obviously. But
yeah, since this episode came out between, of with Graham Hancock and Flynn Dibble, who's
an archeologist, we were both like, this is a good opportunity to just get it while it's
fresh. Yeah, well, and like, it was a good test of the ideas, I think. It was an interesting
debate, and I'm kind of excited to talk about it. Um, but before we get into that, oh, by
the way, if you haven't listened to it yet, I'll have the image up on screen here. If you're
on a podcast thing that supports that, there'll be a link to the Joe Rogan episode in the show
notes. Yeah. If you want to pause it, listen to it. Yeah. I highly recommend like if you're
into this topic of like the younger dry is and, uh, ancient law civilization, like this is
a must listen. Yeah. I know a few friends that'll Yeah. They're pretty much on top of all this
stuff now. Yeah. Not that any of you need us to tell you about the Joe Rogan show, but that
particular episode, it would be worth a listen before. Yeah. Because some people like I do,
like I do, Joe Rogan is such a wide reaching character now. His his reach is so huge because
of the wide variety of topics he covers. So there's a lot of people who. Listen to Joe
Rogan, but they listen to a certain facet of Joe Rogan. Like they listen to the comedian
stuff. I don't really listen to the comedian. UFC stuff. I don't listen to that. And if they're
only there for that. Right. And maybe they'll dabble into some mystery stuff because they
know it's fascinating. Yeah. But if you haven't already, check out Graham Hancock. He's been
on Joe Rogan five or six times, at least maybe more. Probably a lot more than that. I think
it's more. Yeah. He's been on at least like. three times with Randall. He's been on a bunch
of times by himself. And he's been on a couple of debate episodes. Yeah, and he was with Michael
Schirmer. Yeah. Twice on that, right? I think only one with Michael Schirmer. That was a
good debate too. Oh yeah, it was only them. That's all right. But Randall was there for
that one. Right, right. No, that's not true. Remember they came back with their experts.
Right. On a different episode, they came back with their experts where it was Graham and
another guy he brought in. Or maybe it was the same episode. Maybe I'm thinking of a different,
maybe it is the same episode. I can't remember. Yeah. It was a long one. Anyway. Yeah. So the
hope for this one, we, um, which was funny because we just did a chat GPT and we've been using
the AI a little bit. We ran the manuscript or the transcript through chat. GPT. Dude, such
a cool thing. Yeah. It took us a minute to find the file we could use. But once Dean found
it and plugged it in, it was instantaneous. Literally, usually you wait for a little scroll
wheel that's telling you how long it's going to take. It was instantaneous. You clicked
Enter. with the file and a little description of what you'd like it to do. You told it to
read this transcript and give us a summary based on the most important points made by both sides
in the argument. And it spit out just the most amazing thing. So fast. Like a legitimate summary.
It was pretty cool. Literally like this fast if you hear this. He clicked the button and
it was popping up with. It had already read it. Or it had already read it previously. I
don't know how. It might read it as you upload it. Oh, like it starts immediately? And it
reads fast anyway. Yeah, even before you hit send, possibly. But it already started spitting
out all of the information. And now we can just ask Chad GPT to answer any questions or things
we misremember about the show. And we're going to have it do a little summary. Yeah. But before
we do that, you said we had a comment? We did. Well, we have that poem. Do you want to read
that? Yeah. We got a comment on the website on the Einstein's Intuition episode number
10. And this is from Joe at schmo.com. He left a little poem. It says, uh. Delving into the
mysteries of the mind. Learning we are all on rewind. Absent from being kind. Hopefully,
ultimately, becoming renowned. Which is cool. Yeah. Your name here. That's his name. Yeah.
Nice little anonymous poetry. Whoever left that, keep them coming. Yeah, that's pretty sick.
I would love to have that every episode. Just somebody popping in with a little poem about
it.
Didn't you say there was another one? So I had a buddy I've been corresponding with. He, you
know, we hang out. We haven't hung out much, but anyway, he has been listening. And he's
like, I'm very much enjoying y'all stuff. So I'm pumped that y'all are doing it. It's definitely
a lot of stuff I've never really thought about or just never really knew about. And some things
that I have, but never really looked into. So I'm having a, or so it's cool. So he's like,
and he's been calling me when there's issues with the podcast. He's like, dude, I'm on my
way to work. Like I was started a podcast the other day and now it's gone. I had to start
another one, which I did, but dude, I fixed that. And so Dean got on it. We have a ticket
in with our. Yeah. It was because I'm having to republish all the episodes back then. I
ended up with some deeper kids on the Apple. podcast connect and so they have to sort out
the do kids. But so it's, it's archiving of them both is what you're saying, right? Yeah.
Because it doesn't know which one to publish. So it just archives them both. Unfortunately,
I don't see any way that I can go in there and like unarchive it, unarchive it. They have
to. Yeah. So we'll get that fixed. Um, by the time this should be fixed. Um, cool. We were
also for people who are just who are listening in, but listen to the previous episode, we
were a little late on posting that also due to the family vacation. Oh, yeah. And subsequent
trying to get things back in order in our households and everything. Yeah, a couple of little family
emergencies popped up there. We're getting back on schedule here. So yeah, do we want to introduce
this episode? Or at least the Joe Rogan? I've got another thing I want to bring up in reference
to a couple past episodes. This is just some like follow up stuff. So if you remember from
the Bitcoin episode, um, we were talking about, um, what are some of the things that people
criticize Bitcoin for the most? And one of them is, is the energy usage is that Bitcoin isn't
great. I mentioned that too. Yeah. Um. So I caught a podcast. The podcast is called the
Bitcoin Lair. And there's an episode on it with an interview with this guy named Daniel Batten.
And I'll leave a link to the episode. But essentially, this guy works for a company called CH4 Capital,
and they are they do like crypto investments. And they've They're working with a company
who has essentially the, what they figured out to do is they can set up a methane capture
system at landfills across the world. And they already have a couple of these in place, I
think. So essentially you can set up at the, one of the biggest thing about landfills is
it puts out methane for with CO2, global warming, all this crap, right? And so they can set up
a methane capture system, withdraw the methane from the landfill, use it to run a generator,
and then have that generator power miners at the landfill. So there'll be miners, because
it would have to be nearby, right? Yeah, so you set some computers up and a thing there
attached. to that generator that's being run off of the methane being captured in the landfills.
I'm thinking of nicknames for them already. Yeah. To do capture. It's a perfect idea because
it allows you to get essentially free energy for mining. And now you're essentially turning
what is normally a waste product into your removing methane that would normally go into the atmosphere
and you're turning it into a profit. So you now have a financial incentive to, to reduce
pollution at landfills. I mean the engine running the methane would still have a exhaust, right?
Yeah. But methane burns different than like gasoline. What does it produce? Uh, I let's
ask chat GBT. We ain't got time to Google. In a methane generator, what is the waste product
of burning methane? CO2 and H2O. Yeah. So. When methane CH-quart is burned in a methane generator
or any other combustion process involving methane, the primary waste products are carbon dioxide
CO2 and water H2O. This chemical reaction occurs when methane combines with oxygen O2 from the
air. The general chemical equation for the combustion of methane can be expressed as, text CH4 plus
two text O2. Rytotec CO2 plus two, text H, text O. Here, methane reacts with oxygen to produce
carbon dioxide and water vapor. This reaction also releases energy in the form of heat, which
is why methane is used as a fuel source. Right, so essentially, I know that CO2 versus methane,
methane is a worse greenhouse gas. So you're at least swapping out one greenhouse gas for
a less bad one. Oh, it's not as bad. I thought. Yeah, you know, methane is worse. Like it has
a stronger greenhouse effect than CO2 does. Right. So you're making it worse in a sense.
