#2215 - Graham Hancock

Graham Hancock (0:03)

The Joe Rogan Experience.

Joe Rogan (0:06)

Shrink by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night, all day. Good to see you, sir. What's happening?

Graham Hancock (0:14)

Good to see you too, Joe.

Joe Rogan (0:16)

I watched episode one, and I'm into episode two of your new season. It looks fantastic. It looks awesome. Fantastic information. But before we do anything, I think we should probably address what we know now about the debate that you had with Flint Dibble. That was the last time we were here. I appreciate that he came on, and I thought it was going to be an interesting discussion, but it turned out he played fast and loose with the truth, and distorted quite a bit of information that were some key points that you had discussed, one of them being the amount of shipwrecks that were discovered. He greatly inflated the amount of shipwrecks that have been discovered, and then you released a video today that went over a lot of this stuff, and one of the things that went over is the oldest shipwreck that we are currently available, it's about 4,000 years old?

Graham Hancock (1:09)

About 6,000.

Joe Rogan (1:10)

6,000?

Graham Hancock (1:11)

The Dockos shipwreck.

Joe Rogan (1:12)

But there's nothing left of the ship. And this is what's important. What he was trying to say was that it would be preserved by the cold water. That turns out to not be the truth at all, and that these ships that are 6,000 years old, there's nothing left of the actual boat itself. The only thing that's left is pottery and coins and things of the like.

Graham Hancock (1:32)

And especially when you consider the possibility of ships having gone through a cataclysm.

But there's a more central point than that, which really needed to be brought up by the archaeologist in this, which is that archaeology universally accepts that human beings were seafarers as much as 50,000 years ago. And I put the evidence on this into the video. It's not even in dispute. Like the island of Cyprus. The nearest Turkish coast is about 60 kilometers from there. It's always been surrounded by huge deeps. It's always been an island, even at the peak of the sea level, lowest sea level during the ice age. Cyprus was always an island. And yet there's evidence now that it was settled 14,000 years ago. Certainly, 14,000 to 12,500 years ago. It was settled, in other words, during the ice age. And these were large planned migrations. When you're going to migrate to an island, you can't just go two or three people by accident because you'll become extinct. You have to bring in quite a large population. And they reckon that populations of a thousand or so were being brought across that water, across the ocean, across the Mediterranean Sea, to Cyprus near the end of the last ice age. But not a single ship has survived to testify to that. Same with Australia. 50,000 years ago, human beings got there. And even at the lowest sea level, they would have had to cross about 90 kilometers of open water in large numbers. And again, no ships have been found to testify to that, yet archaeologists accept that they got there by ship. So to say that we haven't found any ships from the ice age is not really evidence about anything.

Joe Rogan (3:18)

And if we're finding the oldest ships that we currently are aware of, which is, as you said, about 6,000 years ago, if you tack on another 6,000 years of decay on top of that, what are the odds you're going to find anything?

Graham Hancock (3:32)

I think the odds are very, very low.

Joe Rogan (3:33)

Now, if we have that evidence and that information when we were confronting Flynn, that would have been a very different conversation.

Graham Hancock (3:40)

Totally.

Joe Rogan (3:40)

But the arrogance in which he distributed that fake information, it's disturbing. It sucks when people just want to win and they don't want to get to the truth.

Graham Hancock (3:51)

It does.

Joe Rogan (3:52)

And the truth is kind of, it's very fascinating. Another thing that was very fascinating that he discussed, I didn't watch your whole video, but it was about seeds. I asked the question, there's a very distinct noticeable difference between domestic seeds and seeds that are wild. And the difference is the seeds that are wild, they break off easier because it makes sense that it would help them prosper. They would help them be able to spread the seed if it broke off the plant easier. And so they can recognize that. And then when they start using large scale agriculture, the seeds become more robust and stick to the plant because it makes sense that it would, if you're going to harvest all of the plants and then take the seeds off of it, for the plant to prosper, you would want the seeds to be more robust. So there's these changes. And I said, have they ever noticed a domesticated seed going back and having the characteristics of a wild seed? He said no. But that's not true either.