Graham Hancock on the JRE.

The first time Graham Hancock was on the podcast was the first JRE podcast I've ever watched and Grahams history destroying theories sparked my interest in learning about this amazing world we live in. I started liking Joe a lot too after listening to a few more of his podcasts and watching youtube videos of him. It was Joe and some of his guests that sent me into all directions of learning. My beliefs were kinda boring before all of this, Im so glad I found that one podcast while venturing into the weird part of youtube a few years ago, now my beliefs are a complex hodge-podge of beautiful insanity (insane to all you squares at least ).

So have a look. Nothing TOO crazy on this podcast (not as crazy as his first one at least) so both dreamers and skeptics can enjoy this I think.

http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/graham-hancock

Also, this is the second time Graham was on the podcast, it was posted last week.

I just watched him get his ass handed to him while actual scientists pick his specious theories apart one by one. If he wasn't so rich from all the book sales I'd feel a little sorry for him -

[video=youtube;Bvn_3v7yZ0s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvn_3v7yZ0s[/video]

tyler.durden said:

I just watched him get his ass handed to him while actual scientists pick his specious theories apart one by one. If he wasn't so rich from all the book sales I'd feel a little sorry for him -

[video=youtube;Bvn_3v7yZ0s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvn_3v7yZ0s[/video]

Click to expand...

It seems you're siding with opinions rather than evidence, especially regarding things like the water erosion on the Spinx. Every geologist with no opinionated bias regarding the pyramids looks at that erosion and recognizes it as water erosion, the explanation provided in this video is kinda weak. I do find his astronomical connections interesting but they're not the main selling point for me. I agree with the explanation about the constellation Draco barley aligning with the temples being purely coincidental, first time I got light of that. The submerged structure at the end of the video seems like it can be man made or natural, I dont really know. I've read about his theories on Antarctica but this is the first time I've heard him compare it with Atlantis. I just heard his explanation regarding a 1000 year old map (that was made using older maps. Probably a bit off on that number too) that depicted Antarctica the way it would look without ice today, even though Antarctica was discovered a little less than 200 years ago. In conclusion to this discussion that strays away from the podcast, I agree with Grahams closing statement "I dont think my arguments are ever going to be successfully destroyed by knit-picking".

Anywho, thoughts about the podcast? What do you think about his rational view and supernatural view on psychedelics and humanity? (main part of the podcast I think)... Ah, Im assuming that as soon as I posted this you went on a mission to try and dig up dirt on Hancock and create an irrelevant argument that has already been had ages ago rather than watch the video and share your thoughts on it... Classy guy... If you want some "pseudo-science" to jump on then at least make it relevant to the thread and watch the video instead of digging up the past. Just because you dont find him credible regarding ancient mysteries doesnt mean he has nothing worth listening to. The guy who made the Ancient Aliens Debunked video is a bible thumping, gay hating, religious zealot that believes in Noah's Arch, yet you guys ate his shit up, and he did have some valid points but Im still a believer in that crazy shit too lol.

So please, if your intention is to jump on anything that you think is bullshit then watch the video and try and find some shit to splash around in. Though theres not that much bullshit at all, thats why I posted the video, I figured both dreamers and skeptics can enjoy the talk these two have because theres amazing ideas that make you think yet no baseless claims that get panties in a bunch (Im pretty sure theres none at least lol)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:

It seems you're siding with opinions rather than evidence, especially regarding things like the water erosion on the Spinx. Every geologist with no opinionated bias regarding the pyramids looks at that erosion and recognizes it as water erosion, the explanation provided in this video is kinda weak. I do find his astronomical connections interesting but they're not the main selling point for me. I agree with the explanation about the constellation Draco barley aligning with the temples being purely coincidental, first time I got light of that. The submerged structure at the end of the video seems like it can be man made or natural, I dont really know. I've read about his theories on Antarctica but this is the first time I've heard him compare it with Atlantis. I just heard his explanation regarding a 1000 year old map (that was made using older maps. Probably a bit off on that number too) that depicted Antarctica the way it would look without ice today, even though Antarctica was discovered a little less than 200 years ago. In conclusion to this discussion that strays away from the podcast, I agree with Grahams closing statement "I dont think my arguments are ever going to be successfully destroyed by knit-picking".

Anywho, thoughts about the podcast? What do you think about his rational view and supernatural view on psychedelics and humanity? (main part of the podcast I think)... Ah, Im assuming that as soon as I posted this you went on a mission to try and dig up dirt on Hancock and create an irrelevant argument that has already been had ages ago rather than watch the video and share your thoughts on it... Classy guy... If you want some "pseudo-science" to jump on then at least make it relevant to the thread and watch the video instead of digging up the past. Just because you dont find him credible regarding ancient mysteries doesnt mean he has nothing worth listening to. The guy who made the Ancient Aliens Debunked video is a bible thumping, gay hating, religious zealot that believes in Noah's Arch, yet you guys ate his shit up, and he did have some valid points but Im still a believer in that crazy shit too lol.

