DeDunking 101 When The Experts Don't Know... Or Lie #archaeology #debunker #ancienthistory

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]And uh Neil just did a debate of his own um on the Matt Beal podcast right here with Dan Richards, the the buffoon or clown as we call him on this channel. Do you mind if I actually start with this Easter Island clip because it just >> rambling and and and whatever Dan is. It just sounds like some college kid like just just rambling here. Let me pull it up.

[00:00:23]>> Yeah. um >> were definitely in contact with both and their their legends say that they were looking for this place. Their their keen was like >> I don't think I started.

[00:00:32]>> Here we go.

[00:00:33]>> Where the the oldest habitable layer on Easter Island shows fruit shows foods from both the old and the new world.

[00:00:40]>> That is absolutely not true. Absolutely false. It absolutely does not. But whatever. If he wants to claim that, he can lie. A big reason that I started this channel is the irritation that I feel when I see these fake skeptics and want to be debunkers using arguments that are emotional, that are ignorant, that are appeals to authority, that are basically not contributing to the discussion whatsoever. But they think this is okay because they're not engaging in a discussion. They're fighting flatearthers in their own mind.

[00:01:13]>> It is. It is. But I do agree with you that we need to be tackling more than just that because I think at least from my view of pseudoarchchaeology is it's a major vector into this world of distrust of experts. It's and with pseudoarchchaeology in particular what really annoys me is the media accepts it completely. So like you know like it in books as if they are real rather than them being pseudocience. They're they're put in the archaeology section of bookstores, right? And so and and what that means, but they're filled with all this rhetoric that's anti-experts, anti- scholars, anti-intellectuals.

[00:01:49]So it's feeding people this kind of rhetoric very knowingly. And it acts as kind of, I think, a a gateway to more subversive conspiracies that will lead people to not get getting vaccines for their kids or to not actually trying to tackle climate change. And the end result of this kind of nonsense is these PhDs are having a hard time keeping up with GEDs like myself because I actually care about this stuff. In 2024, a paper was published titled identification of bread fruit and South American crops introduced during early settlement of Rapanoui as revealed through starch analysis. What I said on Limitless with Matt Bell was spoton. To quote from the paper's abstract, analysis of 46 starch grains recovered from 20 obsidian tools from the earliest dated level of the Anakenna site on Rapanoui provides direct evidence for transllocation of traditional crop plants at initial stages of colonization of this island.

[00:02:46]Our results identify taxons previously unknown to have been cultivated on the island such as bread fruit, ginger. Our study provides direct evidence for transllocation of a set of traditional Polynesian and South American crop plants at the initial stages of the colonization in Rapanoui. To Flint, what I'm saying sounds like I'm rambling because I'm actually a history junkie and he's not. All right? He's a debunker. He doesn't care. He doesn't look this stuff up for fun. if he is looking into this stuff for fun, it's rubbing his hands with glee about how he's gonna get Graham Hancock or Jimmy Corsetti or somebody. And this is a great example. I am so happy that he did this live stream with Neil after our debate because it I haven't seen proof like this for a long time just how blatantly open these guys are full of crap. And as a quick aside, for those of you that think Flint didn't lie on the debate with Graham Hancock on the Joe Rogan Experience, watch the way he handles himself here. Hi, my name is Dan and welcome to the Dunking.

[00:03:55][music] >> I recently had a debate on Limitless with Matt Bell and the unfortunate victim was Neil Senlac of the Gnostic Informing Channel. And in the aftermath of that, um, you know, he went on the Flint Dibbles channel and they whined and cried and Flint talked about how stupid I am. And, well, um, it was so pathetic and just so uninformative and so ironic that, you know, you can't make some of this stuff up. So, let's just dive on into it.

