Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson vs Michael Shermer

Amazing debate. Reminds me of the kind of debate I expect from people here.



Graham Hancock argues with the owner of Skeptic magazine on the origins of the Sphinx, ancient cultures who built Gobekli Teppe and the cosmic impact that brought us the end of the younger dryas.

As much as I disagree with the skeptic Michael Shermer I appreciate his balls to get on the show and argue his point.

They remained fairly calm, argued intelligent points not each other and present a lot of information.

Very well done episode I highly recommend it for anyone into ancient civilizations.

a reply to: toysforadults

Thank you. Ill get back to you after I watch this.

This is free college

a reply to: iWontGiveUP
beyond college.

There is a reason they had to have this debate on the Joe Rogan podcast

I don’t know why these guys are arguing. It’s just a matter of opinion. Hancock seems kind of generally angry, probably because his theories have been critiqued so strongly by mainstream science. The skeptic I’ve seen all over, he’s a general pain in the ass (I don’t believe anything weird) kind of guy.

I happened to just finish Hancock’s book. It was fair but not great. Hancock’s theories are to me a bit too ambitious for me sometimes. Too cluttered with his unnecessary facts and angst to please the mainstream and you could see his anger there.

Hancock reminds me of the Philosopher Ken Wilber, a great guy but like Hancock too conflicted in that on one hand they want to challenge the mainstream but on the other hand they want to get their approval.


I say forget the mainstream, perfect your truth and then just give it too the world without worrying what people think. Otherwise the energy you expend in inner conflict will set you back in your search

a reply to: Willtell

Hancock has done more for alternative archeology than pretty much everyone...including H. Bingham etc...

originally posted by: Willtell
I don’t know why these guys are arguing. It’s just a matter of opinion. Hancock seems kind of generally angry, probably because his theories have been critiqued so strongly by mainstream science. The skeptic I’ve seen all over, he’s a general pain in the ass (I don’t believe anything weird) kind of guy.

I happened to just finish Hancock’s book. It was fair but not great. Hancock’s theories are to me a bit too ambitious for me sometimes. Too cluttered with his unnecessary facts and angst to please the mainstream and you could see his anger there.

Hancock reminds me of the Philosopher Ken Wilber, a great guy but like Hancock too conflicted in that on one hand they want to challenge the mainstream but on the other hand they want to get their approval.


I say forget the mainstream, perfect your truth and then just give it too the world without worrying what people think. Otherwise the energy you expend in inner conflict will set you back in your search

I really like Hancock. His gift, other than some excellent cognitive skills, is being such a great orator. It is tough for most of the great field archaeologist and geologists to keep an audience, no matter what they say. Hancock can roll up their work, with his own theories as well, in such a way that it brings out his passion and just about anyone can understand it.

a reply to: toysforadults

While I am skeptical of Hancock's works at times, I am a quarter of the way through the vid, he is owning Shermer so far, will have to come back to see how this all turns out, thanks for the upload..

Great show, I felt Shermer held his own and that Joe Rogan wants to believe so bad he almost has too much of an open mind which you have to to buy Graham Hancock's theories. Graham Hancock's theories could be ahead of their time they are just not backed by hard evidence yet so I don't dismiss them entirely.

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
Great show, I felt Shermer held his own and that Joe Rogan wants to believe so bad he almost has too much of an open mind which you have to to buy Graham Hancock's theories. Graham Hancock's theories could be ahead of their time they are just not backed by hard evidence yet so I don't dismiss them entirely.

Graham wasn't trying to get across that he was right. In his own words, his goal is to get the dialogue moving in the right direction.