No, you're taking what methane would be going into the air, capturing it, burning it and
turning it into CO2. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's right. Anyway. So anyway, yeah, this company
is going around and essentially reversing For every one of these they set up, they're able
to offset a certain amount of like carbon credits or whatever all this stuff is. But they're
essentially trying to get Bitcoin to like a net zero carbon output so that even like the
big governments and the ESG score, you know, concerns in the world, like that will, that's
currently like a negative on risk. Yeah, on Bitcoin's rap sheet. it with as this continues
to grow with every one of these landfills that get set up, it starts to put Bitcoin as a whole
as a network, more carbon neutral. And once they have even like a small percentage of landfills,
like they're they said they're maybe years away from being able to completely make Bitcoin,
the entire Bitcoin network carbon neutral. In aggregate. Yeah, so I. While you were talking
there, I named a few nicknames for the trash warriors or the garbage miners. Yeah, garbage
miners. Yeah. But it's pretty cool. I'm imagining them just being set up at a dump and just having
its own building. But still, it's funny. I mean, imagine as a company, though, you set up a
bunch of equipment at the dump. and then it just generates money for you. You have to pay
for the equipment once, but you'll be getting money back from the mining. So once that is
returned, it's all profit because the methane is essentially free. Essentially, yeah, unless
they decide to start charging a tax on methane captured from landfill, even though they had
done nothing before to capture it. Dude, if they would tax that, that would be crazy. So
I thought that was an interesting story. It's a good thing to know because if you are into
Bitcoin and you'll hear people give that objection to Bitcoin that Bitcoin is bad for the environment,
but this is turning that argument over so that won't be a valid argument after a few years
of this being developed. Yeah, because I had asked that question during that podcast. Just
like how much energy is it? And you said it's like, you know, exponential, I guess, going
to continue to grow. It will continue eating more and more energy. But if the lion's share
of its energy is coming from renewable sources, if it's buying off peak energy, if it's converting
what would normally be a pollutant into energy, you know, what if we get to a point where Bitcoin
mining itself can be turned into something that's good for the environment?
Fascinating. We're not too far from putting a banana peel in a flux capacitor and time
traveling.
Then there's this other article I found. And I just found it interesting. Maybe you will
too. This is on livescience.com. The headline is, James Webb Telescope Detects Light From
a Small Earth-Like Planet and Finds Its Missing Atmosphere. So. The headline doesn't do this
justice for some of the crazy headlines you'll get out there. I had a buddy come up to me
at work. He's like, dude, did you hear they found an Earth-like planet? Yeah, they found
an Earth-like planet. And I was like, what? They're like, yeah, they found life or whatever.
So I go and I find this article. And it's actually really interesting what it actually is. How
long is it? Pretty short? Yeah, it's pretty short. Yeah, so NASA's James Webb Space Telescope
measured the temperature of the Earth-like planet TRAPPIST-1b and found that it is too hot for
humans and likely has no atmosphere. Five years ago, NASA's infrared Spitzer Space Telescope
discovered a family of seven rocky exoplanets orbiting the same star known as TRAPPIST-1.
Now NASA's new infrared powerhouse, the James Webb Space Telescope, measured the temperature
of one of these worlds, Trappist-1b, in new research published in the journal Nature. The
bad news, the Earth-like planet is almost certainly uninhabitable. Astronomers used JWST's mid-infrared
camera called MIRI to look for the planet's thermal emission. Think heat-sensing terminator
vision. They found that TRAPPIST-1B is scorching, about 450 degrees Fahrenheit, 232 degrees Celsius,
about the temperature of an oven, and that it likely lacks an atmosphere. The discovery is
another record-breaking first for JWST, which has been steadily producing newsworthy results
since its launch. The first detection of any form of light emitted by an exoplanet is small,
or as small as the and as cool as rocky planets in our own solar system. NASA's official said
in the statement, no previous telescopes have ever had the sensitivity to measure such dim
mid infrared light. Oh no, this is what my friend came in and said. He came in and said, the
JWST saw lights coming from a planet. So he was like, dude, we found life. There's city
lights found, but it wasn't city lights. It was light from like an Aurora. Borealis effect.
Either that or like a volcano or some massive thing that happened. But it's the first time
we detected light being emitted from a planet outside of our solar system, which is pretty
cool. It is pretty cool, yeah. I'm fascinated by all the James Webb telescope images and
stuff. We'll probably put some in this episode too, just to show some of them off. That might
be a fun episode to do like a James Webb super episode, like assemble all the like crazy science
stuff that's come out of it. Oh yeah, yeah. That would be cool. Um, anyway. Nice. So not
city lights, but still light from another planet, which is cool. Unless they're just. Other type
of beings that can live in that. In the atmosphere, right? No atmosphere anyway, alright, so this
will let a chat GPT summarize the The episode here about the debate where we had on time.
Oh, okay. Maybe we do this and then we're at 20, you know, let's do this and Let's get the
topic introduced and then we'll take our first break there Okay Here's a summarized outline
of the key points from the debate between Graham Hancock and Flint Dibble on the Joe Rogan Podcast.
Introduction. Joe Rogan introduces the debate, expressing excitement and thanks to both guests
for participating. Flint Dibble introduces himself as an archaeologist focused on educating about
modern archaeological methods. Graham Hancock is recognized by Rogan as a frequent guest
who discusses alternative historical theories. Flint Dibble's opening remarks. Emphasizes
the role of archeologists in sharing accurate historical knowledge and correcting misconceptions
about the past. Explains the use of technology like LIDAR and data analysis in archeology,
showcasing how extensive the archeological records are, e.g. maps showing numerous surveyed sites.
Discusses the robustness of archeological data, including large databases of various archeological
finds across different regions and time periods. Debate on Graham Hancock's Lost Civilization
Hypothesis. Flint challenges Hancock's hypothesis of a lost advanced Ice Age civilization, arguing
there is no direct evidence or archeological consensus supporting this theory. Points out
the thorough work of archeologists in investigating human history and their openness to new evidence.
Highlights the rigorous methods used to date and understand ancient artifacts and sites,
disputing the likelihood of an undiscovered advanced civilization. Graham Hancock's response.
defends his hypothesis by discussing the limitations of archaeological exploration and the potential
for undiscovered sites, particularly underwater or in less explored regions. Questions the
completeness of archaeological studies in certain areas like the Sahara Desert and the Amazon
Rainforest, suggesting that undiscovered remains could still exist. Argues that certain underwater
structures and geological formations may be misinterpreted or not adequately studied for
signs of ancient human activity. The debate touches on various aspects such as the role
of new technology in archaeology, the impact of natural disasters on archaeological evidence,
and the interpretation of ambiguous structures. Both sides discuss the implications of recent
findings and technologies, like underwater archaeology and DNA analysis, which could potentially support
or refute Hancock's hypotheses in the future. Closing remarks. Both participants reiterate
their positions, with Flint emphasizing the importance of adherence to scientific rigor
in archaeology, and Hancock advocating for a broader interpretation of available evidence.
