Hey everyone, as you know, I've devoted
myself to completely obliterating the
revolting pseudoarchchaeology cult. With
the most obvious targets out of the way,
it's time to move on to some of the
newer rising stars. And today, we will
focus on a guy named Michael Button.
What kind of [\h__\h] does this guy
spew? Let's find out. In case you're new
to my content, debunking
pseudoarchchaeology, this is a
ridiculous pseudocientific where a
collection of blatant grifters spew
endless horseshit on YouTube and
podcasts about how archaeologists are
all so super dumb and wrong and
closed-minded and there were all these
super awesome technologically advanced
ancient civilizations and the pyramids
were laser beam factories and maybe
aliens were involved and there's
literally zero evidence for any of this,
but it's totally true because trust me,
bro. Naturally, I've been running
through the roster of this cult one
fraud at a time, much to their chagrin,
the godfather of modern pseudo
archaeology, is Graham Hancock, and we
debunked his face off in this video, as
well as two of his pointless henchmen,
Dan Richards and Jimmy Corsetti, who
each got one or more follow-up videos.
Then came Ben Van Kirkwick and his grift
regarding super advanced ancient vases,
a claim which was debunked by his own
research team. There's more to discuss
here, including a scam regarding Ben's
colleague Adam Young and his artifact
foundation, where pseudoarchchaeological
claims are used to artificially inflate
the value of artifacts so that rich
people can buy and then donate them at
huge discrepancies for obscene tax
write-offs. But that will have to wait
for another day. Today, we are going to
expose a more recent rising figure in
this cult, and that's Button. Mikey is
an interesting character, as he is not
so outwardly toxic like most of the rest
of the cult leaders. He exudes a calm,
friendly demeanor that suits his grift
quite well. What this means is that we
won't have to waste much time on
despicable tweets or things of that
nature. We can focus strictly on the
lies he tells about archaeology and
debunk them thoroughly using factual
information. So, this will be a much
more educational experience than other
recent content on these frauds. But
don't forget, it's true that the
toxicity of this cult is blatantly
obvious when people like Dan or Jimmy do
things like accusing Lee Clare of
stealing artifacts or encouraging
followers to actively try and get Lee or
Flint Dibble fired from their jobs
beyond the constant trolling on social
media. But even when members of this
cult present themselves in a cordial and
agreeable manner like Michael or Graham,
the rhetoric they push still poisons
society with the anti-science narrative
that all the archaeologists in the world
are either incompetent or lying, which
the suggestible viewer inevitably
extends towards other areas of science,
especially medicine, which exacerbates
vaccine hesitancy and other forms of
science denial that kill people. So this
is not just fun, harmless fantasies. Not
by a long shot. Mikey has seen his
popularity skyrocket recently thanks to
being platformed by who the hell else,
Joe Rogan. He appeared on Joe's show in
August of last year, which
single-handedly inflated his media
presence by at least an order of
magnitude. Part of this has to do with
the fact that unlike the rest of this
cult, Button is mildly credentialed. He
has a bachelor's degree in ancient
history from the University of
Birmingham. This doesn't make him
anything remotely resembling an expert
on anything, especially not in the
adjacent but separate field of
archaeology, but it does put him above
most of the bottom feeders that inhabit
the space. He knows that he can access
the slightest veneer of credibility by
referencing his degree, and he brings it
up constantly. But to be clear, he is
precisely the same as the other grifters
in this space. He uses the same talking
points, the same rhetorical techniques,
the same framing of archaeologists as a
closed-minded establishment, suppressing
inconvenient truths, the whole kitten
kaboodleoodle. He just does it with a
British accent while hiding behind a BA.
The University of Birmingham website
describes the ancient history BA thusly.
Explore the diverse histories of
classical Greece, Republican and
Imperial Rome, ancient Egypt, late
antiquity, and the Byzantine Empire. So
this is a degree in recorded human
history. It does not cover prehistoric
archaeology. It does not cover paleo
anthropology. And it does not cover
pre-aggricultural societies or the deep
human past. It has nothing to do with
the topics button makes videos about
which are almost exclusively centered on
prehistory, alleged lost civilizations,
and the origins of complex society
before the written record. Therefore,
his degree does not qualify him to speak
with authority on any of those things.
He is nothing more than a lay person
arrogantly flexing objective falsehoods
which contradict wells substantiated
knowledge in multiple fields that has
been gathered over several centuries by
thousands of career scientists. So why
didn't Mikey keep going after his
bachelors? He has claimed in multiple
interviews that he didn't continue in
academia because he didn't trust what he
was being taught by the ivory tower
elites. He didn't like how he was
emphatically told that we know all of
our history and prehistory, that it's
set in stone and nobody should ask
questions about it ever. Mikey rejected
this academic arrogance and decided to
pursue the truth independently like the
rogue, trailblazing, truth seeeking,
truthy McTrutherton that he is. I felt
myself growing a little bit tired of the
fact that we were taught that we knew
everything about our ancient past and
our prehistoric past when I think that
is not the case. I think there's such a
a chasm, such a kind of shadow, such a
murky cloud of unknown when it comes to
these topics that I didn't agree with
the way that it has been presented by
mainstream academia. Stupid mainstream
academia, a term that is literally
meaningless, always pretending to know
absolutely everything about everything.
Of course, in reality, this is the
precise opposite of how academic
disciplines work, especially a field
like archaeology. And he definitely was
not taught that. Nobody is. He's lying.
This is just a pathetic story to rile up
gullible people who are hostile towards
academia and legitimate expertise.
Archaeology is explicitly built around
the acknowledgement of what we don't yet
know. Archaeologists openly discuss the
limits of current evidence, participate
in ongoing debates, submit revised
interpretations, and uncover new
discoveries that change our current
understanding. since they are the ones
who actually go on excavations to find
new sites and recover ancient artifacts.