[00:04:21]>> Um, they covered a range of topics. Go backep pyramids, ball back, mostly the pyramids was the real core of it. Um, and it's like a three >> supposed to be. We they changed up the format last second which I was a little disappointed about but >> yeah so we got to get into that because I think that's a key thing. Um and we can talk about the differences between our debate prep strategies and how it went down because I think that's an important thing for people to recognize when you engage with pseudocientists. Um >> now the first thing I want to make note of is the level of hate that I get from the archaeological community. And that's really because I exposed Flint's lies on the Graham Hancock debate that he had on Joe Rogan. And ever since then, there's a good number of archaeologists and especially the TR the Twitter warriors.

[00:05:03]They just hate me. And that's exactly where Neil went to get support and help for his debate from. So, it's no surprise that um they don't know what the [ __ ] they're talking about because they are just concerned with emotional anger and Dan sucks. It doesn't really have anything to do with honesty or truth or integrity. I mean, Flint openly says he hates me.

[00:05:27]>> Sorry, Matt. I have some respect for Matt, actually. Me, too. I was I was >> I have I I have zero respect for Tan, but I have a little bit of I have some respect for Matt, >> but that's just because of videos like this one right here. Um, this also does come with a pile of those other trolls.

[00:05:40]Like I said, >> I got to say, I think you and James Lindsay are the only two people that I really interact with that come with their own little like army of trolls behind you. [laughter] I interact with you. I can expect all these people to sort of tell me why I'm a piece of [ __ ] for interacting with you. It's kind of It's interesting because yours are archaeologists.

[00:06:01]>> You know, a lot of people might be upset by this and be like, "Man, it sucks having all these professional archaeologists talking crap about me and just hating on me." And, you know, if I say something, they misconstrue it. And there helps people prepare for debates behind the scenes so they can beat me up and make me look bad. And um but I'm on the other side of it. I'm like, you all help prepare Neil. Come out there to get his clock cleaned. And then we see the way that Flint um talks about this stuff here and you'll see that well Neil would have been better off watching a PBS special where they sing Baby Shark every five minutes as opposed to going to Flint because at least the Baby Shark special won't misinform you.

[00:06:43]>> Neil had mentioned to me and other scholars that he was doing this debate.

[00:06:47]I think you mentioned you talked to Theres Aussie, archaeologist. Who else did you talk to?

[00:06:51]>> Yeah, give a shout out to them actually.

[00:06:54]Um, there's a few people who I reached out to in the weeks leading up to the debate. Just asking them, hey, this is what I think. Am I right about this?

[00:07:01]What do you think about this? What do you think about this? Justine, that woman, Warren, that's the name of her uh handle.

[00:07:07]>> She's right here. [laughter] >> You go go in subscribe. There she is.

[00:07:12]Uh, average Aussie Egyptologist. She gave me hours of her time to even jumped on a call with me and talked about this stuff. So really really want to uh shout out to Average Aussie Egyptologist. Also Joseph Wilson was going back and forth with me as well. A few others too, but those three in particular were very very helpful. And not only do I get to laugh at these clowns, but this mentality shows why they lost the debate. You got a false sense of my position because you go to a bunch of haters that don't like me. What do you mean? What does his following feel about this? Duh. My following feels like this is the way that it should be because my followers know that this is how Dan operates. He's not like, hm, I think it must have been the ninth degree. I say been saying for a very long time, baby steps. When I was on Joe Rogan, I told him flat out, I'm not opposed to ancient high technology, but you got to get me there. This isn't new, but it is new. if you get your information about me from people like Dave Fino or from Clint Devil.

[00:08:17]>> And so in a sense, Neil did his homework on the pyramids to be able to talk about the pyramids, which is what you do when you prepare for a debate. You do your homework, right?

[00:08:27]>> You're you're appealing. You're appealing to the consensus. That's what we're supposed to do. You're there's no way. You can't escape. You can't escape appealing to academia to some degree.

[00:08:38]Even the pseudos are doing. The pseudos go, "Oh, here's what academia says.