Rogan concludes the debate, thanking both guests for their contributions to a complex and intriguing
discussion. This outline captures the major themes and arguments presented during the podcast,
highlighting the contrast between established archaeological methods and alternative historical
interpretations proposed by Hancock. Well, thank you, Chad JBT. That was great. Yeah. Yes. It
was, I thought it was a good debate. It had its moments. There was times where it got kind
of personal. Yeah. There was times where both of them kind of... weren't representing themselves
well in my opinion. Yeah, so they got very defensive of themselves, which for Graham, my initial
thoughts after having listened to it for the first time, was that Graham came into this
a little bit more ready to fight and defend himself personally after being attacked since
the Netflix series. So he prepared slides and a presentation to, you know, combat those accusations
and to attack Flint in a way, because in his organization, so he can, he kind of came into
this ready to fight. Trying to like, he was ready for it to get personal and he wanted
to. Yeah, he wanted to talk about the drama between them. Yeah, yes. Because like Graham
talks about in the episode, let's just get this part out of the way, because it does get contentious.
And the vast majority of the argument was pretty amicable. They had a decent debate, but then
they started getting personal. So anyway, like. once it started getting contentious, Joe realized
it and needed him to take a break, chill out, talk about it a bit off mic, trying to calm
the situation a bit. And then they got the podcast off to a little bit more productive debating,
in my opinion, after that. After that, yeah. I feel like they both got a little bogged down
in going at each other for the. for kind of the first half of the whole thing. I will say,
I think Flint and all the people who contributed to the information that Flint was presenting
did a good job of presenting evidence that does directly, and sometimes indirectly, prove their
point that archeology knows a lot about the history. But it's still a narrative that they're
coming up with as far as like, what the evidence means. Yeah, so one of his main points was
that we do know a lot about the Ice Age, the pre-Younger Dryas times, and what we know is
that there were hunter-gatherers. Right. And we see it everywhere. Right. And... Graham
wasn't trying to dispute that. And I feel like it got really circular because he kept trying
to drive that point home. For a while there. No, we know. Like, it was almost as if he was
trying to accuse Graham of saying it wasn't hunter gatherers back then that existed. And
that's not what Graham actually says. Graham says that, you know, there, of course there
were hunter gatherers. There's hunter gatherers now. Yeah, yeah, which we've talked about in
the previous episode on Graham's theories. It's like he's mostly trying to get across the point
that there was a major shift in the technology and like the understanding of the world after
the ice age and not before the ice age. Right. Which is why a lot of this evidence is being
found after the ice age. Yeah. For agriculture, for advanced stone. monuments and all these
other things. Yeah. So there was some kind of transfer in his words, like the transfer of
technology. Yeah. I feel like Flint probably took. I don't know how he missed that point
that like, just because Graham thinks there was a civilization back there, that he's not
arguing that the hunter-gatherers weren't there. And so Flint spent a ton of his time arguing
the existence of hunter-gatherers, which was all kind of a waste because no one's saying
they weren't there, not even Graham. and they could be there and there could also be a bigger,
you know, a civilization, but. All right, well, before we dive too much more deep or too much
deeper into this, we'll take a quick break. Nope, and we will be back shortly. Shortly,
see you in a bit.
you
Welcome back!
I had to know for a minute. Or a split second, I mean. You passed by it. Ooh. You. There we
go.
So yeah. We're back. So yeah, we finished by going through that intro and giving our own
little takes on our impressions of the episode. Yeah, we were talking about, specifically when
we ended, we were talking about the. them kind of talking past each other. Well, I guess Flint
talking past Graham. Well, Graham, whichever way that goes. They kind of both did it to
each other. But Graham was pretty firm in making sure he wasn't being misquoted. And it was
pretty apparent in what Flint had to say and what he prepared for this. debate that he had
a specific narrative of what he believes Graham is all about. Right. Like they have this notion
that he specifically claims a specific culture that was that was highly advanced and had metallurgy
and like, you know, super advanced, all these things, like as if they were like some alien
race, you know, which. Or as if they were like modern humans. but
Yeah. Even modern humans with the kind of technology we have now. And so a lot of Flint's debate
and points he was making were kind of pointed in that direction of like, like we don't find
these things. It's like we would expect if there were a, an advanced culture that we would find
these proxies to, you know, show us that the evidence points to a lost ancient culture.
Right. But what Graham constantly brings it back to is the fact that he's not talking about
an advanced culture that has all the things we have now, technology and plastics and metals
and all these things, but they were advanced in their science and in their knowledge of
the universe. Of the stars. The stars. The procession. And the ability to move megalithic stones.
You know, and make them, you know, within a certain miniscule degree of true north and
whatever different projections. And this is kind of where Graham's strategy comes in. I'm
not sure if you ever heard him talk on sort of his strategy ever, but essentially what
I've heard him comment on before is like his job, He does not go nearly as far with his
claims as a lot of people in the alternative movement do. Will go, yeah. Right. So like,
he doesn't even like cover like Ben Van Kirkwik's stuff, like with the... Stone vases. With the
stone vases. I've never heard Graham focus on like the scooping technology, the scoop marks
and the quarries. Um, he, he's usually pretty conservative with what he actually puts forward.
What he claims. What he claims in his work. Yeah. Um, and I think he, he's commented that
he does that on purpose because his job is already big enough. The main thing, like the role he's
trying to play is to try and open up the lost civilization. The landscape. As a legitimate.
archaeological point to be contended with. Yeah, something that archaeologists should, there
should be some facet of archaeology that is allowed to explore these ideas and point their
money and grants towards these things without being shunned by the rest of the community
as if they're pseu And that's what's happened in the past. And they covered that a bit too,
of like the people who have been smeared. Mm-hmm smeared
me
But yeah, I mean I Don't know maybe we go to the go to the list of bullet points here, but
Well, their points were Flint mate was Flint making that actually I mean So you made a few
points that there was really point that I thought was really good And I thought it was his strongest
point of the entire debate And I honestly need to contend with it and think about it and maybe
do some further research to figure out the details of how extensive this is. But essentially one
of his big points was about the big data that archeologists employ by taking samples all
over the world from all the archeologists all over the world doing digs. They're able to...
I forget the name of the subdiscipline he mentioned, but it was essentially the study of, if you
take core samples and then you look at the different like stratigraphic layers in it, and you analyze
the pollen that's in that layer. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So they're able to tell from the genetic
details in the pollen in a layer, how prevalent. Um, agriculture is in a particular area. Yeah.
The agriculture debate definitely made sense in it. And it hit pretty, like it, it definitely
hit in a sensitive spot with Graham. You could tell because it was just like, I mean, he was
proving that before the ice age, there was, or during the ice age, there was no agriculture,
pollen samples. showing that there is no large scale agriculture going on in certain regions
based on their core samples being reported all over the world. And that's why I want to look
into it further because I have follow-up questions for that. If everything he said and the way
he portrays it is true, there's still follow-up questions, but essentially, so if you do analyze
the pollen, which pollen varieties are they analyzing? Which... crops show the types of
markers they're able to see in the pollen. And what's the data that they're basing it on?
Is it just the grass crops? What if whatever culture was pre-Ice Age, doing trees, happened
to know about keto, and had a low-carb diet and they weren't farming grasses? Sure. You
know, like... Sure, yeah. So, if it's just like the grasses they're able to see those markers
in, like, are they able to tell the prevalence? Are they able to see those same sorts of markers
in like, in fruit trees or in? Or yeah, is it everything or is it specific, specific groups?
Right, what if they were mostly carnivores and they were mostly using livestock? Like, is
there an analog to the pollen sample for livestock keeping, animal husbandry? Probably not. I
don't, I mean, I don't know, right? Like it, The idea of sampling all over the world and
looking at pollen, another follow-up question is, what sites along the world have they sampled?