Anyone who knows literally anything
about archaeology knows this. Button
knows it, too. So does Graham, who seems
to fancy Button as his protege since he
comes off as more likable and credible
than the other transparent wastess of
human life in this cult. And he sports
the same accent. Mikey knows this and he
leans into it hard. So like a Robert
Malone or a Pierre Corey or so many
other frauds that Joe Rogan has brought
to prominence, Button presents himself
as the credentialed insider who saw
through the establishment from within
and is using his knowhow to blow the
whistle on those closed-minded
establishment shills. Of course, far
from pushing back against academics, he
is just misrepresenting them as everyone
in this cult consistently does. The
manufactured skepticism he espouses as
his own independent conclusion. The idea
that the consensus on human prehistory
is uncertain and there is far more to
discover is not a brave heterodox
opinion. It is itself the scientific
consensus. It is a built-in feature of
these fields. Every working
archaeologist and paleo anthropologist
on the planet agrees that their field is
nowhere near complete and would gladly
tell you that themselves. But far from
simply pointing at this misleading
rhetoric, we need to rigorously debunk
Button's specific claims and concretely
demonstrate what a worthless grifting
fraud he is. And that will involve going
through several of the videos on his own
channel as well as his Rogan appearance.
So, let's dig into this grifter's
catalog. 3 years after graduating with
his history BA, Michael started his
aonomous YouTube channel, posting his
first video on September 20th, 2024. He
made videos about books, general
history, the world wars, and found that
he wasn't getting many views. Then on
January 16th, 2025, he posted a video
titled, "Why did civilization collapse
3,000 years ago?" And it performed
substantially better than what he had
made until that point, proving himself
to be a quick learner. Every video he
posted after that was some [\h__\h]
about fabricated mysteries, fictional
lost civilizations, all the same crap
that has built an audience for the other
grifters we've debunked from this space,
including clickbait thumbnails with the
pointing and the arrows and the holy
smokes, nobody can explain this type of
crap. This is not a coincidence, of
course. Mikey understood very well that
this type of content generates views
since it had already done so for others,
making it a proven formula, and he
committed to it with the entirety of his
being. Rogan noticed Button's content
and gave him a shout out on April 5th of
that year, which pushed him past 10,000
subscribers. Then, as we said, he went
on Joe's show that August. And then in
October, he sat down with Graham [\h__\h]
himself, who personally inducted him
into the cult. Nobody will be surprised
that this interview was just a
coordinated smear campaign against
working archaeologists with a particular
focus on Flint Dibble, of course, the
Harry Potter to Graham's Voldemort.
Graham will spend the rest of his life
crying about Flint because of the
fateful events in Joe's studio in 2024.
Then in December of last year, Button
was part of an Atlantis panel at the
Quest for Ancient Civilizations
conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. As
you can see, he was in good company
alongside Jimmy, Dan, and a bunch of
other grifters. And yet, Button has been
careful to present himself as someone
who doesn't take sides. He's
evidence-based. You see, he follows the
evidence wherever it leads. This is
another common lie which he exploits for
plausible deniability. When challenged,
he can point to that framing and say he
never claimed anything definitively,
just like Gramp. But anyone actually
watching his content closely, can see
exactly what he's doing. He uses real
research and cites legitimate papers,
which makes his audience believe that
his conclusions are grounded in that
research. But he's just sneaking in
claims that the research he's citing
does not actually support. He used to
push this both sides rhetoric a lot. He
used to say things on social media like,
"I have enormous respect for
archaeologists in archaeology. Don't
look for this tweet now." He deleted it.
It seems that the respect was just
performative. And he dropped it once he
realized that it wasn't what his target
audience wanted to hear. Archaeologists
are all lying frauds. Remember, here are
some more of his deleted tweets. Here's
one where he pretends that each
generation of archaeologists believed
they were close to the full picture,
whatever that means. framing the entire
discipline as perpetually overconfident
and therefore inherently untrustworthy.
Predictably, that tweet was met with a
response from many archaeologists who
swiftly put him in his place. Peter
Brand called him out for being a
clueless idiot demeaning the entire
field with a tired old script used by
many pseudocience peddlers before him.
Justine Warren said, "Then how the [\h__\h]
does the field evolve? So, are you lying
or stupid?" Joseph Wilson said, "Why the
[\h__\h] do you keep telling this dumb lie
no matter how many times you're
corrected?" a few more as well, pointing
out that if he had the courage to
actually talk to any of them, they would
have corrected him long ago. Almost
every single reply pushed back on him,
making him look like a complete idiot.
And of course, here he is joining his
hero Graham's targeted attack on Flint,
while also claiming that Flint's
prominence derives entirely from
attacking Graham. Flint reminded Mikey
that he's only known for lying about
science. Once again, every single one of
these tweets has been deleted. Button is
exactly the same as the rest of these
grifting scumbags. The only meaningful
differences are that he has a bachelor's
degree in a semi-related field, he's
newer to the grift, and he's even more
of a coward, typically completely
ignoring the people who push back on his
lies or deleting entire threads when the
heat gets too strong. All right, so
let's get down to brass tax. First,
let's take a look at this video from
April of last year called I Visited
Malta's ruins and they might rewrite
history. Wow, he went to a place. Being
a clueless tourist pretending to know
about archaeology is good enough for
Graham. So, it's good enough for Mikey,
too. This video is the total button
package. Manufactured mystery, biased
framing, arguments from incredul all
day, and the perpetual suggestion that
actual archaeologists just don't want
you asking questions. So, let's see how
these Maltes temples change everything.
Yeah, I've just come back from Malta,
where I spent a week visiting the
island's mysterious megalithic ruins.