[00:08:41]Based on that, I think this." And they just go with >> the difference between relying on the data gathered by a professional and their interpretation of this data is drastic. I mean, come on. You're talking about the difference between accepting that the carbon dating is accurate or accepting that a narrative that's forged around the carbon dating is accurate or allowing that narrative to push other narratives off of the playing field.

[00:09:09]This is three different things, man. And I think we all can see the difference here, but you are conflating all of them together.

[00:09:16]What happens when you get the ladder, okay? when you get your Clovis first, when you get your positions like that is you get a very unscientific environment as archaeologist Tom Dillah says >> considering what took place in terms of the dialogue and all the back and forth that happened. I is that what you would have expected uh from the scientific process?

[00:09:37]>> There were several other unpleasant things. So the whole sociology of the non-scientific part of of that enterprise was disturbing at times and made me reveal that there's a small not a not a majority but a minority of people who will do anything in in their power to defend their paradigm.

[00:10:00]>> Spoiler alert, this guy may come up again.

[00:10:04]>> And so in a sense, you were told this would be on the pyramids. We talked a little bit beforehand. I shared a few things. Other people shared some things.

[00:10:11]And then boom, this is what it ended up being. Introductions. Younger dest for 13 minutes. Astrological symbolism for half an hour. Pyramid dating for what?

[00:10:21]Uh, an hour. Well, that was the key thing that you prepared for. And then Sphinx dating for 25 minutes. Balbeck stones for what? I don't know like 20 minutes. Gnung Padang for five minutes.

[00:10:32]And then is archaeology a science for uh about 15 minutes. And so, you know, it obviously was a very different debate than what you had uh prepped for. And as I as I told you when I was when I was listening to it yesterday, like the parts that were unprepared, it just sounded to me like I don't know, two dudes in a college dorm room, meaning Matt and Dan. First of all, Flint doesn't really keep up with this stuff.

[00:10:56]I mean, as we saw in the intro, he doesn't really follow it when new data comes out, and he doesn't really know the old data. He doesn't really know much about this at all, but he knows he doesn't like it or like me. And this dubtales with my second point. Do you see this picture here? These were the positions that Neil and myself both declared before the debate. Neil knew ahead of time that my position is not that the pyramids are tens of thousands of years old. Now, what's more, Neil could have declined these other topics, insisting on sticking to the pyramids proper. You know, the topics he knows something about. This is hilarious considering what started a debate between us. These posts right here, do you see how he claims I know basically nothing about this stuff? Man, it kind of sucks to be Gnostic informant right now. I mean, we were there talking about this and on the fly I was getting my details accurate and then these guys discuss it after preparing for a live stream and they still can't get their details in order. Man, yeah, that's a pretty pretty good position you got there. I wonder which one of us has the Wikipedia 101 levels of knowledge.

[00:12:03]>> Do you mind if I actually start with this Easter Island clip because it just >> rambling and and and whatever Dan is. It just sounds like some college kid like just just rambling here. Let me pull it up.

[00:12:15]>> Yeah.

[00:12:16]>> Um >> were definitely in contact with both and their their legends say that they were looking for this place. Their their keen was like >> All right. I don't think I started thinking. Here we go. where the the oldest habitable layer on Easter Island shows fruit shows foods from both the old and the new world.

[00:12:33]>> That is absolutely not true. Absolutely false. It absolutely does not. But whatever. If he wants to claim that, he can lie.

[00:12:41]>> All right, let's dig into this. Anakenna is the site on Easter Island that has the lowest habitable layer that we are aware of. It's the oldest archaeological site that we've found. It's around,00 to,200 years old. Basically what I said in my ramblings, the oldest habitable layer on Easter Island shows, and this site has yielded many artifacts. To return again to the paper from the intro, Anakenna is one of the few sites on the island with deep and well stratified cultural deposits with evidence of extensive use. The numerous investigations that have been carried out in Anakenna have allowed to date and characterize the different occupational phases, making this the earliest dated settlement on the island. The availability of the obsidian tool collection from the bottom stratum of this site offered an ideal archaeological context to answer the question of the initial plant inventory.