Are there big gaps? Have they sampled in the Amazon? Have they sampled in the Sahara? He
says they did a bunch off the coast. Off what coast? Like, what is the coverage, right? And
then another follow-up question is, what is the range? Right. So like, I know pollen can
travel really far because it's really tiny little molecules, but that has to go into like, there's
all these different factors. Like there's the, the wind patterns and where they're going to
land and all these different things that affect that. So if it's at a certain point and a certain
type of pollen that you're looking at, doesn't necessarily mean that, you know, behind that
wind current, there's not something other data that's going to tell you something completely
different. Right. Yeah. So. And the other thing is, have they studied the effects of cataclysms
on the different markers they're looking for? So what type of difference would a younger
dryus cataclysm have on the markers they look at? How could it affect the data? Could it
affect the survivability of the pollen?
Wheat and the markers that they look at and how they talk about this scar like the weak
yeah, yeah into like a strong form and like How let me recap that for the listeners. So
what his point was with wheat is that? Wheat is a grass, right? And so you got the shaft
and then you got like the stock at the top, right? Yeah, or the sheaf or whatever, right?
and That's the thing with the seed pod on it. And the way it attaches to the stock of the
plant, there's this little piece. And that piece in wild grasses is designed to not be able
to undergo much physical stress. If an animal walks by and knocks into it, it's designed
for that piece that keeps the seed pod attached to the stem. It's designed to break. So that
it can drop those seeds, hopefully get some on the animal that's crossing by so the animal
can move and take those seeds with them. Right. That's how wild grasses function and propagate
and spread. But what he said is that as soon as humans start to Start to do agriculture.
There's I missed the mechanism for this one, but apparently there's like an automatic mechanism
evolutionarily so that just the act of taking grasses and planting them causes the grasses
to switch to a mutation where the piece that connects to the sheaf to the stock doesn't
break. It's more hardy. Yeah. That is more desirable for human farming. The mechanism that he described
was basically just a genetic mutation that a small percentage of the plants had. Already
have anyway. And so when humans start to harvest, or not harvest, but plant, they start to remove
the seeds and plant them in new grasses. That genetic mutation when planted in an unfamiliar
soil. And the ones with the tougher attachment will survive at a higher rate. Because they
can hang onto their... And also larger seed varieties will as well. So you take a bunch
of seeds from one field and then you use them to plant another field. And you usually drop
more than one seed in an area like you're dropping a bunch. And so they're competing for resources.
And there's a phenomenon with plants where usually the bigger seeds grow faster. And so the bigger
seeds... have a natural selection when they're planted together in a monocrop situation where
the biggest seeds will end up growing faster. And so their plants will survive where the
small ones won't. Because you already have. And so it puts a selection pressure for the
seeds to get bigger and bigger and bigger. Which is more desirable for humans anyway. Exactly,
because humans want the thing that's gonna grow the fastest. whether they're specifically targeting
it or because they're growing faster, they're just taking those seed pods quicker and replanting
them, making those genetics move forward. Whereas the other ones who are born late, maybe they
just, instead of planting them, they take those to consume themselves, right? They just, they
take them or they. And so those will they just pass on. They just won't survive next to the
more viable ones. Right. They'll take all the resources and so. Yeah. Right. So it's fascinating
how that happens. Yeah. And that's a really cool argument is essentially like, and that's
something I learned on this podcast, which I found fascinating, which is that just the act
of planting, of taking seeds from a plant and planting it and then taking seeds and planting.
Just the act of doing that without doing any breeding, any like human manipulation or selection.
Some kind of splicing or something. That automatically will start to put pressure on the plant to
grow the strong connection and to have bigger seeds. So over time, just the act of planting
on its own will generate bigger seeds. And he talked about how long it takes. Which is thousands
of years. You start to see the markers for it within about 150 years, where it jumps up to
a level where you can see. But after about a thousand years, you can see almost 90 percent
over 90 percent of the of the genetic or of the genetic variability of the plants in there
or have this genome to create these big seeds. And so that's super fascinating. And I find
it. like really like I'd love that there are archaeologists out there studying the world
this way so but to caveat that is they follow that whole segment with Joe asking a really
good question is if those same domesticated plants were left without human intervention
for thousands of years again how long would it take them to revert? To revert to a feral
plant. How long would it take? And he said that there is work being done, and the plants do
revert to a feral state after being domesticated. Which he can only assume would also take thousands
of years. He could assume that, yeah. They haven't done it for thousands of years, obviously.
And wouldn't you know that? The younger dryus is 1200 years long. Yep. that's already 1200
of the thousands of years you need. Right. Plus however long into the ice age it took for the
agriculture to actually start. Plus whatever happened up in the lead up before the onset
of the younger dry ice. Yep. And like, so still making the assumptions that people were using
grains. Well, and that people were large scale, using agriculture as if like there's not some
like. slow process of introducing people to this, right? So if you were to go into a new
place who's thriving, right? You're going from a place more north or more south where the
ice caps are during the ice age or before the ice age, and you're bringing this knowledge
of agriculture from your society, right? You bring it down to these people who are in tropic
weather and they have large abundance of food. They have animals, they have all the things
they need. And even if you just introduce the idea, that doesn't mean instantaneously, they're
going to stop gathering and hunting for their main source. Sure. They might dabble in it
and you even see a 20 to 30% spike between the beginning, like fully wild plants and domestication
because even Like you were saying before, when you walk by a wheat field and that seed drops
on an animal, that's going to have the same effect over time. If the same animals or more
animals are traveling in that direction and they plant, they take the season, they plant
them in a new place and that happens. So regularly it's going to have the same effect as humans
doing that. Because it's the same idea, right? You're, you're not necessarily if they're the
ones that break off, the ones that break off. that will select for the ones that break off
to be propagated. It's the ones that don't break off that humans are responsible for propagating.
It's not saying that they can't break off. It's just saying that they're stronger. Right. And
they have the genetic mutation. It's not even that they were stronger at the time. They had
the genetic mutation within them. So even the first wild crops that were taken by humans,
A lot of them were weak stocks that would fall off easily, but they had the genetic marker
within them to be able to morph. Well, think about it. If you got a cart or you're dragging
a bunch of stuff with you and say you have a bundle of wheat that you're taking with you
to plant somewhere, as you're traveling and the shaking, a bunch of those weak stocks are
going to fall and drop and not make it to where you're going to do your planting. Right. But
he was saying specifically... Even the act of transporting him will weed out some of the
weak stocks. Some of it, yeah. But that's why there's this long period is because it's not
an instantaneous thing because you still have these weak stocks who are the more abundant
ones. And even the weak stocks are the ones who have the genetic variability to be able
to morph. once transported and planted into a new place. No, no. What he was saying is
that in that grass population, there's a certain percentage of them that have this mutation
and a certain percentage that have the other mutation. And so a certain number have the
weak and a certain number have the stronger. Oh, I see. So it wasn't. OK. I misunderstood
that then. Yeah. But I mean, I think those are all good points. But. again, those follow-up
questions that I stated. Like, I just don't know. I want, I would like to learn more about
it. Like, how fully covered do they have this? Yeah. For the polliners, specifically. Because
unless they're covering all the different, like, food sources, it's not necessarily an open
and shut case. And it also assumes, like, mono-cropping, big farming, which we know... Well, we have
suggestions based on the Amazon and the Amazon dark earths and the different sorts of crop
manipulations that have happened in the jungle there that maybe some of those underserved
areas had a different idea of how to do this farming thing in the first place. And so maybe
you wouldn't see the same sort of effects. I mean, if they truly. So Graham doesn't claim
that they're this advanced, but after you check out the Uncharted X stuff on the vases that
are mathematically precise and all the precision tooling that they can do that some of it we
can't do, once you have the bigger picture that Graham's not putting forward, that they actually
are actually probably quite advanced. Right. It makes sense that they would have a different
approach to farming. Yeah. And maybe their early agriculture phase where you would be able to
find that evidence is just even further back in time. And that the archaeologists don't
look that back that far for that evidence because they don't expect to find the results. Yeah.
