Name: Joe Rogan Experience #2051 - Graham Hancock
Uploaded: 2023-10-25T00:00:00.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #2051 - Graham Hancock' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2023-10-25. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #2051 - Graham Hancock' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2023-10-25. Transcript available.

Joe Rogan Experience #2051 - Graham Hancock

Joe Rogan Podcast, check it out.
The Joe Rogan Experience.
Train by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night, all day.
Joe Rogan.
Hello, Joe Rogan.
Good to see you, my friend.
Good to be back with you.
Hey, congratulations on the success of your show.
It's been very awesome to see, and it's been really awesome to hear from so
many people
about it that know that I'm really fascinated by the subject, and the reviews
have all been
super positive for my friends, so I'm really excited about it.
Well, thank you for appearing on Ancient Apocalypse as well.
My pleasure.
My pleasure.
It's a subject to me that is so unbelievably fascinating and so bizarre that it's
controversial.
I do not understand.
I mean, we were just talking about this, and I said, let's stop talking when we're
getting
coffee.
To me, it seems like there's things that are concrete, right?
We know when Genghis Khan lived.
We know when they built the 16th chapel.
We know a lot about the Parthenon and the Acropolis.
We know about 2,000 years ago.
We know when you start going way, way, way, way, way back, things get real
sketchy, and
to not admit that seems so crazy.
When they find things, when they're making apartment buildings sometimes, they're
digging
into the ground, they go, oh, hold on a second.
What is this?
Doesn't it happen in Mexico City all the time?
Yeah, it does.
And actually, that's how a lot of archaeology happens.
Somebody's building a road or building apartment buildings or building a dam,
and they call
in archaeologists to see if there's anything, any interesting archaeology there.
And this is part of the problem I have with archaeology as a discipline.
It likes to think of itself as scientific.
But what I think it's primarily doing, and it is weird, is trying to control
the narrative
about the past.
Do you think that's because the people that are in control of archaeology, the
academics,
the professors, these people have written books on these things, have lectured
on these things,
and they've been very specific about timelines and dates?
Yeah.
I think it's a complicated mixture of things.
First of all, because archaeology is so desperate to be seen as a science, it
tries as hard as
possible to distance itself from any ideas that might be seen as woo-woo.
You know, anything out on the edge, archaeology doesn't want to associate
itself with.
And then it takes the next step and really seeks to attack out-on-the-edge
ideas.
Now, I don't know why the possibility of a lost civilization during the Ice Age
should be
an out-on-the-edge idea.
We've had lost civilizations before.
The Indus Valley civilization today in Pakistan wasn't known about until the
1920s.
It was found by accident.
And, you know, every turn of the archaeologist's spade can reveal new
information.
But the reaction to my proposal that we've forgotten an episode in the human
story,
it's always been hostile since I published Fingerprints of the Gods in 1995.
But with Ancient Apocalypse, much bigger platform, reaching a much wider
audience, the reaction
was just hysterical.
And it went on for a very long time.
And it appeared to be, it appeared to me, I don't think it's a conspiracy.
I don't think archaeologists are involved in a conspiracy.
I think the people who are attacking me genuinely believe in what they're
saying, and they genuinely
think I'm harmful.
But that's like calling it the most dangerous show on Netflix.
How did they come up with that?
How is it harmful to be speculating about ancient structures?
It's interesting.
Yeah.
That's what I don't get.
The other thing is the racist angle.
Like, we're talking about the exact same people.
Yeah.
We're just talking about an older time.
It doesn't make any sense at all.
In fact, it kind of points to the superiority of the Egyptian race.
Absolutely.
I mean, whatever they did, however they did it, is unbelievably extraordinary.
Yeah.
And I think pointing that out is amazing.
Yeah.
I mean, what you're discovering and what you're showing on that show is that
there are a lot
of mysteries when it comes to the history of human beings, and we should
embrace those
mysteries.
Definitely.
Because there's concrete, irrefutable evidence, especially in terms of like Gobekli
Tepe
and some of the other structures.
I mean, this is wild stuff.
Yeah.
The idea that human beings had an advanced civilization 10,000, 20,000 years
ago, 30,000
years ago, what happened?
That's what's really interesting.
Like, what happened?
And that's why it's ancient apocalypse, because we know that there was a global
cataclysm,
a slow one, 1,200 years long, between 12,800 and 11,600 years ago, called the
Younger Dryas.
There's still arguments about what caused it, but the fact that it was cataclysmic
is not
really disputed.
The accusations that were put against me and the show of being, the accusations
included
the words racist, white supremacist, misogynist, and antisemitic.
They give you the full hand.
They didn't even give you one card off.
The show doesn't touch on any of these issues.
Race is not mentioned in the show.
So what the archaeologists were doing there, they were going back to
fingerprints of the
gods that I wrote in 1995, in which I reported indigenous traditions about the
appearance of
bearded foreigners bringing knowledge after a cataclysm to the shattered
survivors of that
cataclysm.
And in some cases, in those traditions, those knowledge bringers are described
as white-skinned.
And that is why the show was accused of racism, because archaeology has since
taken the view
that all of those stories were made up by the Spanish.
And that seems to me completely ridiculous.
Both in Mexico and in Peru and Bolivia, we have traditions.