[00:13:31]Now the obsidian tools are where the starch grains were sourced and of these the ones that were found in Asia like ginger and bread fruit these were the ones that they didn't expect to find in Easter Island. The unexpected findings of three species i.e. bread fruit, tahesian apple and ginger not previously recorded for rapanoui require some discussion. The presence of bread fruit starch on the tools from Anacenna provides the first evidence that this species was introduced to Easter Island as part of the colonizing strategy. It probably survived and grew for several generations before disappearing. Now, ginger is the most interesting of these in my opinion due to its uses that we are aware of going well back into prehistory. Ginger was one of the first oriental spices to reach the Greeks and Romans about 2,000 years ago. was known in France and Germany since the 9th century, England since the 10th century and reached Scandinavia only in the 15th century. However, information about its eastward spread is scant. Koh shaw state that ginger is one of the traditional medicinal plants that have been used for over 2,000 years by Polynesians to treat diabetes, cancer, and many other diseases. The finding of four archaeological starch grains identified with high probability 90 plus% as ginger on three obsidian tools is to our knowledge the first evidence that this species was introduced to Easter Island during early settlement. So pretty much needless to say at this point Flint is wrong. And the irony of him calling me confidently wrong as he is confidently confidently wrong is really it's the inception of wrongness. Flint. So these guys were definitely in contact with both and their their legends say that >> definitely in contact with both. Hold on a second. Pause real quick. That I I I I should have I wanted to I when I heard that I immediately kind of cringed a little bit because when you say definitely you can't that language is like so you're saying everyone's been wrong forever except for you. When you say something like that definitely they definitely had then where's where's all the papers about this then? How do how are you the only guy that knows this?

[00:15:35]Well, Neil, I'm glad you asked. Here's the papers. We have 2024's paper ancient rapoui genomes reveal resilience and pre-European contact with the Americas that was published in Nature, which was actually a follow-up on a 2014 paper, genomewide ancestry patterns in Rapanoui suggest pre-Uropean ad mixture with Native Americans, which was published in Current Biology. Get ready for a bombshell, Mr. Wikipedia 101 levels of knowledge. If you want to find something, you have to look for it first.

[00:16:12]>> This is why my thumbnail for this says that he's confidently wrong because that's how he is. He's very very confident with wrongness. And uh yeah, >> and it works for him. It works for him.

[00:16:24]the comments like, "Ah, Dan brought the evidence and the and you know, >> so sometimes just being confident goes a long way in this world."

[00:16:32]>> No, it's a real problem. And it and that that's why we call it a con artist, right?

[00:16:38]>> Yeah. [laughter] >> My how the turntable table turns insert Michael Scott thing here. I'm just [ __ ] there. Keane was like had a dream. He knew this place was there. And this is where you get into, you know what Axis Mundy is, right? Like the Okay, world naval. Every world naval is located smack dab in the center of that culture.

[00:17:01]Deli, whailing wall, all this stuff except for Easter Island. If you're part of, if you're part of that culture, if you're part of the Polynesian culture, that is like the farthest flung corner you could go to to have your world naval. Unless the sea levels were lower.

[00:17:16]As Matt pointed out the first time I was here, if you lower the sea levels, all of a sudden, Easter Island looks extremely centrally located in all of the islands. As a matter of fact, it's like the last way point before you jump across the mid-Atlantic ridge. It's like the This is so not true. If you look at where Easter Island is, it is in the middle of the ocean. It's not in the middle of any islands. Even if the sea level was lower, it would still not be in the middle of the Pacific Islands. It would be much closer to South America, for example, than most of the Polynesian islands that we think of.

[00:17:46]>> Once again, the guy's just talking out his ass. I even said, as Matt said last time I was here, do you think I would lie to Matt Bell's face about what he said to me last time I talked to him?