And if you go by a lot of these myths of ancient culture being destroyed and you know, a few
people settling amongst the get hunters and gatherers and propagating their knowledge and,
you know, exchange of knowledge to help them survive. Like, and then there's all these other,
you know, things of people back then being different, you know, slightly different from us and having
a different, like a slightly different genetic makeup. Like going into the weeds a bit on
this whole theory, like they like a thousand years could have, like they could have survived
that. Like they're all on their own, right? With the help of the hunter gatherers. So the
amount of time for the prior domesticated plants to die off and become wild again is, is very
real. And he kind of ignores that and Graham doesn't really press them on it. The fact that
the younger dries happened over a long period of time. And that society, that, that society.
that he's claiming could have been destroyed and all the agriculture could have been reverted
back into wild plants by that time. But even, and then with the idea that once you do propagate,
it's still gonna take thousands of years from them to figure it out and re-domesticate because
they're using the local plants. So wherever that culture was, they had a different local
plant that they were using, that whether it was wiped out or not, it has already been reverted
back to wild because they're no longer in that. local area until the ice recedes until you
can get back into that area a thousand years later or whatever. Right, right. So yeah, even
with the pollen you would expect to find evidence of domesticated plants in that region, but
if you're not looking in the region where those societies may have lived, and they might have
lived underwater, all the stuff that you could possibly want to date. or dew could be underwater
and just be gone. Yeah, I mean, we've had 400 feet of ocean rise since the Younger Dryas.
And they spell out. Not all of that was in the Younger Dryas, but a good 200 to 300 feet of
it was in the immediate Younger Dryas event. Yeah. And then the rest of that was over time.
Yeah. But 400 feet of ocean level is a ton of new land. Yeah. And Graham kept pressing him
on, yeah, like how much actual ocean archeology you do. And Flint was like, Flint tried to
make the point. Yeah. Well, so Graham talks about this a lot in his books. He's like, there
is ocean archeology that happens, but like 95% of it is all dedicated to shipwrecks. Yeah.
100%. 95%. And so Graham's point is there's not enough just pure archeology for archeology
sake happening underwater on any of these continental shelves. Whereas Flint kind of inverts that
point and says, yeah, but we're looking for a lot of stuff when we look at these shipwrecks.
We're taking all sorts of sampling and we're, we are building a picture of the past through
these shipwrecks as well. To a certain point. Right. He also made a point that I thought
was interesting, which is that, um, what water and catastrophes are potentially good at preserving
things. Right. So he argues, right. He argues like, for instance, Vesuvius, like because
of the Vesuvius eruption, we have a perfectly preserved city. under the ash that we're able
to do archaeology on. Right. Yeah, he says that cataclysms and destruction are actually the
friend, a friend to archaeology because it perfectly preserves a lot of these sites. Right. And
they're eventually abandoned. Right. He gives another analogy of like, like if a, or example,
like if a nuclear bomb goes off, right, like everything within like the immediate range
is going to get fried, right? but everything further out that still can't survive in that
area and has to leave, like they're gonna drop everything and leave. And now that's a whole
bunch of shit in the area that no one's gonna touch and it's gonna just start having stuff
accumulate over it and it's gonna be preserved to be found later. And that's a good point.
But I don't think...
I don't get the impression he takes the scale of the cataclysm seriously at all. Yeah. Because
he, well, he also just doesn't think the Younger Dryas was a cataclysm. Right. That's what I
gathered. He doesn't specifically say that. He doesn't. But he definitely infers that.
But he's referring to the rebuttal articles against the YDIH theory, the Younger Dryas
impact hypothesis. And the those articles I've gone over them. I've read them and I've I not
particularly impressed They seem to just be calling out the entire comment research group
as like people who can't tell the difference between little pieces of poop and carbon microspherules
Like literally they said a bunch of these are just insect poop And I have a hard time taking
an accusation like that seriously when you have a group of 60 credentialed scientists from
universities all over the world with high experience. These aren't just like, this isn't a bunch
of Graham Hancocks making this argument. Right, yeah. It's not a bunch of journalists going
around and collecting evidence. These are the people doing the research.
And the fact that we live near the, you know, we have the interaction with the, the Comet
group twice a year. The what's the name of the tour and media stream. Yeah. We are in contact
with that twice a year, you know, whether they come to our app and within our atmosphere or
not. We go through that twice a year. Mm hmm. And it just. I mean, eventually something's
going to happen. Right. Like, it's just that simple, really. Things happen. And he's not
even claiming that it's going to happen again at the same magnitude or that there's some
conspiracy around it or anything. He's just saying there's myths about it around the world
from multiple cultures. They talk about these similar stories.
Flint gets into like that, or Graham wants to defend him like about all the being racist
and all that stuff. Yeah. And how he cites a bunch of- That's a whole can of worms and we
should cover that, but let's hit this next break. Okay. And then we'll jump into some of that
drama before getting back to some of the more interesting points. Alrighty, we'll be back.
Your cleabag.
And... Where were we?
see I don't know where we were oh yeah I know where we were we were just about to talk about
the like personal drama there yes yeah so the shots fired yeah so after ancient apocalypse
Graham Hancock's series which if you haven't seen it what are you doing yeah stop and go
watch that
He started getting articles written about him and potshots fired. And there was a archeological
organization of which Flint is a part that wrote to Netflix, requesting it to be reclassified
as science fiction rather than as documentary. And that's the SAA, that's the South American
archeologists. That's the group I think. I don't remember what the exact organization was. I
think that's right. OK. We'll fact-check ourselves. Fact-check ourselves. That's a tongue-twister
for me. Well, you fact-check us. Or we can ask GPT. Let's do it. What was the archaeological
organization that wrote to Netflix to have Graham Hancock's episode reclassified as science fiction?
This is much slower than reading an entire episode and giving us your summary. The organization
that wrote to Netflix to have Graham Hancock's series reclassified as science fiction was
the Society for American Archaeology, SAA. They expressed concerns about the presentation of
Hancock's theories as factual and argued that his views, which challenge established archaeological
understanding without substantial evidence, should be categorized under fiction rather
than documentary. This was part of a broader discussion about how media platforms should
handle content that presents alternative theories on historical and scientific subjects Right
and Netflix was like yeah F off. No, this is We're gonna keep it which good for them But
Anyway as part of that whole thing there was something that I think it was an interview
Wasn't it an interview that he did? Flint Dibble, he did with a journalist who reached out to
him after Graham Hancock had announced that they were going to be doing this debate on
Joe Rogan's podcast. So that's an important point. It is valid in the sense of he wouldn't
have normally had access to journalists who are doing a story. They're not coming after
Flint Dibble to get the hottest outside of the fact that now Graham Hancock, who's pretty
well known now that he is a Netflix documentary and He's been on Joe Rogan this many years
already been prolific, but that blew him up again And so the announcement of that brought
people their attention to Flynn Dibble and he made a statement right and the statement was
like to the effect of that Graham should be separating himself or acknowledging differences
of opinion with the sources that he quotes. Right. He should be verbally and like prolifically
like exclaiming that he denounces their views, but still is using their claims. He's essentially
saying if Graham Hancock's going to quote the
And, you know, fair enough, I guess, he does denounce the Spaniards plenty in his work.