So please, if your intention is to jump on anything that you think is bullshit then watch the video and try and find some shit to splash around in. Though theres not that much bullshit at all, thats why I posted the video, I figured both dreamers and skeptics can enjoy the talk these two have because theres amazing ideas that make you think yet no baseless claims that get panties in a bunch (Im pretty sure theres none at least lol)

Click to expand...

To the bolded: could that be "no true Scotsman"? cn

cannabineer said:

To the bolded: could that be "no true Scotsman"? cn

Click to expand...

Should I ask Willy what he thinks?

I got the impression that you selected geologists for "no bias" by being the ones who agree with you. ~shrug~ cn

Chief Walkin Eagle said:

It seems you're siding with opinions rather than evidence

Click to expand...

This statement is deliciously ironic. It is Graham that invents hypotheses without empirical evidence. When the experts (i.e. actual practicing scientists in their related fields) examine his claims, they cannot find any merit to them. I can't be siding with the evidence as there is no evidence. That's the point...

especially regarding things like the water erosion on the Spinx. Every geologist with no opinionated bias regarding the pyramids looks at that erosion and recognizes it as water erosion, the explanation provided in this video is kinda weak.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like neer stated, no true Scotsman. What was incorrect about their explanation? They stated that the erosion is from corrosive salts, and that this type of erosion is very common throughout the region. Graham simply states the idea of water erosion with no evidence to back it up...

I do find his astronomical connections interesting but they're not the main selling point for me. I agree with the explanation about the constellation Draco barley aligning with the temples being purely coincidental, first time I got light of that. The submerged structure at the end of the video seems like it can be man made or natural, I dont really know. I've read about his theories on Antarctica but this is the first time I've heard him compare it with Atlantis. I just heard his explanation regarding a 1000 year old map (that was made using older maps. Probably a bit off on that number too) that depicted Antarctica the way it would look without ice today, even though Antarctica was discovered a little less than 200 years ago.

Click to expand...

They scientifically dated the ice in that region, and the data shows that ice has been there for 400,000 years. That's much, much longer than the 12,000 year old civilization that Graham was searching for. Again, he likes to posit ideas with no regard to facts...

In conclusion to this discussion that strays away from the podcast, I agree with Grahams closing statement "I dont think my arguments are ever going to be successfully destroyed by knit-picking".

Click to expand...

Hilarious! Every one of Graham's ideas/hypothesis were conclusively destroyed in this video. They were destroyed by meticulous gathering and examination of the data via the scientific method. This is what he refers to as nit-picking...

Anywho, thoughts about the podcast? What do you think about his rational view and supernatural view on psychedelics and humanity? (main part of the podcast I think)... Ah, Im assuming that as soon as I posted this you went on a mission to try and dig up dirt on Hancock and create an irrelevant argument that has already been had ages ago rather than watch the video and share your thoughts on it... Classy guy... If you want some "pseudo-science" to jump on then at least make it relevant to the thread and watch the video instead of digging up the past. Just because you dont find him credible regarding ancient mysteries doesnt mean he has nothing worth listening to. The guy who made the Ancient Aliens Debunked video is a bible thumping, gay hating, religious zealot that believes in Noah's Arch, yet you guys ate his shit up, and he did have some valid points but Im still a believer in that crazy shit too lol.

So please, if your intention is to jump on anything that you think is bullshit then watch the video and try and find some shit to splash around in. Though theres not that much bullshit at all, thats why I posted the video, I figured both dreamers and skeptics can enjoy the talk these two have because theres amazing ideas that make you think yet no baseless claims that get panties in a bunch (Im pretty sure theres none at least lol)

Click to expand...

This is a man who starts with an idea he really wants to be true, that there is an ancient, yet unknown, civilization out there and he tries his hardest to invent any data that supports his idea. This is the opposite of scientific inquiry. I thought about listening to the podcast, but I just couldn't justify spending the time on a man who holds reason, facts, evidence and logic in such low regard. It seems that if he is going to be right about anything, it's going to be by accident...

tyler.durden said:

This statement is deliciously ironic. It is Graham that invents hypotheses without empirical evidence. When the experts (i.e. actual practicing scientists in their related fields) examine his claims, they cannot find any merit to them. I can't be siding with the evidence as there is no evidence. That's the point...