[00:18:00]Come on, man. Look at this topographic map of the Pacific Ocean. And then look at this ridge that I mistakenly called the Minute Atlantic Ridge cuz I'm an idiot. and see how Easter Island is exactly as I described it. The last island in a chain before the longest leg of the journey. How easy it must be to do the job of this Mr. Debunker Flint guy. I mean, you just pick a position, lie about it, make up the facts you want, puff your chest, and beat it, and say, "I know best because I have the credentials next to my name, even though I didn't study anything about this." And clearly, this person actually retains more knowledge than me, even though they smoke a lot of the devil's lettuce.

[00:18:42]Maybe they do actually know something more than Flint does. We'll see in a second what he does when he recognizes that in real time. It's pretty funny.

[00:18:51]So, >> and what's the dating on when they got there? Do you do you know by offh hand or No, >> it's like something like 1200, 1300 AD.

[00:18:59]>> So, it's like we're already in the late medieval period. We're almost near the Renaissance at that time, dude. like what is the contact you this would be in the sources.

[00:19:09]>> Now what he what he's muddling up here is some real stuff which is that there there that there is now evidence for contact between the Polynesians and South Americans but we're talking like 1300 AD something like that we're talking >> not not 10,000 BC younger dest younger dest period.

[00:19:28]>> Yeah >> right. So why are we talking about 1200 AD [ __ ] then? In fact, >> you're exactly right. This is in this early segment of the debate that should be talking about younger dest and and ancient civilizations and stuff like that. And yeah, >> it's confusing.

[00:19:44]>> No, I am not trying to say that this is from 10,000 or 12,000 or 100,000 years ago. I'm talking about there being a connection about a belief in this site being an oldworld naval, an old sacred site. I know to you guys it's impossible to believe that people could could remember things going back thousands of years. It's like like I know who Raw is or Osiris or Kufu or any of these people. It's crazy. But at any rate, some of us believe that people would have remembered their old ancestral holy grounds and like their myths say looked for it. And you know what? According to geologist Robert Shock, who's the same guy who talked about the weathering patterns on the Sphinx? Well, according to him, there's some of the moi there look to have been covered in the erosion from the ground over the course of like 30,000 years. There's basalt moi that are in situ that seem to have been like left like they were carving them thinking they were made of that volcanic tough that's not so hard. They reach a harder stone and they leave it. But there's other basalt moi that aren't left that are fully carved and all embellished and whatnot, too. So, there is some interesting things about Easter Island that do point towards it being settled a couple of different times.

[00:21:00]This is what I was referring to. And I know it's complicated. I know it's tricky to keep up with this kind of stuff, but if you pay attention, this was the astronomical or excuse me, astrological symbolism section, not the younger dest. It's like I'm arguing with Lenny and Squiggy. I swear on my milk and Pepsi. Oh, wait. And what was that that you said >> now? What he what he's muddling up here is some real stuff which is that there there that there is now evidence for contact between the Polynesians and South Americans. But we're talking like 1300 AD something like that. We're talking >> not not 10,000 BC younger dest younger dest period.

[00:21:41]>> But did you catch what just happened there? Flint was looking it up in the stream in the middle of it and realized oh man Grock's telling me that I got this wrong. chat. GPT says Dan was right. Um, well, I could backpedal and say, "You know what? Sorry, man. I when I was making fun of Dan earlier, that was my own mistake. We should learn from that. I screwed up. Sorry, guys. I was wrong." That's what somebody with the basic levels of integrity would do. But what Flint does is proves exactly what I said about him in the debate with Graham Hancock almost two years ago. Now, he lies. He just doubles down. He can't bear to have his ego challenged. He can't be wrong. Absolutely can't be wrong. So instead, he just pretends. He just pretends. And he he corrects Neil kind of sort of. And now they're just going to go with this new narrative la like it's like I didn't just teach the man something about archaeology that he didn't know.