Right, if you take him out of context in a certain quote he's making from somebody who- I mean,
as someone who's taken in almost everything Graham Hancock has ever written, like, he has
no love for the Spaniards. He does not portray them as good guys in history. He complains
about them quite a lot. He blames them for a lot of the destruction of the knowledge of
the Americans. Yep. And that's taking them out of context, because you're taking a quote from
a specific thing just the same way they don't like being misquoted. It's all these misquoting
going back and forth. And that's where a lot of this contention comes from. And it's a lot
of this misunderstanding and human tendencies to want to smear your opposition. So like kind
of the way even he portrayed himself as wording it to the journalist was still like I thought
was a low blow and not a fair point. Like, I'm sorry. Like if you've ever actually read Graham's
stuff, like he does not.
like to himself, like he does not agree with all the sources he quotes. He doesn't claim
to, he does criticize them a lot. He does point out when he has a source, like there's a couple
like scientists he's worked with and talked about certain things with, and they may have
a crackpot theory in a different part of their research, but he will say, I'm not interested
in that. I'm talking to them about this. Right. When they say this, I don't agree with that
or I'm not associated with that. I don't have any interest in that. And what I'm really asking
them is this, and this is the answer I'm asking them about. So, right. Like with Robert Shock
and the- Accepting all of their views because he's interviewing them. Right. Like with Robert
Shock and the Sphinx stuff, like he uses Robert Shock's evidence to talk about the Sphinx dating.
But he also doesn't agree with Robert Schock's view that this is all solar induced. Right.
Or that Robert Schock on Yonaguni, I think it was, that underwater site, he doesn't agree
with Graham. And Graham's like, OK, that's fine. But I still, like, your point on this is valid.
And I could see that being misconstrued as like, cherry picking or only picking Robert Shock
stuff when it agrees with your narrative. Yeah. But at the same time he does, and I don't know
that Robert Shock's commenting on it because I'm sure he's more tight lipped since a lot
of this media that's probably come his way since Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock and all that.
But I can imagine him just- I could imagine this big archaeology like they alluded to,
having a narrative and wanting him to stay within it. And that's where his grants are, that's
where his livelihood is. And he went on a few dives with Graham to Yonaguni. And this is
all Graham telling a story of what happened. You don't hear Robert Shock say this, but he
was agreeing that it was a manmade site. but later said that he changed his mind. Yeah.
So. For the public appearance of it anyway. Right. That's the whole thing. Like, you might
agree in personal, but your personal can't be crossed over into your professional when you're
in archeology, when you're in government-funded research, or you're in. Whatever kind of research
where however, it's funded There's political views and there's all these different agendas
and they're looking for this and this And they don't want to hear anything about that and
that you know, yeah the other thing though like to be more fair to Flint's point is what he
was kind of specifically talking about that he disagreed with Graham on is his kind of
coverage of the whole Quetzalcoatl character. Oh, right. And he brings on a specific person
to talk about it, right? They made sense. A lot of that made sense. Yeah. And they're essentially
saying that the modern understanding is now that the Spaniards essentially some of the
native beliefs once they arrived, they kind of forced them to change and made them more
like white centric. And so the whole like legend that Quetzalcoatl was like some pale, like
other lander who came in is probably not what the natives actually thought before the Spaniards
arrived. Their idea of it was much different, I'm sure. Right, and that our impression of
that is just the impression we get handed down by the Spaniards who reported back on what
the native beliefs were. True. And so that those essentially- And it almost like a self-prophesizing
thing. Right. Right, it's like the Spaniards telling them, oh, they believe that this, you
know, like they believe that I am a God. Yeah. And if I go down, back down there, they're,
you know, like- Right. And so, you know, maybe Graham does have to update his sources there
because I would take the like native understanding more seriously than I would take the Spaniards.
Right. Like, that's why it's so disappointing that we lost all that knowledge when the Spaniards
burned everything because we lost our ability to like, Learn about what their culture was
fully about. Right. So as close to the sources you can get if they have a difference of opinion
I mean, I guess you would I would take them more seriously probably Yeah, so but that's
the thing if you read Graham's work and if Graham like contends with that idea I don't think
it's important to Graham the color of the skin of the people who come and share civilization,
right if the character is still the same and the overriding narrative is still the same
like who Here's what they look like. What they look like. And he's essentially accusing Graham
of saying that these cultures' great accomplishments were not due to them. They were due to some
outsider. And that is racist. Yeah, he's taking away the power from them. It's like perpetuating
problematic views. And then the journalist, he gave that interview to turn that into some
straight up woke like journalistic article. And then there was a whole blow up like that
went directed towards Graham and that really like messed with Graham's head. Because that's-
I mean, he's been doing this for his entire life. A racist person at all. He's not a racist
person. And he does attribute certain cultural backgrounds to facial features when he talks
about those old meg heads found in- South America. And him and Joe talk about it. And basically
Flint was just like, look, this is not how the science is done on these things. And he basically
just kept with the woke idea of maintaining order in the overall narrative that is supposed
to be pushed by the government agency. Yeah, whatever might be. Whereas Graham is trying
to look at the carvings, look at what they look like, analyze them and compare them against
what we see out there in the world. And it is true that different cultures from different
parts of the world have different prominences of different features. There are looks to different
facial structures that are associated more with this or that nationality or race. It's just
part of human diversity. Or the mixing of everything in the variety. I don't think it's racist to
look at what features are portrayed on a statue if they happen to coincide with features of
human population groups. What's racist about that? Yeah, we're just observing. It's the
PC kind of mentality of it all, just trying to keep it out of their lane. you know, as
an archaeologist, he doesn't want to have to comment on those things, especially in the
highly contentious world. Yeah, and I get that. Like today's environment is kind of a terrifying
one. Like if, you know, if distance himself from it, if you're any sort of scientist in
the past who studied like racial traits of humans and then this culture war breaks out, like
you've got to be very careful with anything you say. Yeah. Absolutely. And you don't want
to, it's probably highly advantageous for other disciplines to just keep their distance. And
there's weird moral arguments. Sure. And I get it. You don't necessarily want a bunch of scientists
and lab codes trying to pick apart the differences between people. Which, what are the outcomes
of that going to be probably not good for some people? And because Graham and Joe are commentators
on the establishment and the pop culture and all these things. Like they are louder voices.
Like they are able to just say what is true and like say they're, you know, without having
to maintain this, you know, narrative or culture. And you know, Graham isn't claiming to know
what the truth is. He's just suggesting like this is. This means more research. Fascinating
stuff. He never claimed himself to be an archaeologist. He claims himself to be a journalist. No, he
praises archaeologists too. And he praises archaeologists in a large way in a lot of his works. Yeah,
so much of the show was taken up by that. That was a little disappointing to me. I would have
liked them to spend more time on substantive issues. Especially with agriculture specifically.
They did get into Gobegli Tepe and stuff a bit. We were dancing around it a bit when we were
talking about the Neolithic period of humans and the Stone Age people. Yeah. I don't recall.