And by the end of this video, you'll
realize that the accepted timeline of
Mortar's ancient history simply doesn't
make sense. And I'll share a new update
that suggests Mortar's story is far
older and more mysterious than we could
have ever imagined. Holy [\h__\h] secret
knowledge. He walked around and looked
at stuff and now he knows more than
archaeologists who excavate and study
these sites for a living. Real knowledge
is stupid. Super cool mysteries I made
up are way more better. We need to start
with the mainstream view of Molter's
history. The Orthodox timeline says that
the first humans arrived on the islands
during the Neolithic around 5,900 BC.
These people were early farmers who
mostly lived in caves. However, this
period of habitation didn't last and
factors such as climate change led to
the islands becoming too dry to sustain
agriculture. And thus, the Maltese
archipelago once again became
uninhabited for another 1,000 years. But
then, a second wave of colonization
arrived around 3,850
BC. It is this culture to which
mainstream archaeology attributes all
the magnificent temple building we see
today. However, this is where things
stop making sense. Somehow this group of
people supposedly a tiny island
population of early farmers with no
wheel, no metal tools, and no writing
suddenly, practically overnight,
developed incredible skills in
megalithic construction. No, Malta was
not a tiny island population. During the
temple period of 3,800 to 2400 B.CE,
Malta is estimated to have supported a
population of 5 to 10,000 people with a
total land area of 316 km. That yields a
population density of around 16 to 32
people per square kilometer. Mainland
Europe at the same time was estimated to
be around 1 to two people per square km
as the standard baseline density. So
Malta at 16 to 32 people per square
kilometer was 6 to 32 times the European
Neolithic average. This is not a tiny
population. It is an exceptionally dense
one by the standards of the time. Next
up, he explains in a perplexed manner
that they had no wheel, no metal tools,
and no writing. Well, this is not
specific to the Maltese temples. He is
describing the universal baseline
conditions of the entire European
Neolithic. Stonehenge, Carnack in
Britany, the Karen of Barnes, which
predates Giggantia in Malta by
centuries. All of these were built
without wheels, metal tools or writing.
Every major Neolithic megalithic site
across Europe and the British Isles was
built without them. He's trying to
manufacture a sense of impossibility
where none exists. Let's take the
largest megalithic site, Gagantia, as an
example. Gagantia was apparently
constructed only 200 years after humans
first repopulated the islands. But it's
an astoundingly impressive project. Some
of the stones weigh over 50 tons. Yet
these massive megaliths were quarried,
precisely cut, transported, and
perfectly aligned without metal tools.
Without even draft animals to pull the
stones without draft animals to pull the
stones. Are you sure about that, champ?
Based on what, your butthole? I ask.
Because the Fragsus project was a major
multi-year multi-establishment
excavation program that produced the
most comprehensive zoarchchaeological
data set we have of the Maltese temple
period. And that team found cattle bones
at every single temple site they
excavated. Cattle are draft animals,
aren't they? That means livestock that
are trained to pull [\h__\h] Yes, they are
among the most widely and continuously
used draft animals in human history. And
they are still used as draft animals
today. Do you think they could have used
those? Also, every time without fail,
and no matter what site they're talking
about, these douchebags always rave
about the incredible precision of the
cutting and the immaculate perfection of
the alignment while showing you footage
of stones with no such otherworldly
precision or perfection. Mikey just
asserts it and gullible people nod their
heads. They were ancient people who did
their best, nothing more. I mean, look
at the size of some of these blocks.
It's estimated the temple was over 25 ft
tall. But [music] how did they lift
these stones so high? The complex is
also astronomically aligned with the
winter solstice, implying the builders
had an observational understanding of
solar cycles, which is incredible
considering the sheer infancy of their
civilization and the lack of written
language for architectural design. The
temple also suggests centralized
planning, organized labor, and
motivations powerful enough to mobilize
an entire society. Yet, all of this was
supposedly achieved in just 200 years.
It makes zero sense to me. Astronomical
alignment is the result of watching the
night sky for a long time and recording
the positions of things. Should we be
impressed by their patient and thorough
observations over many years? Sure, I
guess, but it's not a mystery. Same with
the rest. Planning, labor, motivation.
Oh my goodness, how did they plan things
and then work to achieve them? It's not
like they were talking to each other or
anything. Does this [\h__\h] think that no
written language means no spoken
language either? Working also was not a
new concept. That's sort of what every
human did until the 20th century. 200
years is plenty of time to build some
[\h__\h] All we're left with is how they
move big rock, which is really all these
[\h__\h] ever have in the first place
that a population could develop this
level of sophistication in such a tiny
time frame. I mean, where are the
precursors? Where is the slow buildup of
technology and ideas, the trial and
error? You'd expect to see crudder
efforts, the development of skills, not
immediately jumping to such impressive
construction at the very beginning of
their civilization. To put it simply, if
the mainstream view is to be believed,
then this leap represents the fastest
development of construction technology
and societal organization ever seen in
human history. And it simply doesn't
make sense. And it's not like they could
have brought these ideas with them. Even
with its accepted date, Gigante is by
far the oldest megalithic site in the
Mediterranean and was the oldest on
Earth until the discovery of the even
more mysterious Gebecepe in Turkey. So,
how did this culture go from zero to
master engineers, builders, and
astronomers in only 200 years? In my
opinion, that just doesn't make sense.
Ah, yes, a transparent name drop of a
situs potential viewers have heard of
just in case they were falling asleep.