Yeah, like neer stated, no true Scotsman. What was incorrect about their explanation? They stated that the erosion is from corrosive salts, and that this type of erosion is very common throughout the region. Graham simply states the idea of water erosion with no evidence to back it up...


They scientifically dated the ice in that region, and the data shows that ice has been there for 400,000 years. That's much, much longer than the 12,000 year old civilization that Graham was searching for. Again, he likes to posit ideas with no regard to facts...


Hilarious! Every one of Graham's ideas/hypothesis were conclusively destroyed in this video. They were destroyed by meticulous gathering and examination of the data via the scientific method. This is what he refers to as nit-picking...


This is a man who starts with an idea he really wants to be true, that there is an ancient, yet unknown, civilization out there and he tries his hardest to invent any data that supports his idea. This is the opposite of scientific inquiry. I thought about listening to the podcast, but I just couldn't justify spending the time on a man who holds reason, facts, evidence and logic in such low regard. It seems that if he is going to be right about anything, it's going to be by accident...

Click to expand...

The only part where Graham seemed dead wrong was with the Draco bit, the other experts only said "I dont think so". I could show you a nice picture show about what flaky and jagged salt erosion looks like compared to the smooth flowing water erosion on the Sphinx, but, like I said, its side tracking from the main point of the thread and it would pointlessly continue an argument that happened ages ago.

Like I said, the guy who made the Ancient Aliens Debunked video is a bible thumping, gay hating, religious zealot that believes in Noah's Arch. A guy who decided to temporarily stick to the facts of science only when a popular belief was conflicting with his beliefs. I think its safe to assume that he doesnt apply the same reasoning to himself and his religious and gay hating youtube videos... Yes, you'd watch that nutcase who selectively (probably just one time) holds logic in high regard but not this podcast that doesnt even reach into the realm of "far fetched". Thats why I posted it, because theres nothing crazy on it, everyone can enjoy what these guys are talking about. But no, you got annoyed that someone you werent too fond of was getting exposure (Hancock) so you went out and dug up some dirt on him, even though its completely irrelevant to the podcast, and posted it in this thread in an attempt to sabotage it.

Chief Walkin Eagle said:

The only part where Graham seemed dead wrong was with the Draco bit, the other experts only said "I dont think so". I could show you a nice picture show about what flaky and jagged salt erosion looks like compared to the smooth flowing water erosion on the Sphinx, but, like I said, its side tracking from the main point of the thread and it would pointlessly continue an argument that happened ages ago.

Like I said, the guy who made the Ancient Aliens Debunked video is a bible thumping, gay hating, religious zealot that believes in Noah's Arch. A guy who decided to temporarily stick to the facts of science only when a popular belief was conflicting with his beliefs. I think its safe to assume that he doesnt apply the same reasoning to himself and his religious and gay hating youtube videos... Yes, you'd watch that nutcase who selectively (probably just one time) holds logic in high regard but not this podcast that doesnt even reach into the realm of "far fetched". Thats why I posted it, because theres nothing crazy on it, everyone can enjoy what these guys are talking about. But no, you got annoyed that someone you werent too fond of was getting exposure (Hancock) so you went out and dug up some dirt on him, even though its completely irrelevant to the podcast, and posted it in this thread in an attempt to sabotage it.

Click to expand...

------------------------------------
I have a feeling you would think the video was worthless whether the creator was a bible thumper, an atheist, a buddhist or wiccan. Debate the arguments, not the person.

mindphuk said:

Description of Ad Hominem


Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."


An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


Example of Ad Hominem


Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html​

------------------------------------
I have a feeling you would think the video was worthless whether the creator was a bible thumper, an atheist, a buddhist or wiccan. Debate the arguments, not the person.

Click to expand...

No, I watched the documentary, theres some sound points in it, as I said earlier, but theres still things that didnt convince me at all which is why I still believe in crazy shit like ancient aliens! lol. Im just saying even people you guys consider to be nutjobs (this one being religious) can come up with something thats worth your time to consider. A religious nutjob can hit a home run once in a while, why cant Graham Hancock?

You're the master of strict terminology, what do you call it when someone tries to sabotage a thread by bringing up irrelevant arguments from the past that have nothing to do with the topics being discussed? (discussed in the podcast that is).

Gaah! Why do I even bother. "The song" has already started playing and this thread is yet another bullshit musical... UNLESS! Someone would like to discuss the podcast, but I doubt it...

I posted a reply btw MP. Just in case my last comment made you skip over it...

Chief Walkin Eagle said:

No, I watched the documentary, theres some sound points in it, as I said earlier, but theres still things that didnt convince me at all which is why I still believe in crazy shit like ancient aliens! lol. Im just saying even people you guys consider to be nutjobs (this one being religious) can come up with something thats worth your time to consider. A religious nutjob can hit a home run once in a while, why cant Graham Hancock?