[00:22:42]It's just And this is what I mean. He just rambles and he just push pieces together random stuff >> longest John there makes a lot of sense that there were people there I don't think they had power tools >> but I think that I think this is a great that leading to either power tools or it's [ __ ] uh either yeah power they had power tools or it's complete [ __ ] I think that's really missing the middle ground in that these guys you know what >> there were complicated people that existed back then they did a lot >> I was surp I'm wondering what most of his audience thought about this performance because constantly throughout the debate he's agreeing with me that the pyramids are old kingdom not 10,000 BC let alone 25,000 BC which he was on an appearance with Gre uh with Randall Carlson recently where that was the that was the topic and he's saying there's no power tools there's no secret advanced technology so if they're watching this aren't they going oh no this is bad right >> well so Dan's playing this name which a lot of pseudoarchchaeologists do and I've covered this before on other live streams with other people where what they try to do is they try to say I'm more credible than these other people who are more crackpoted.

[00:23:53]>> Sure.

[00:23:53]>> And so you know you see Jimmy Corsetti do this all the time. He gets into arguments on Twitter with George Oucalos and he basically says oh how could you believe in ancient aliens type stuff? My view of power tools at Giza is much more realistic. And so you know and so Dan >> I love the aliens at that point. Dan is kind of funny because like he is really wishy-washy. If you follow his channel, I've watched way too many of his videos.

[00:24:18]He doesn't like to come down very strongly on any one thing or another. He likes to kind of play around the edges and not say anything concrete. And the way that he makes himself sound plausible is by saying, "I'm not as crazy as these other crackpots. I'm not suggesting power tools and whatnot."

[00:24:33]Yeah.

[00:24:34]>> Now, this is hilarious, Neil. I've been like this since my earliest videos. I debunked Electric Pyramids my first year on YouTube. I even debunked Graham Hancock on numerous thing. Hell, here's a clip of Graham Hancock and me together on stage from a little over a year ago in Sedona, Arizona.

[00:24:54]So [applause] Dan Dan has become uh a dear friend uh in the last year. Uh Dan runs a most unusual YouTube channel called DDunking.

[00:25:07]But I I also regard you as highly objective because you've criticized my work too, you know.

[00:25:11]>> Yeah. It's I mean I you know I thank you. I I mean I tried to be a butt about it. But is as look at that Graham showing a level of integrity these two couldn't muster if they bought it on Timu. All right. Look, I don't know anything for certain about our past. And that is the difference between us. Okay.

[00:25:30]I recognize that biases will make it harder for me to know for sure what happened. I recognize that we've had multiple times in the last hundred years that we have had [ __ ] blocking happening because of ideological reasons like not the evidence holding up an idea. It's the idea holding back the evidence. This has happened more than once in archaeology in the story of our past in very recent times. I mean look, do I get to call something a hypothesis if it's not testable? If it's not repeatable?

[00:26:02]What what if I write a story? Do I get to call it a hypothesis then if I attach some carbon dating to it and whatnot? I mean, this is not okay. There's a huge difference between the science side of what y'all are doing and the non-science side. And when you conflate the two, you make the this is this is where the public loses faith in science is when it sees the professionals or the people that are the the advocates for the scientific community conflating ideas and actual science. The public's a lot smarter than you all seem to think. In case you can't notice right now why you have to pull my GED work boot out of your freaking white tacky butthole.

[00:26:43]White tacky butthole.

[00:26:45]The weeks leading up to the debate, I gave a clear position to Matt of what my position is. I said the pyramids were built by Kufu and his sons. Here's my position. And Dan's position was I don't have a position. I just think scholars are wrong. [laughter] So that was that.

[00:27:00]How do you even have whatever? I agreed to it though. But like that was that was what we were. That's what we were doing.

[00:27:05]>> Neil claimed I didn't know [ __ ] He said that I had a Wikipedia 101 levels of knowledge and that I was didn't think like a normal person because I dared question what the experts had to say.