Anyway, the precursors he's whining
about are indeed there. He just doesn't
read his own sources. David Trump's 1981
study, Megalithic Architecture in Malta,
presents a complete typological sequence
of structural development across the
temple period. You can see the clear
progression from earlier simpler
structures to the later more complex and
monumental ones. Trump states explicitly
that the description of this sequence
may seem a little labored, but it
illustrates the progressive advances
made by the designers of these
buildings. Again, that study was
published 44 years ago, not exactly hot
off the presses. More modern work by
Whittle Malone at Al in 2019 also
contradicts Button's baseless
characterization of sudden inexplicable
construction. At Shara, the town where
Gantia is located, they describe a more
extended, steady, and slowly changing
cultural sequence where one phase slides
into the next. Their model shows that
the site was being used over a very long
time span with abundant Zebuk period
material indicating activity there well
before the later monumental phases. In
other words, the sequence at Shara is
not one of abrupt appearance but of
long-term continuity and gradual change.
Mikey even tells his audience that
Giggantia was the oldest megalithic site
in the world until Gobecletepe while
highlighting text that says something
completely different. It says that
Giggantia was the world's second oldest
man-made religious structure after
Gobecletepe, not the oldest megalithic
site. He either can't read what he's
highlighting or he is deliberately
misquing it knowing that his viewers
won't catch the lie. Here's a wiki entry
of the oldest sites. There are two older
than Gobecletepe and 19 in between that
and Giggantia. Whoops. But it doesn't
stop there. The Orthodox view claims
that over the next 1,000 years in total,
this culture were absolutely prolific in
their temple building, somehow building
at least 30 megalithic temple sites all
across the tiny Maltese islands. This is
an entirely new site roughly every 33
years. And that's only the ones we've
discovered. There could be more. Not
every temple was the size of Gantia,
chief. The smallest known temple site is
just 6.5 m long. One small to
medium-sized temple made from locally
and abundantly available soft workable
limestone every 30 years from a
population 10 times denser than the
European Neolithic average is not a
mystery. So if it doesn't make sense to
you, Mike, you might just be stupid or
grifting. Yeah, the second one. So why
did this culture appear, immediately
begin constructing astoundingly
impressive megalithic temples,
consistently pumping one out every few
decades, and then suddenly disappear
with no sign of conquest or war?
Conquest and war are not the only
reasons for civilizational collapse, and
the end of the temple period is
thoroughly recorded. The collapse is
documented in the skeletal record, the
paleobotanical record, soil
micromorphological record, and
chronological modeling. Different areas
that all independently point to the same
conclusion. The skeletal remains show a
society that had been deteriorating for
a long time. In the final centuries of
the temple period between 2600 and 2400
B.CE, half of the people dying were
children, and the adult bones showed
sustained malnutrition. These are direct
physical measurements from human remains
which show a population that had been
experiencing generational nutritional
stress for generations before the
disappearance. The population was in the
advanced stages of a slow prolonged
demographic collapse that was suffering
for a long time and was thus forced to
leave the island. All of this is common
knowledge among scholars who research
this area. Why did they need to build so
many temples so soon after one another?
And how did a tiny island population
have the resources and the ability to
achieve this? You'd think Mortal was
simply too small to sustain the
necessary civilization that could
develop the enormously sophisticated
construction techniques found in the
temples. And we see no evidence for the
large-scale domestic agriculture that
surely would have been needed to support
the people who achieved this. So, how
does any of this make sense? Make it
make sense, you guys. Okay, sure. You're
just lying about there having been no
agriculture. Pollen cores taken from
Maltese sediment show rapid
deforestation beginning in the early
Neolithic which was followed by
centuries of intensive agriculture
dominating the landscape. The pollen
record shows the shift from mixed
farming to heavy arable agriculture
happening around 5,800 years ago and
persisting. Soil micromorphology at
Shara confirms that because of
agriculture, the woodland was stripped
and the organic matter was lost while
the soil thinned, reddened and calcified
over centuries of intensive use. As the
centuries passed, the soil erosion and
climate conditions worsened, which is
evidenced by the changing pollen record
and the diminishing tree remains. The
land and the people were failing
together across centuries long before
the end. Growut at all state that the
chronological modeling indicates the
decline of temple period society over
several centuries before the so-called
4.2Ka event. The population was already
in advanced decline from internal
environmental collapse before that
external pressure arrived. The collapse
did not happen in the blink of an eye
and it was not mysterious. It was the
predictable outcome of a dense
population that had been overarming a
small island with finite soil resources
for generations. So, as you can see, the
pollen record, the soil micromorphology,
and the geoarchchaeological survey
across multiple Maltese sites all
document intensive sustained farming
that degraded the island's soil from the
early 4th millennium B.CE onward.
Large-scale domestic agriculture existed
to such an extreme extent that it was
one of the key factors in this
civilization's collapse. So Mikey, when
you say no evidence of large-scale
agriculture, what you're telling
everyone is that you're either a [\h__\h]
idiot who has never spent even 10
seconds looking into this topic or
you're a worthless fraud lying through
your teeth. Then there's arguably the
most impressive construction on the
island, the mysterious hyperge. The
hypergeim is a multi-level subterranean
structure carved directly into solid
limestone. It has three levels, and the
deepest reaches about 12 m underground.
This is deeper than most modern subway
systems. This architecture has no known
precedent and is dated to the very
beginning of this culture's arrival in
Malta. So, how did they immediately have
the skill to build such a project? And
is this really possible with stone
chisels? The hypo gamm was not dated to
the very beginning of anything. He is
once again misquing his source. He is
highlighting the date when the earliest
remains were found at the site. That is
not the date of construction. It is the
date of the earliest biological material
deposited at the site. It says it right
there, earliest remains or when people
were first there. The hypoggeum, like
many Neolithic monuments in Malta and
elsewhere, almost certainly began as a
natural cave or simple rock cut cavity
used for the dead. A practice documented
extensively in the Zebug phase, which
predates the temple period entirely. The
Wikipedia page he's showing explicitly
states that the hypoggeum dates to the
Sphini phase listed here as 3,300 to
3000 B.CE, which already contradicts
what he said. But it gets even worse for
him since this range is outdated. Newer
statistical modeling and radiocarbon
dating done by Malone at all in 2020
places this phase at 3080 to 2760 B.CE.
