Graham Hancock and The Hoopes-Dibble Enigma

Have you heard of Graham Hancock?
You might not have, but many have, and many have strong feelings one way or the other, and those feelings I suspect tie into how people feel about things in society and how ideas are transmitted, and by whom and so forth. 
For a super condensed version, for those who don't know, Graham is a writer/Journalist who went from being the East Africa correspondent for The Economist, to writing about what he believes is a gap in human history, a type of 'amnesia'.  Graham, and his wife, (an excellent and accomplished photographer), Santha, travel the world looking for evidence of this gap in recorded history. 

Something that might be thought of as being 'Atlantis', but in reality 'Atlantis' is just a place holder word, for a society that may have actually been made up of many societal groups, none of whos names we  will never know.

I mean 'Atlantis' is just as good as 'Clovis' when naming  people who can't speak for themselves, right?


His first book in the 'ancient mystery' vein was 1992s 'The Sign and The Seal' written about customs surrounding the Ark of the Covenant' in Ethiopia. 

It wasn't until 1995s 'Fingerprints of the Gods' that Graham had both a best seller, and with that notoriety, a target on his back. 

You see, a lot of people, a lot of well educated people, think that, what Graham has to say is utter rubbish. 

The funny thing is, they might be right.

While I think Hancock makes a load of compelling arguments, I still think that there is a better than good chance he is wrong, or that if he is right it is something that while it might actually be somewhat profound in terms of human history, is  not quite as sexy as a lot of his fans might hope.  

I say this, as someone who has read every one of his books from 'Sign and the Seal' onward, to watching many of his videos. I saw him twice give live lectures. I served over a decade as a volunteer moderator on his website! I sat down for dinner with him and Santha, while my wife and I were visiting England. 

Despite all the evidence that I am clearly entrenched in his corner, I will say that the guy might not be right.

I'm not quite in the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' boat, but in the same harbour, I suppose. 

I just don't think the possibility that he is possibly (or even likely) incorrect, is a reason that I cannot find his ideas interesting, and often compelling. 

Now, if I had to suggest the strongest evidence that Hancock  is right after all, then we would have to look at the biggest 'Mystery' of them all. 

Something we will call (place holder names, and all that) 'The Hoopes-Dibble Enigma' 

You see, because I am curious about something.  

If the science (OK , Archeology) is so concrete and irrefutable, I have to ask, why is it that every single campaign to refute Hancock invariably involves a magnitude of character assassination, insults and plain and simple misrepresentation what Hancock is saying in the first place?
​
Everything from 'Graham is an ancient aliens guy' to the cruel and vicious claims that Graham is a racist, claims that I personally believe, have hit Graham so hard that it has negatively affected his health. 

​Yet, the Hoopes-Dibble crowd hoot and chortle, and pat themselves on the back.  

Of all the things (and by things, I mean human beings) that bother them, Graham seems to be the biggest windmill that they tilt at.

If there was no substance to Hancock's claims, wouldn't he just fade into obscurity on his own?  
I mean Erich Von Daniken created a bit of buzz in the 1970s, but not so much now, right? 

This brings me to Dr. Flint Dibble, who is maybe the Salacious Crumb to Dr. John Hoopes' Jabba the Hutt.
Like 99.9999999999% of the Universe, I never heard of the guy, until he started going out of his way to call Hancock a racist ( but then didn't have the balls to own when confronted on it by Graham in a debate on the Joe Rogan podcast) 

Speaking of that podcast, it gave Dibble (and his discipline) a bigger audience than ever before, I would say, likely by magnitudes. 

Graham even made a point to thank him for agreeing to do the debate, even despite the hateful associations and aspersions regarding white supremist racism, because, no other academic had the intestinal fortitude.

So, off course, good ol' Flint came out swinging, burying a clearly off his game Hancock under a MOUNTAIN of evidence. 
Game set and match! Done and dusted! 
Might have looked like that to many, but nope.
Oh he presented a MOUNTAIN all right, it just wasn't of evidence. 
Some guy named Dan Richards,  who has a  site called 'Dedunking' and he posted a video that I have added at the end of this blog. A video, which is frankly irrefutable. 
​
Flint the lesser, went in front of millions, and served up a five course meal of pork pies. 
It begs the question, why?

If Hancock's ideas are a mountain of nonsense, why?

Why lie?  Why obfuscate what Graham is saying if it is so lacking in merit, by tying it in to ideas that stretch into the odious. 

How can he (and many others) claim or insinuate that Graham is devaluing Indigenous cultures, more often than the Pitt Rivers Museum has shrunken heads in their collection? (because Archeology has always been the paragon of anti-racism, nudge nudge, wink wink) 
Yet, they ignore the fact that Graham has always advocated for cultures, ancient, indigenous or otherwise to be listed to, and for their stories, their own accounts of their history to be taken seriously. 
How is it, that Graham is a racist, but his wife Santha, an accomplished, strong, articulate and incredibly intelligent woman (who happens to be of Tamil decent) can't see Graham's racism, without having to be 'saved' by Flint Dibble, a well, white guy, who I guess knows her own husband better than her?
If anything is total rubbish, it is that. 

I am not saying, even yet, that Graham is right.  
I am just asking, if he is so irrefutably wrong, why all this nonsense.  Cruel, nasty, unsubstantiated nonsense. 

Are some ideas you don't like that big a threat?  Are you SO insecure in your own position? 

I will end this with apologies' to Graham and Santha, as I feel I must reference a part of our private conversation.

At the time of our dinner I was already aware that Graham and Dr. Dibble were slated to debate on Joe Rogan's podcast, so I asked Graham about it.

Graham did not go into details (as he said out of respect for Flint's privacy) but that the debate was being delayed because some sort of health issue had popped up for Dibble. 

Do you know what Graham said about that? 

He said that he was worried for Flint and that he hoped he was OK. 
Yes, the man Flint and his cohorts have described as a charlatan, and have ridiculed, and painted as a racist. 
The man, who despite all of this, gave Flint a bigger audience than 10,000 Flints could have on their own, despite all of that, he was worried about Flint. 

Based on all of this, I still don't know if Graham is correct. 

I just know that Dibble is wrong. 

What a shame.  Imagine how much further exposure Flint (and archeologists like him) could have garnered if he has entered into the debate with a shred of sincerity (or for that matter integrity).

Guess we will never know.   

I guess petty jealousy is more important. 

The Hoopes-Dibble Enigma, solved.