[00:27:18]Replacing the knowledge of guys like these two don't look [ __ ] up yet claim to know the consensus of the experts is apparently problematic. Now, my position for the debate was clear. We do not know for sure when the pyramids were built.

[00:27:31]And the opinion that we do blocks us from figuring it out. This is not a non-position. And Neil's opinion that I don't know crap and that we therefore need to defer to the experts. Well, something had to backpedal on a little bit and say, "Well, hang on. What I'm saying is you personally have a Wikipedia 101 level of knowledge, Dan, which is something that I think we soundly have put to bed here, if not before. Again, I do this weird thing where I read stuff. It's crazy.

[00:27:58]>> But I you hear this all the time that scholarship is just there to keep the status quo. And I just think I think it's the exact opposite.

[00:28:05]>> I wouldn't say it's there to keep the status quo, but I would say that like we saw it with um Clovis first. And for the people that think that that's just a one-off, man, you go >> We saw it with Clovis first. So, I recommend everybody go and check out the live stream I just did two days ago with Tom Dillah. And uh here, wait, I have this clip civilization.

[00:28:29]>> Um if we could call this up on the screen, Jamie, >> there's Tom at the top. He's the director of excavation for American Archaeology, of which Flint is a member, uh wrote an open letter to Netflix shortly after the release of my show, Ancient Apocalypse.

[00:28:48]uh really asking Netflix to cancel the show. Not to cancel it, this is quite cleverly put. They said don't, they said reclassify it as science fiction. Now to my mind, >> it [laughter] is it is >> 50 plus years of work on my part being reclassified as science fiction is as good as uh cancelling it. Netflix did not reclassify it as science fiction, but but archaeology, the Society for American Archaeology uh says that uh it really sees uh no evidence uh for uh an advanced lost a lost civilization of the ice age and that uh it my series is simply uh entertainment with ideological goals. So I want to get into the the parts of the world that um that archaeology has not looked at that have been >> It's kind of interesting though from that statement the just the last thing contrary to Hancock's claims archaeology does not willfully ignore credible evidence nor does it seek to suppress it in a conspiratorial fashion but we just showed that >> yeah we just showed in the case of Tom Dillah that his evidence was suppressed and in the case of Jacqum Mars his evidence was suppressed that archaeology was not open-minded about the work of these guys that they suffered humiliation and uh great difficulty in in advancing their work. And furthermore, I'd like to make another point clear at this point, Flynn.

[00:30:15]So that's the clip in a sense and this is something that Graham Hancock and others repeat repeat repeatedly that suppressing your work in a conspiratorial fashion is akin to the arguments that archaeologists make against pseudocientists and claims for ancient aliens and Atlantis and stuff like that. I'm wondering what you think about this having lived through some of this and thinking about the millure of cult. Yeah, >> this is the guy he mentioned. Yeah, this is Tom Dillah who he just mentioned. And so this is Dillah's response. Dillah had no idea he was mentioned in this Joe Rogan debate. He he didn't even know much about Graham Hancock or anything.

[00:30:52]So I told him about this before I interviewed him about the recent dating controversy about Monte Verde and he agreed to respond to it. And so here's his response because it's just so funny today and pseudocience and whatnot.

[00:31:05]>> Well, [clears throat] I I can't comment on Atlantis and pseudocience. I know very [laughter] little about it.

[00:31:12]>> Um I would not say that the data at Monty Barely has been suppressed. That's not the word I would use.

[00:31:21]>> Um I'd say it's been heavily [clears throat] criticized in publications and and since it's been published by others and >> also let's stay off the negative a second. There's been a tremendous [laughter] there's been a tremendous amount of support and positivism about Monty too.

[00:31:43]Okay.

[00:31:44]>> So, >> so this is how it's supposed to work.