Therefore, the hypogeeum dates to the
middle of the temple period after
centuries of above ground temple
construction was already underway. In
this instance, I think Mike is both
totally clueless about this research and
also deliberately lying by highlighting
this earliest remains date when at the
top of that same page, it offers a
totally different time frame. Even more
mysteriously, some of the chambers are
carved to create an acoustic resonance
effect. A voice used at a frequency of
110 hertz resonates throughout the
entire underground complex, creating a
powerful vibrating echo that can be felt
as much as heard. This acoustic
phenomenon is thought to have induced
translike states or altered
consciousness. But it again begs the
question, how were they so sophisticated
[music] as to achieve this right at the
beginning of their civilization? To add
to the mystery, some human remains found
here were skulls with unusual elongation
and cranial features. Don't panic. I'm
not going to claim they're aliens, but
it adds to the mystery all the same.
Holy [\h__\h] Super cool frequency stuff
and aliens. Maybe. This keeps getting
crazier and crazier. Except not at all.
This 110 hertz figure comes from Cook at
all in 2008, a study that measured the
acoustic properties of Neolithic
chambers in Britain, not Malta. The
paper he shows on screen is Deborra
Tolus at all from 2015 which actually
measured the resonant frequency of the
oracle room in the hypogum using
controlled acoustic testing. They
measured the resonant frequency at 114
hertz and a lower mode of 68 to 70 Hz.
They noted in their paper that this was
a bit different from the 110 to 111
hertz that was initially expected based
on previous research in other Neolithic
chambers. The paper he is showing on
screen documents in its own text that
110 hertz does not apply to the hypogum.
He is constantly contradicting what he
shows with what he says and it doesn't
resonate throughout the entire
underground complex. The resonance
effect is localized to the middle level
of the complex. No research conducted on
the hypogum ever recorded or
experimented with translike states. This
is again from Cook where they found
measurable changes in electro
andphilographic activity in language
processing brain regions when subjects
were exposed to frequencies around 110
hertz in British neolithic chambers not
the hypogum. This graph that he shows
figure five from Deborus is the acoustic
baseline taken before acoustic testing
began. The caption for this figure
specifically states that it is nothing
to remark just a little noise from the
neighborhood. This dumbass is showing
the control instead of actual data. The
paper contains multiple test results
from controlled experiments using male
and female voices, both singing and
shouting, Irish frame drums, a bullhorn,
and a con shell. But he chose to show
the baseline graph because he didn't
read the paper. He didn't even read the
caption of that figure. He just thought,
"Hey, cool looking graph. Make me look
smart." And finally, those skulls were
classified as being long-headed type, a
standard 20th century cranological
classification for docosephily. Skulls
classified as docosphalic fall within
normal human variation and are found in
living humans today. And then he says
he's not going to claim they are aliens
even though he just implied it.
Classical plausible deniability. Implies
it promptly disavows it to seem more
credible and the association is already
made for the gullible viewer. So, how do
we account for the presence of these
astounding megalithic constructions with
no architectural antecedance, no
civilizational buildup, and no evidence
of large-scale agriculture? As we've
discussed, false, false, false. Nothing
but lies from Mikey.
>> Is archaeology sure about these dates?
Well, let's now take a look at the
science used to date the temples. The
primary method used to date the
megalithic temples of Malta is
radiocarbon dating. Archaeologists state
organic material like charcoal, bone, or
plant remains found in or near the
temple layers. The amount of carbon 14
left in the material tells scientists
how long it's been since the organism
died. At Moltus temples, however, only a
few radiocarbon samples have been taken,
and crucially only from on top of or
around the megaliths, not beneath. This
is a key distinction. If these samples
were taken from beneath the stones, it
would prove that the stones were placed
on top of and crucially after the
organic material was deposited. However,
only having dates from on or around the
megaliths doesn't really prove their
age. Textbook pseudoarchchaeology
[\h__\h] First, he's just flatout lying
when he says we have no carbon 14 dates
from under the temples, as we will prove
in a moment. Grahamcock tells this lie
and button blindly repeats it. But the
rest is more subtle. take genuine
uncertainty in any scientific dating
program and reframe it as evidence that
the entire chronological framework is
unreliable. First, there are not only a
few samples. He's lying. The Fragsus
project alone generated over 500 new
radiocarbon dates from Maltese temple
sites. They then synthesized multiple
independent radiocarbon dates from
multiple sites into a Beijing
chronological model. Button has no
[\h__\h] idea how this stuff works. The
temples were not built on bare ground.
They were built on rubble fill, prepared
floors, and stratified interior
deposits. Layers of material that
accumulated during construction and use,
sealed beneath and between the
stonework. Samples taken from within
these sealed layers, such as animal
bone, charcoal, and plant remains, date
to the building's use and construction
phases, not incidental material
scattered nearby. This is basic
stratographic archaeology. Simply put,
sealed contexts give reliable dates
because the material cannot have moved
in from anywhere else. Whittle Malone at
all in 2019 date the rock cut tomb at
Shara to 3640 to 3500 B.CE. This is a
tomb cut into the bedrock that predates
the above ground construction at the
same site. So they are dating the
precursor structures beneath the later
building phases. Exactly what Button
claims they don't do. Instead, he
suggests that a prior population built
around 30 to 33 megalithic structures
and then disappeared without leaving any
tools, human remains, pottery, charcoal,
animal bone, construction debris, or any
stratographic trace of any kind,
anywhere. Cool story, bro. The temples
could have already been there.
Archaeologists also analyze pottery
styles, tools, and figurines. [music]
Much of the pottery found at these sites
has been cross-dated with other
Mediterranean sites at the accepted
date. But again, just because pottery
was found from this period doesn't prove
that this was when the temples were
constructed. It just proves that people
lived here at this time. There's no
reason to suggest the culture
responsible for the pottery couldn't
have found these sites already there,
inherited them, and used them in their
own society. His own pottery argument
dismantles his hypothesis. Pottery alone
does not date construction. That's true.