Click to expand...

I don't know if he has changed or added new evidence since last time I read his work but arguing that someone might be right just because it's possible they could be is not really an argument.

I will watch the podcast sometime this weekend. I have been at work a lot and with hockey playoffs, I haven't had a lot of time to watch other things. (in addition to trying to catch up on Game of Thrones)

You're the master of strict terminology, what do you call it when someone tries to sabotage a thread by bringing up irrelevant arguments from the past that have nothing to do with the topics being discussed? (discussed in the podcast that is).

Click to expand...

Depends. Do you mean someone actually intending to sabotage the thread or derails it incidentally? I would say troll fits the first. Threadjacker fits the second.
Are you claiming I or someone else is derailing this thread or is your question just a general curiosity? I ask because I haven't seen any old arguments here.

Chief Walkin Eagle said:

I posted a reply btw MP. Just in case my last comment made you skip over it...

Click to expand...

I saw it. I hope that you understand why the fact that Chris White is a bible thumper that believes crazy shit himself in no way invalidates any of the arguments that he can make against the ancient alien hypothesis. That was the only reason I linked to the explanation about ad hominem. It is as if you and I were discussing some aspect of quantum theory and I brought up your beliefs about pyramids. Your position on other matters in no way disqualifies you to discuss quantum theory. Your individual argument must be refuted and it is illogical and unfair for me to bring up something else you believe.

Chief Walkin Eagle said:

You're the master of strict terminology...

Click to expand...

I have to chuckle at that. Yes, I do get a wild hair up my ass when people use terms to misrepresent and marginalize their position on a subject. I just responded to someone else in a quite long post that discussed my reasons for trying to agree and adhere to definitions if a discussion is going to have any value.

mindphuk said:

I don't know if he has changed or added new evidence since last time I read his work but arguing that someone might be right just because it's possible they could be is not really an argument.

I will watch the podcast sometime this weekend. I have been at work a lot and with hockey playoffs, I haven't had a lot of time to watch other things. (in addition to trying to catch up on Game of Thrones)
Depends. Do you mean someone actually intending to sabotage the thread or derails it incidentally? I would say troll fits the first. Threadjacker fits the second.
Are you claiming I or someone else is derailing this thread or is your question just a general curiosity? I ask because I haven't seen any old arguments here.

Click to expand...

Troll and thread jacker are a good fit I think. I was talking about Tyler. This podcast shines almost no attention onto Grahams theories of ancient civilizations, I think they talk about the water erosion on the Sphinx for a moment but thats it. I said it right off the bat that theres no crazy claims on this podcast that would cause a fuss, their just discussing ideas and views about humanity, psychedelics, and a interesting bit on the Aztecs. Tyler's first response was to immediately dig up some dirt on Graham Hancock (that had nothing to do with the podcast) as if to show people that its not worth anybodies time.

I understand that Chris White has some good arguments. Im saying even with Chris White's background, he had something worth paying attention to that didnt have anything to do with his religious background, I was telling Tyler to show the same consideration for Graham Hancock.

Chief Walkin Eagle said:

Troll and thread jacker are a good fit I think. I was talking about Tyler. This podcast shines almost no attention onto Grahams theories of ancient civilizations

Click to expand...

gotcha.

I understand that Chris White has some good arguments. Im saying even with Chris White's background, he had something worth paying attention to that didnt have anything to do with his religious background, I was telling Tyler to show the same consideration for Graham Hancock.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

mindphuk said:

gotcha.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

No problem... And PHEEW! I thought I was in for another back and forth marathon there lol.

http://www.syfy.com/questioneverything

"Life-long unexplained paranormal mystery-addict Joe Rogan ventures into unknown worlds and untapped territories to search for answers to life’s most startling theories. Having explored these questions for years on his podcast, Joe now takes his journey to the next level, traveling the country and knocking on any door necessary to find the truth. In his own unique and inquisitive style, Joe will stop at nothing to quench his curiosity for the unknown."

Heisenberg said:

http://www.syfy.com/questioneverything

"Life-long unexplained paranormal mystery-addict Joe Rogan ventures into unknown worlds and untapped territories to search for answers to life’s most startling theories. Having explored these questions for years on his podcast, Joe now takes his journey to the next level, traveling the country and knocking on any door necessary to find the truth. In his own unique and inquisitive style, Joe will stop at nothing to quench his curiosity for the unknown."

Click to expand...

He talks about this on the podcast. Is the show out yet and is that a link to the show? I just got a clip that said "This content is currently unavailable"