What was Flint's disagreement on the Quebec Lake Tepe? He was basically claiming that there
was no agriculture and there was no evidence of agriculture, but Graham kept citing Abu
Huarera, which I believe is nearby. I can't remember how far it is. Yeah. nearby in the
region. And Graham is basically just saying that there's agriculture nearby and it's from
even before Gobekli Tepe. Or it's younger than Gobekli Tepe. But Gobekli Tepe dates back to
farthest in the region I believe. And Graham is basically just saying that there's, you
know, signs of them being technologically advanced in the, in the way that they're able to move
these stones and especially back then, like what makes it so that they have enough time
to do these things as being, you know, hunter gatherers. Well, also we're still at the very
beginning of excavating. Oh, go back to Tepe even itself. Even go back to Tepe itself. But
like the entire area is strewn with these things that have not been excavated yet. Right. And.
Karahan Tepe and there's all the other Tepe's. I tend to side with Graham Hancock with the
attitude that scientists have. Sure. Like I just it comes off as arrogant when they state
things. So adamantly. Yeah. They're careful. They don't exactly state things for a fact.
They all just say, no, this is the theory. It's just adamant. This is what the evidence is
for. Right. This is our newest theory, latest version 7000. I just wish the attitude in science
was more, as long as we don't know for sure which of a thing is correct. we should be looking
at both and taking both seriously. Even if one is statistically more significant than the
other, we should still be taking them both seriously. Maybe they don't get the same amount of funding,
but that doesn't mean you ignore the one that is statistically less significant. You just,
you know? And specifically, if you're talking about like, archaeologists who are independent
and they're amateur, sure, they're amateur, but they still... are working in that field,
right? And they're still finding things. Archaeology complains about funding all the time. They
should instead try and incorporate the amateurs and the pseu And we need, I think we're getting
into a generation. I took a couple of screenshots from this where Flint popped up a couple of
YouTube channels for archeology on YouTube. And there's a bunch of these different channels.
So I took a screenshot. I wanna check some of them out. I've checked out. I've seen at least
a couple of those. Yeah, I've seen a couple of them. But yeah, I think there's a good list.
And then they also, there's some podcasts. It'd be fascinating to actually hear what our daily
is saying on a daily basis. Almost every one I do see of those, and I haven't watched all
those channels, I would like to go through that list too and see if I can find someone who's
kind of respectful with what they disagree on. But a lot of them just come off as arrogant,
man. They really, really. try to lay on the ad hominins and they talk crap and they talk
down and they ridicule and that I just I don't care if your points are good if you're coming
at me with that attitude like I have a hard time listening and taking you seriously. Yeah.
You know? Yeah. I mean, if I'm looking at someone with that attitude and someone with Graham
Hancock's attitude. You know, like I know Graham Hancock's not right on everything. That's fine.
But like he's open-minded and he's exploring interesting ideas. You are arrogant and preaching
to me and telling me what is right and wrong when you don't clearly don't know. We have
so much left to learn. Yep. There's so much more of the world to discover and deeper and
deeper, right? Like, you know, things move, things change, things layer up. And maybe we're
just not going deep enough for truly distant ancestor that lived 400,000 years ago. Like
the pre, you know, the pre, like the onset of the, I guess what is it, 200 and some thousand
years ago that the modern humans come about? Is it back to 400? It's back to like three
or four, yeah. So it's at least 300, but I think it's further back. Yeah, I mean, what's to
say that they're the same, like anatomically modern humans way back then. They have our
brain structure, they have our abilities, whatever that might be. And 400,000 years is a long
time when we're talking about within the last couple thousand years how much we've progressed.
And just because they're new, they would still use the environment the similar way we would.
So why couldn't there be multiple iterations of humans being on? on earth where they go
through these periods of like great wealth and then they're brought down because the earth
is going to do what the earth does over hundreds of thousands of years anything can happen or
tens of thousands of years every you know every epoch and you just have to assume that you
know so much in order to like be confident that couldn't have happened. And I know this sounds
like a circular backwards argument. This is not an argument for why it's true. This is
just an argument for why you shouldn't dis- like you shouldn't fight people for even having
the idea. The opinion, yeah. Yeah. Or just trying to pursue studying it. Sure. You know? Yeah,
that's just not going to do anybody any good. All it's going to do is just cause contention
and- I think some of it too comes from like a sort of competition for resources amongst
scientists, you know? Yeah, there's limited grant money. They see something out there getting
grant money, right? And they get up in arms because they think they should be funded, not
that person over there studying pseudo-archaeology. Right, right. You know? I mean, Graham probably
still has more resources than Flynn Dibble even. I mean, as an individual probably, but I'm
sure Flint has access. I mean, he's to a different level of art to it. Right. I think through
his grants, he probably has access to the type of money that he needs to employ the types
of tools he needs to do his work as an archaeologist. Yeah. And his work's more pointed at whatever
his subject is. So, yeah, whereas that money goes a lot further. Yeah. And what Graham is
doing with such a wide net. Yeah. But I think it was a good debate, though. The Egypt stuff
was interesting, the Bathe Sphinx. Flint just basically discounts archaeo astronomy. Not
necessarily totally full cloth, but like. that almost all of the alignments and weirdness
about the pyramids and the connection with Orion and the Sphinx and the connection with Leo,
he just basically says no. He doesn't really give his reason why, he just says no. Well
his main reason why is because he knows how it did happen and that's not it. It happened
a lot earlier or a lot more recently. Yeah. And under different circumstances. He says
there's no evidence of Egyptians employing any advanced tooling or anything. And that's where
like, I wish Graham had someone like Ben with him. Because I would love to Ben, but I would
love for Ben to be there to hop in and be like well actually and just pop out and do his slides
because But I think I don't what could he say to a lot of that evidence I do some of those
vases are like paper thin and you could shine a light through them. Yeah, they're translucent
They're made out of like fragile hard granite You have to have so much precision to not break
that well specifically that one vase that like It's got, it's got, so it looks like it's lathe,
except for the fact that there's these two handles on the side of it. And don't make it a smooth
surface. Right. So those two handles that are on the side of it that are cut out of the same
piece of stone, they make it so you couldn't lathe turn to cut that. So if we were going
to manufacture today, the only way we can get the accuracy of the levels in the planes that
it has is to use our 5D printing machines and 5D like grinders and cutters, laser technology
and shit, space age stuff to get that level of accuracy across all of the different planes
with the curves and like. You know, like it looks so smooth that it could have been laid,
but you know it couldn't be because those handles would have been cut off if it was laid. Yeah,
unless the laid was a laser moving over the surface turning larger. So yeah, going on and
off it in certain areas, like to make it a certain shape. Right. Three dimensional. And there's
that paper that Ben covers that essentially makes that argument. There's like the computer
scientist, a cryptographer guy who analyzes it and shows all the mathematics. that is written
and he shows that there's a formula you can write that represents that shape. And he makes
the conclusion that you would need a Turing machine, a computer, AKA in order to create
it. Or sound, using sound. Yeah, well some sort of computation technology. It doesn't have
to be like silicon chips. There's lots of ways to make computation happen. Anyway. Yeah. I
thought Flint was a little weak on the Egypt stuff. He basically cited that the stones found
that built the Sphinx were found from a nearby quarry or something. It's like, OK. I don't
know that he dated it. I don't know that he could have dated it anyway. No, well, what
he was saying is that some of the other stuff built near the Sphinx was built with stones
cut from the Sphinx. Oh, right. Because the Sphinx, they had to remove a bunch of rock
to make it. The Sphinx is cut out of bedrock. So all of the rock they had to remove in order
to create the Sphinx, some of those rocks are part of other constructions. And by that and
those constructions, they do have dates on because people leave organic material between the blocks
and stuff and they can, you know, carbon date a lot of stuff that way. But you can't carbon
date the stone. And you can't tell when that stone was put there, in that position where
you found it. No, you can. So if you put a stone down, and then there's like pollen and other
carbonate matter, and then you put another stone on top, you're sealing organic matter in there
that you can then later carbon date. Sure, but what about when it's laying around some rocks?