But he is dismissing one strand of a
multistrand framework in which
radiocarbon dating, strategraphy,
ceramic typology and architectural
sequence analysis all converge on the
same chronology independently. The
ceramic sequence evolves alongside the
temple sequence in the same
stratographic layers at the same sites.
When multiple independent threads of
evidence all converge on the same
conclusion, the conclusion is
corroborated. That's how science works.
On top of this, some geologists have
raised eyebrows at the extent of erosion
on certain structures, especially
temples like Manadra, Hajakim, and
Gigantia. Some megaliths show signs of
deep weathering, including rounded
edges, pitted surfaces, and extensive
limestone flaking. Critics argue this
level of erosion would typically take
much, much longer than 6,000 years,
especially considering Molar's
relatively dry climate. So once you
realize that there are no radiocarbon
dates from beneath the megaliths and
that the erosion points to these
quarried stones being much older, the
mainstream dating of these complexes
starts to look less secure. All of the
Maltese megalithic structures are built
from two types of limestone, globina and
coraline. Globina limestone is soft,
highly porous and extremely vulnerable
to salt crystallization weathering.
Malta is a small island in the
Mediterranean Sea and salt laden
moisture continuously penetrates the
pores of the stone, crystallizes as
humidity fluctuates and shatters it from
the inside out. This produces the
precise rounded edges, pitted surfaces,
and surface flaking Mikey describes as
suspicious. So, no, it is not evidence
of extraordinary age. No geologists have
raised their eyebrows at it because they
actually understand rocks. This is the
expected behavior of this specific stone
in this specific environment. Button
went to Hal Tarine, which is one of the
many temples covered by a large
protective shelter to combat ongoing
deterioration caused by Malta's climate
because they are primarily built out of
globina limestone. It says this at the
sites. Malta receives regular winter
rainfall, humidity averaging 76%
annually, and constant salt laden marine
air from all directions. That marine
exposure is exactly what drives salt
crystallization weathering in
Mediterranean limestone structures. It
is not a dry climate in any meaningful
geological sense. Again, nothing but
dumb [\h__\h] from Button here. It seems
to me that the only reason these temples
are dated to this period is that they
can't be dated any earlier without
rewriting the established timeline of
human civilization. But the evidence
pointing to this date of construction is
limited at best and the developmental
timeline is nonsensical. So that raises
the question, what if these temples,
this megalithic culture was older? Well,
for this to be feasible, then there
would need to be older human presence on
the island. But is this even possible?
Well, it's not just possible. It's
arguably been proved. In a
groundbreaking new discovery announced
last week, archaeologists discovered
cooked fish and deer bones along with
other organic and human-made materials,
indicating that humans inhabited mortar
well before the arrival of the Neolithic
farmers. Extensive testing confirmed
that these remains are at least 8,500
years old, possibly 9,000, pushing back
the timeline of human activity on the
islands by a millennium. Not only does
this rewrite Molar's prehistory, it also
opens the door for human presence on the
islands going back much further. This is
the big payoff these frauds aim for in
every video. [\h__\h] is so much older than
we thought. So archaeologists are dumb
and wrong, and I'm way smarter than them
for figuring this out. Well, it's all
[\h__\h] Button claims the only reason
these temples are dated to this period
is that archaeology can't revise the
timeline without rewriting established
history. And then he immediately cites a
nature paper which did exactly that.
Human presence in Malta approximately
8,500 years ago was confirmed and the
timeline changed. Scientists did science
which changed what we know about
science. Unprecedented, I know. But more
importantly, this paper has no bearing
on the temple dates. The humans
confirmed at Lotia Cave were hunter
gatherers who predate the temples by
3,000 years. The temples themselves have
their own independent robust dating
evidence that has nothing to do with
when humans first arrived on the island.
Humans being there does not equal
temples are older than the data says
because reasons. Pathetic. But there's
more. A 1917 discovery of a human tooth
in the Kardam cave has sparked renewed
interest after modern analysis suggested
it may belong to a Neanderthal.
Researchers from the Natural History
Museum in London identified traits
unique to Neanderthal teeth. If
confirmed through DNA testing, this
would push back human presence in Malta
by around 30,000 years [music] and
suggest that Neanderthalss once
inhabited the island. Now, obviously,
these aren't homo sapiens. But if
Neanderthalss could reach these islands,
there's nothing to suggest homo sapiens
couldn't either. But how could these
early humans have possibly got here?
Well, Mortar wasn't always an island.
During the last ice age, sea levels were
over 100 m lower than they are today,
exposing vast stretches of land that are
now submerged. Mortar was connected to
Sicily, [music] making it accessible to
migrating humans and animals. Then as
the last ice age ended and glaciers
melted around 11,000 years ago, rising
seas gradually cut maltar off, turning
it into the isolated island we know
today. But if Neanderthalss could have
migrated across this landbridge, then
why couldn't Homo sapiens? If true, this
would completely rewrite human history
on Malta and would put the accepted
dates of the megalithic construction
into serious jeopardy. If humans were on
the islands before the end of the last
ice [music] age, before the islands even
became islands, it would change
everything. All [\h__\h] Two Todorant
mers were found at Ardalam cave in 1917
and assessed as potentially Neandertol
on the basis of toodontism in the early
20th century. Todorontism was believed
to be a characteristic exclusive to
Neanderls and an extinct archaic
feature. This has since been disproven.
