This was posted on one of the videos on the channel of archaeologist Flint Dibble (yes that is his real name, his dad is also an archaeologist and his brother's name is Chip).
As it said, he debated Graham Hancock on Rogan because he felt Rogan's audience needed to hear from an actual archaeologist about the nonsense Graham Hancock was pushing and hopefully get them interested in real archaeology, which I feel is a solid reason for going on Rogan and doing what he did. Too bad more actual experts aren't asked to go on Rogan.
He's hiring a ghost writer because they are very cheap.
When a person dies, they stop needing earthly rewards. And, because a lot of great authors and writers have died, there are a lot of candidate ghost writers, like Martin Amis, Truman Capote and Barbara Cartland. A good spiritualist can summon the right auteur from beyond this mortal coil for any compositional need you have!
If you fell far enough down the crazy hole to 100% genuinely believe you had, in fact, ridden dinosaurs... I think it'd be hard not to feel superior to literally everyone else. I mean, what do they know? They haven't even ridden a dinosaur.
Umm, I guess that depends on my level of technology. If I had some sort of suit that would withstand the pressure and would let me breathe indefinitely under water, then Large Mosasaurs or Livyatan which could get up to 59 feet.
And if that technology is unavailable, then a Spinosaurus for the land and a Quetzalcoatlus for the air. That way, I have the smallest chance of being attacked by other dinosaurs.
I like Graham Hancock. He’s got some neat theories. Are they truth? Dunno. Am I gonna hassle some academic and be a dick about something because of them? No.
Remember back before someone put together the orientation of the Pyramids at Giza and Orion’s Belt? It was pretty astonishing if one had lived with the Pyramids for a long time and saw them as just sort of misaligned for ? reasons. Some guy had to get razzed for twenty years to get that out there before the interwebs.
Well the main one is that he posits there was a broad-reaching civilization on Earth that was effectively wiped out at the start of the last ice age, about 12,000 years ago.
Typically the Mesopotamians, around 6,000 years ago are considered the first civilization. So it’s not likely to get any support for the idea of “civilization” before that. Most of what a civilization had is usually wiped out after a millennia or three. (Or deliberately destroyed, thanks The Pope.) Connecting them is difficult, but he finds interesting parallels, examples, possible ways it could have happened, etc.
One of those ways is through paleoastronomy, which upsets basically everyone and their dog, but it says essentially earthworks created to point to or mirror astronomical features can tell us things like when they were built. Or, with enough like-examples suggest a common theme or purpose.
He’s engaging and intelligent, and pretty laid back about the wild theories which makes some people really dislike him. Here’s a set of specials he did in the 90’s? I think? Which are pretty thought provoking if you’re into that kind of thing.
What I don’t buy is that all of history has been discovered, correctly interpreted, and sewn up with a bow on top. But I understand he’s particularly annoying to academics because he wants to be an explorer, an educator, a theorist, an archaeologist, an anthropologist, an astronomer; and yet he hasn’t completed coursework or any other feats of strength to prove he knows anything about those things. Skeptics just hate him immediately on the face of everything. Which, yeah. That also makes sense.