[00:31:48]>> Now, let's see what Tom Dillah had to say when he wasn't trying to be positive about the situation. and another colleague who sent a letter to the newspaper in Chile uh one of the major newspapers saying that Monty Bear was creation of the CIA to implant me down there and you know that puts you and your family in a dangerous situation in a country like that at that time. So that there were several other unpleasant things. So the whole sociology of the non-scientific part of of that enterprise was disturbing at times and made me reveal that there's a small not a not a majority but a minority of people who will do anything and in their power to defend their paradigm.

[00:32:34]>> Funny Flint pretends this isn't a thing.

[00:32:36]It's almost like he rewrites history in order to change the narrative and the way that it's perceived by the public.

[00:32:44]Almost like he's engaging in an ideological war instead of, you know, educating the public about science.

[00:32:53]>> Exactly.

[00:32:54]>> You publish a paper that shocks the consensus, you're gonna get a bunch of criticism because they think this is the consensus. They think you're wrong. And then you present counter evidence and then people go, "Oh [ __ ] he's right."

[00:33:06]And then you get support. That's how you change the consensus. I even brought this up in the debate. This is normal.

[00:33:12]>> Neil seems to be forgetting the discussion we had in the debate itself.

[00:33:16]This goes way beyond regular skepticism and scrutiny.

[00:33:21]>> Another another thing is like people there's this whole thing like scholars to to be an academic you have to follow tote the line. But like every single scholar I had ever met personally is try actively trying to reverse some sort of status quo. They're trying to get become famous. They're trying to uh discover something that's brand new. They're trying to push back dates. They're trying to prove something wrong. That's the whole point of a of a dissertation is to debunk something. That's that's how this whole thing keeps moving. So I just think it's kind of odd that you hear a lot and not saying you guys say this, but I you hear this all the time that scholarship is just there to keep the status quo. And I just think I think it's the exact opposite.

[00:33:59]>> I wouldn't say it's there to keep the status quo, but I would say that like we saw it with um Clovis first and for the people that think that that's just a one-off, man. You go back to there was a guy Els Hydrolica who was a Smithsonian Institute anthropologist back in the early days and he was same thing. If you posited, it's even in the Wikipedia page. If you posit that there was a there was peopling of the Americas that happened before about 3,000 years ago, you could kiss your academic career goodbye. It's and the Wikipedia page, if I remember the exact quote, is some is something along the lines of it made it virtually impossible for anybody to have a successful career in anthropology if they believe that. And this is you pull pull >> I have a hard time believing that.

[00:34:43]>> Sure.

[00:34:43]>> Can you scroll down just a hair, Ryan?

[00:34:44]Um down little bit further. Um great up a little bit at the bottom of that.

[00:34:49]Okay. uh in early 1900 Als Hydricka and William Henry Holmes of the Smithsonian Institute became the chief made it virtually taboo for any archaeologist desirous of a successful career to advocate for a deep antiquity of the inhabitants of the Americas. Now this is a huge issue one that's plagued archaeology in the Americas for at least 100 years and shows no signs of slowing down. When we have people in positions of power that are more concerned with the optics than they are with the actual data being portrayed, it's going to be pretty difficult for us to get a fair shake out of these people. And I mean, I do not find it an overt or an over-the-top comparison to to say that this is akin to a priest that we trust with our kids violating that trust. We have given you accolades and money and status and you are using it to promote your own agendas instead of actually educating the public. I mean, these two clowns should be talking about Pokemon.

[00:35:49]All right? They should be on a Logan Paul podcast talking about freaking nacho cheese and that kind of [ __ ] They have no they This is a perfect example. It clearly should not be allowed near any sort of scientific discourse. Making mistakes is fine.

[00:36:07]Making mistakes and not owning them is not fine. Making a mistake on the fly like that and leaving it in a video so we could all see that. Flint double, you're always going to be a joke in my book, my friend. Always. Well, thank you very much for watching. Um, if you look below, there's links to support the channel. I'm going to be in Austin for the Quest for Ancient Civilizations conference again. This one's going to be a lot bigger. Um, check out the links down below to get your tickets and to see all the ins and outs of what's going on there so far. Thank you very much and I hope to see you next