It occurs in other archaic hominins and
in modern homo sapiens. Radiocarbon
dating of the teeth by Sir Kenneth
Oakley at the British Museum placed them
within the Neolithic period roughly 5200
to 2500 B.CE. E. But even if the teeth
were Neanderl, his conclusion still
doesn't follow. Neanderl presence on
Malta would say nothing about when Homo
sapiens arrived, and it would not tell
you anything about when the temples were
built. I can't believe I got this far
into the video without mentioning cart
ruts. But let's get into this now. One
of Molar's most baffling mysteries is
the network of ancient parallel lines
etched into the island's limestone.
There is no agreed explanation for them.
They're clearly man-made, carved deep
into the rock, sometimes up to almost a
meter deep, and they crisscross the
island in strange overlapping patterns.
Were they used for transport? Possibly,
but we have no idea what kind of vehicle
or sledge could have created such
consistent grooves, or why they run so
deep. And remember, this civilization
wasn't supposed to have the wheel. Some
ruts even mysteriously run straight off
cliffs and continue underwater,
stretching for hundreds of meters
beneath the sea. The fact they head off
under the ocean is especially baffling.
Why would the ancient builders want to
do this? And how? Well, perhaps they
weren't underwater when they were
carved. Perhaps they were carved much
earlier when sea levels were lower. This
links to the mystery of the underwater
temples, structures off the coast of
Malta that some researchers believe may
be ancient megalithic sites now
submerged. Divers have reported
formations that resemble large stone
blocks arranged in unnatural patterns,
possibly foundations or walls.
Mainstream archaeology disputes this,
suggesting they might be natural. But
others argue that the symmetry and
alignment point to human construction.
If they are man-made, and it's an if, it
would mean temples or settlements were
built before the end of the last ice age
when sea levels were far lower, placing
their origin more than 10,000 years ago,
long before Molar's known temple
builders. Holy [\h__\h] this is just like
Grahamcock's thing. Super old, super
crazy, awesome civilizations. Mikey is
crushing it Grahamcock style. Except not
even a little bit. He's just lying as
always. The cart ruts do not extend
under the sea for hundreds of meters.
That's a lie. Then he refers to some
researchers. Want to get a little more
specific there, champ? There's only one
structure which is called Jel Golbahar.
And there is only one researcher who has
identified it as an ancient megalithic
site. That person is Hubert Zidlemire, a
retired German real estate investor and
a follower of Zechariah Sitchin, the
charlatan known for claiming that
ancient Sumerian ununiform texts contain
accounts of aliens visiting Earth. Yes,
the douchebag that Billy Carson rips off
his grift from. Zidle Meyer claims a
professorship through an institution
called the University of Quantum
Dynamics, which is not a real thing.
It's just a scam website that offers
courses on Atlantis for €690.
But you can trust him since he's a
fourthle spirit in an avatar. I'm not
sure how many levels there are, but I
think that's pretty good. Zidlemire
announced the discovery of the Maltese
underwater temple at a Paleo astronaut
conference. When he was asked by
attendees to explain how he discovered
the site, he said that he had been
guided there by his primeval ancestors,
the god Paana Asuara Tacida and the
goddess Ashtar Tara, Queen of Atlantis,
who he met personally on Malta. Lucky
guy, huh? This jerk and this jerk alone
is who Button is referencing when he
says some researchers. In reality,
divers who have visited Jable Golbahar
reported that the visible formations are
consistent with modern boulders that
have been illegally dumped. Something
that is unfortunately common around
Malta. Mystery solved. Something else
pointing to this earlier date is the
alignment of the temples. The temples
all across the Maltese islands are
pointed in different seemingly random
directions. This is odd for religious
sites which typically align with
consistent markers. However, researchers
George Aas and Frank Ventura found that
their axes are not random, but exactly
correspond to the rising and setting
points of the star Sirius over thousands
of years. Due to the procession of the
equinoxes, a slow wobble of Earth's
axis, Sirius's position on the horizon
shifts over millennia. This suggests
that the temples were constructed over a
span of nearly 5,000 [music] years from
around 9,150
BC to 4,250
BC, each aligned to Sirius's position
[music] at the time. Now, this could be
a coincidence, but it would be a pretty
remarkable one considering it matches
every single temple. We also know for a
fact that the temple builders used
astronomy in their construction. The
problem is that this alignment puts the
beginning of the temple phase at 11,000
years ago, way earlier than is accepted.
And at the time the sea levels were
lower. Now this date of 11,000 years ago
is I'm sure very interesting to many of
you as it aligns perfectly with
Geekbecepe, the younger dus, Plato's
description of Atlantis and many other
aspects of the increasingly popular
theory for a lost civilization of the
ice age. Now what I've said in this
video is by no means proof of this, but
I do think that the accepted timeline of
Malta's ancient history doesn't make
sense. But what do you think? Please let
me know in the comments. And if you
enjoyed this video, please consider
giving it a like or subscribing to my
channel. Peace. Peace, bro. Ancient ice
age super advanced civilization
confirmed. Bro, Mikey really saved the
high octane [\h__\h] for the very end.
And this set of blatant lies offers the
clearest evidence for both his
intentions and where he gets his script
from. Agius and Ventura published their
archoastronomical analysis of the
Maltese temples in 1980. Their finding
was that the orientations of the Maltese
temples are statistically non-random,
meaning that the azimothal directions in
which the temples are aligned are not
distributed uniformly or randomly and
therefore reflect intentional
directional referencing of some kind in
identifying possible astronomical
targets for the non-random orientations.
They assessed multiple stellar and solar
candidates and explicitly left the
question of which specific targets were
intended open for further research. They
did not propose 9150 B.CE or any date
outside the established temple period.
They worked entirely within the accepted
archaeological chronology. So where is
Button getting this [\h__\h] from? The
serious interpretation and the date
range of 9150 to 4250 B.CE come from a
blog post on Graham Cox's website
written by Laney Raid. She has no
qualifications in archaeology or
astronomy, so certainly not
archoastronomy. and she states outright
that she set aside standard
archaeological dating in order to
develop the serious alignment theory.