So you can tell when a stone got put on a stone. But you can't tell, you can't date the stone.
That doesn't tell you when the stone was quarried. That's what I mean, yeah. That's what I mean,
is like, even though you're getting that date, that's just when those two rocks were sat on
top of each other. Right. That doesn't tell you how long ago it sat on the side of a quarry
ready to be put in place. And we also know that the Egyptians were notorious for reusing stone.
Yes, they would. They moved multiple times. Right, right. So. Not all of the dates are
as solid as they claim they are. So just because you can date some stone that comes from the
Sphinx enclosure, that doesn't date the Sphinx. Because you can date when that stone got in
that temple, but that doesn't tell you. What happened before that when the Sphinx was cut
it doesn't mean the Sphinx was cut right as that stone went there, right? It didn't go
straight from there to there like it sat around somewhere It could have been sitting in a lot
of years thousands of years. Yeah, I used exactly But or it could have been in multiple different
structures and made it with its way around, you know Yeah, every time leaving a different
marker, but it was found there, right? so Make sense. I didn't think he was super strong on
that Yeah, I don't think he was prepared for it. I don't think he was as prepared for that,
because I don't know how much research he's done on that himself. And then he just straight
up asserts that no geologists say that's not weathering, that's not water erosion on the
Sphinx enclosure. Just dismissing it. Joe's like, well, I've heard a lot of geologists
say it is. And he's like, well, not most of them. And he's like, well, how many? Graham,
how many geologists do you think? And he's like, I've heard a lot of geologists say that's water
erosion. And the guy's like, no. It's like, come on. If you're a geologist out there, look
at the weathering on the Sphinx enclosure and tell us if it's water erosion. Yeah, please
write to us. We want to know for sure. Unless we just got to go there, read a manual about
water erosion on that specific type of stone. Yeah, right. And then. We'll do it ourselves.
Yeah, I think it's a pretty good argument that it's water erosion. Yeah, yeah. Because people
who say it's not, they don't really have a good argument. Like, how are they saying it happened
then? Because it's not sand. Sand looks different. Yeah, I think they just dismiss it as being
like a longer period or shorter period of time or something, I don't know. That would be the
only thing they could really say. It's how long it lasted or something. Yeah. How long the
rain and like flood lasted. Yeah, and then Flint was like, you know the one time I went to Egypt?
It was raining.
And then he's like, sometimes a little bit of rain does way more than a lot of rain as far
as erosion goes. And maybe he's right, but that doesn't sound right. Doesn't sound right. That
doesn't sound right. Doesn't sound right at all. No. He definitely did make it clear that
he wasn't a geologist. That's true. Yeah. I don't know. I don't think he was totally prepared.
I loved his His Agriculture stuff. I thought it was super fascinating. I want to know more
about it. Yeah, I Would love to hear more about that. I think it's cool that they can do that
I want to hear more if they can, you know determine what kind of right what kind of What are they
looking for? Where are they finding it and what species? Because he named it as a particular
field. And if it's a new burgeoning field, I hope it really takes off because that technique
sounds super powerful. If you could take a worldwide survey and just go back in time as deep as
you can, in a number of places all over the globe and. like the way you do science with
like the ice core layers in Greenland, you do that with the pollen layers and just, it's
just a big neutral project doing the data on it. You know, kind of like the human genome
project where they're just analyzing the human genome, right? That would be cool. And you
just do this as a big project and let the data speak for itself because you might find that
you see some agriculture pop up in places that you wouldn't have expected. I just don't. What?
What that was that was my watch maybe your watch yeah this phone Yeah, maybe lose my point to
We were talking about the. Oh, yeah, so if you make it like a big project like the ice cores
are like the human genome project I just think yeah, you'll probably see Yeah, that's where
I was going. I was saying like modern, I just don't know what that science, how distributed
their samples are, how deep in the layers are they going. Like are they only going back to
a certain place, like maybe halfway through the last Ice Age. Or maybe they're not going
back far enough to catch early enough in civilization where they would see primitive farming like
we do now. Yeah, I wonder how deep you would have to go for that. Because you would think
if there was an advanced civilization before the Ice Age. It would have to have been like
30,000 years ago. Well, they would have to have their own history of advancing. Yeah. Right?
So for us, we got from Stone Age to Information Age in 4,000 or 5,000, 6,000 years.
advanced before the Ice Age or during the Ice Age, like they would have to have their own
development history and maybe theirs goes back even longer. And so maybe they're just not
looking far enough in the past to find the pollen evidence. Yeah. And maybe this was a slow decline
of their civilization and still by the end of it, there was people left that eventually settled
and became a part of the people who were living indigenously at the time. I just think if they
actually were advanced, maybe they knew how to live with the earth a little better so they
didn't leave all the footprints that we leave, you know? And not even the same footprints
as the country gatherers. Like we all imagine that every day. It's not that hard to imagine
to manage, you know, in a different way. What more in tune with the earth way is there to
live than like being a master of stone and being able to like... take gigantic stones and use
them as permanent structures that keep themselves cool. You don't need air conditioning. Yeah.
You know? Yeah. That's a good point. Like that's actually pretty amazing. That's more badass
than what we got. Right. Because they're using the earth directly without making all these
synthetic stuff to like manipulate it and using plastics and all these other things. These
bio-carbonates and stuff. Right. They don't go. They don't have to deal with inhaling insulation
dust when they crawl through their attic. Yep, exactly. They just figured it out while using
the materials that were there. So when a destruction happens, you're gonna have just artifacts of
probably antiquities. Yeah. The other thing that's really convincing to me, and I would
love someone like Flint to deal with it, is the points that the Brothers of the Serpent.
did in their Egypt presentation. Oh yeah. Where like. Yeah they covered like a lot of the block
smoothing and the scoop marks and then. And especially the evidence that like the reason
why there's so many blocks that go around corners is because they would build the blocks oversized
and then shave them back. Which if that is in fact the case that is. such a massive undertaking
that is not something you do with copper age technology. And the amount of times they've
done it. Yeah. In different areas. That's something you do because you just. It's an absolute necessity.
It's not hard for you to do it or you know. Yep. Either it's not hard for you to do it
or it's an engineering project and you need precision, right? Yeah. It's built for some
specific reason. It has certain specs, right?
So fascinating. Mm-hmm. All right, well, I think we should make this a little bit of a shorter
one this time. Drew's got some stuff going on in the morning. Gotta get up early. So, we
will be back next time, I think, with some more Secret History. Yep. And then, I think we also
have Reincarnation coming up.
So there's a little tease. If you enjoyed the show today, leave us a like and a thumbs up
on or leave us a like. Hit subscribe on YouTube. Comment, email. Comment, let us know your thoughts
on the topics. us in the chat on Facebook or Instagram. You can always find show notes for
every episode on our website, dualitycheck.net, slash whatever the episode number is. Any podcast
platform you like pretty much now, right? All right, y'all. See you next time.
Thanks for watching!
you
Thanks for watching!
Bye!