We have them, Viracocha, we have Quetzalcoatl, we have Bochica.
This is a pan-American myth.
And actually, I think it's racist of archaeology to imagine that the magic
powers of the Spaniards
could impose a myth upon indigenous peoples all over the Americas, that they'd
just be so stupid
that they would fall for this story told by the Spaniards.
Of course, these are indigenous myths and traditions.
And I was reporting them in that book.
And I stand by them.
And it turns out that there's actually a huge argument within academia about
this.
And my critics were just giving one side of that argument.
And what is the rest of the argument?
What is the other side of it?
Well, the other side of the argument that it's inconceivable that the Spaniards
made up
these stories.
These stories were reported to the first Spanish visitors in Mexico and in Peru.
They were reported to them by indigenous peoples as indigenous myths.
And the fact that they're right spread across the Americas makes it very
unlikely.
I mean, if it was one story, but if it's a dozen stories and they're told over
a huge geographical
region, the notion that this is a Spanish conspiracy, it's an ultimate
conspiracy theory.
I don't think we should take away these traditions from the indigenous people
who reported them.
But it gave a very useful handle for people to attack this series on.
So the theory is that it was an uneven destruction, right?
And that some places fared better than other places in terms of the Younger Dryas
Impact Theory,
right?
Yeah.
And that those people might have reclaimed a modicum of civilization.
Yeah.
That's the idea.
And by the way, on that point, I have never in anything that I've written or
anything that
I've broadcast ever myself suggested that white races were involved.
Actually, it would be quite stupid to do so.
Because if you look at Europe during the Ice Age, and I'm talking about a lost
civilization
of the Ice Age, Northern Europe and North America were absolutely inhospitable
wildernesses
during the Ice Age.
They were frozen, they were dry, and they were dangerous.
And they were not the places that people would go.
People naturally gravitated south towards the equator, towards the tropics.
That's where I would expect to find traces of a lost civilization.
And that's where I do find traces of a lost civilization.
You don't really find it.
I've never reported anything about the UK, for example, in my books.
We have Stonehenge.
We have Avebury.
We have these stone circles.
But they're not old enough.
That was the time when the UK started to get warmer.
And it's the same with the rest of Northern Europe.
And it's the same with the Northern part of North America.
You have to go down to the Southern part of North America.
You have to go into Mexico.
You have to go into South America to really find an environment during the Ice
Age that
would have nurtured a high civilization.
And there's a lot of speculation as to why they weren't able to cross the Bering
landmass
too, right?
Well, again, this is an area where there has been a narrative that archaeology
has sought
to impose upon us.
And this was called the Clovis First idea.
And there was a people who archaeologists called the Clovis people.
We don't know what they called themselves in North America.
And traces of their characteristic tools, particular sort of fluted points,
arrowhead spear points,
turn up from about 13,400 years ago and end abruptly 12,800 years ago.
And for a long time, archaeology maintained that this Clovis culture, so-called
Clovis culture,
we don't know what they called themselves, were the first Americans and that
there were
no human beings in the Americas before 13,400 years ago.
And bit by bit, the new evidence has come in which has forced archaeologists
screaming and tearing
out their hair to back away from the Clovis first paradigm and admit that
actually, yes,
there were people here before that.
But even then, they're reluctant to go very far back.
We've recently had these footprints in white sands in New Mexico, 23,000 years
old or so.
That's largely being accepted now.
But there are much earlier dates.
There's 130,000 years ago from the Cerruti mastodon site near San Diego.
That's the one that's being disputed because they say it could have been rocks
that crushed
the bones and made them that way.
Yeah.
What I see again is an unfortunate mindset where a new and interesting idea is
proposed,
supported by massives of evidence and published in Nature.
You know, Nature has a pretty high bar to what it accepts.
And then the critics look for any way to get rid of it.
Can I stop you here?
Are you aware of the boneyard in Alaska?
I've heard of it and it sounds fascinating.
I don't think he's revealed much about that to the public yet.
Well, it's an amazing, amazing discovery.
This guy's a gold miner and he has this large piece of land in Alaska.
They're mining for gold and they start finding like tusks and bones.
And in one area that's only a few acres, they found thousands and thousands of
woolly mammoth
bones and tusks and a saber-toothed tiger.
Was it saber-toothed tiger?
No.
It was short-faced bear.
They found all these like many animals that weren't even supposed to exist in
Alaska.
And he's like, look, we have the bones of it.
And one of the things they found recently was bones that were sawed, clearly
sawed.
Human workmanship.
But like a sophisticated tool.
Let me see if you can pull it up so you can see how it looked.
Clearly cut.
Isn't that amazing?
Absolutely.
So they're trying to find out what the dates on these are.
That was my next question.
Have they dated it?
They just got these recently.
This is fairly recent.
So I believe he's had some issues with universities not giving back his stuff
and selling off his stuff.
Oh, dear.
Yeah.
Well, he recently started a bone rush in the East River.
Because it turns out that during the 1920s or 1930s, stuff that they had taken
from his land before he owned it, they had dumped some of it.
Because they had so much of it.
They dumped it in the East River.
And, you know, they were balking at it.
But meanwhile, these people found it there.
Yeah.
So here it goes.
I think many of you are intrigued by these Ice Age bones found in the bone here
in Alaska.
If you zoom in, you'll see that it'