She also explicitly relies on the work
of Luigi Maria Ugalini, a fascist regime
operative who was sent to Malta by
Mussolini to enforce Mediterraneanism, a
racist pseudocience invented to justify
Italian colonial supremacy. Raid
knowingly embraces this fascist fraud as
the basis for rejecting standard
archaeology. She took the statistical
finding from Aegis and Ventura that the
orientations are non-random, discarded
their multi-target analysis, rejected
the established archaeological
chronology of the temples, and replaced
all of it with her own conclusion that
the temples must align with the rising
and setting of Sirius across a span
extending back to 9150 B.CE. because she
says so. Button takes Raidik's words and
puts them in AGS and Ventura's mouths.
Respected academic researchers at the
University of Malta who did not reach
this conclusion and whose published work
is incompatible with it because he's a
fraud. And we know for a fact he's doing
this because he uses many of her assets
in his video. Well, that was a [\h__\h]
train wreck, wasn't it? This was the
perfect video for illustrating Button's
grifter techniques, his extent of
research, and how he is just another
lying scumbag pushing fabricated
mysteries for fame and cash. Here's
another video from around the same time,
which is about Gunnong Padang. Here, the
mask is completely off, and he isn't
hiding his intentions anymore.
Archaeology is suppressing the truth.
Archaeologists are scared of Graham
Hancock. We should all work together.
You all know the drill by now. Let's
check it out. If you haven't heard about
Ganung Padang and the controversy
surrounding it, then what you're about
to hear will probably shock you. And by
the end of this video, you'll see just
how viciously tribal this debate has
become. And I'll cover a huge update
that's just been announced regarding
this fascinating ancient mystery. Ganung
Padang is a megalithic site in Indonesia
that has sparked intense [music] debate
over its origins and significance. Built
at top an extinct volcano, it contains
massive stone blocks and layered
terraces. Initially believed to date
back around 2,500 years. However, a new
study using radiocarbon dating suggests
that buried layers beneath the surface
could be as old as 24,000 [music] years.
Built in a pyramid-like structure,
considering the conventional timeline
puts the start of civilization at
roughly 5,000 years ago. This completely
upends mainstream archaey's idea of the
past. Now, skeptics dismiss these
claims, meaning the site has become
something of a battleground. Between
conventional science and alternative
history, WA, sick laser sounds, bro.
Yeah, there's no battleground between
conventional science and alternative
history. There's scientists doing
science and then a bunch of idiot frauds
spewing lies on the internet hoping to
fly under the radar for long enough to
make some grifter cash. What Buttnut
conveniently left out is that Natawa
Jaya spent years before this paper was
published publicly committed to proving
that Gunnong Padang was a massive
pyramid that was somehow linked to
Atlantis. And he even wrote a book on it
called Plato never lied. Atlantis is in
Indonesia. Yeah. The conclusion was set
10 years before the so-called research
was published. The paper was just his
latest attempt to make the evidence fit
the desired conclusion. Yet another
crank. Now, this wasn't just a random
group of crazy nutters. It wasn't some
weirdo like me going there and claiming
it was some ancient pyramid. No, this
was a team of seasoned and
well-credential geologists, geoysicists,
and engineers. Dr. Hillman himself has
177 publications and over 9,000
citations. He's a senior geologist with
an extensive background in tectonics and
paleocismology, exactly the fields of
study most qualified to interpret this
type of data. His team included experts
in geohysical surveying and radiocarbon
dating and [music] the paper is
meticulously put together with lots of
really interesting evidence. However,
the controversy began when the journal
Archaeological Prospection retracted the
paper in early 2024, citing issues with
its scientific rigor. Now, this
retraction fueled a heated debate
between mainstream archaeologists who
saw it as a victory for academic
integrity and alternative history
proponents who decrieded it as
censorship and suppression. So, what's
going on here? What's going on here is
that sometimes credentialed scientists
are also frauds. James Tour, Avi Loe,
they're fewer in number than the random
crazy nutters. And it's refreshing to
hear Mikey admit that he's in that camp.
But scholars can also grift. His paper
was retracted because it's dog [\h__\h] He
and his team drilled a core about 40 ft
into the ground, radiocarbon dated the
soil they retrieved, got a date of
around 25,000 years ago, and claimed
that was when the structure was built.
Radiocarbon dating tells you when
organic material died. If you date loose
soil, you are dating when plants
decomposed, not when something was built
above it. To date a construction event,
you need organic material that was
deposited as part of the construction
itself, such as charcoal from fires,
bone, or plant matter sealed within the
structure. There was none. So, the paper
is [\h__\h] This is not just some kind of
disagreement over interpretation. It's a
[\h__\h] paper that used [\h__\h] methodology to
support a predetermined baseless
conclusion. The dated material was not
linked to any human construction. So,
the conclusion does not follow, and the
paper was therefore retracted precisely
as it should have been. However,
mainstream archaeologists argue that
it's basically all natural, which it
could be. This is an extinct volcano
after all, and lava tubes and weirdly
shaped stones are certainly something we
find in nature. But without excavation,
no one can say for sure. And strangely,
despite the site's significance, a
full-scale archaeological excavation has
never been conducted. Nope. Full-scale
archaeological excavation has been
conducted at Gunnong Padang. Mikey is
just flatout lying again. Dr. Luti
Yandre, an Indonesian archaeologist,
excavated the site with trenches
directly alongside the terrace and
architecture, recovered pottery,
groundstone, and charcoal from areas
immediately adjacent to and under the
walls, and published a book on his
findings. That is the proper methodology
that should have been utilized with the
retracted paper which is full of
baseless claims. Yandre's work produced
a documented construction date that
cannot be pushed any older and
completely rules out a 25,000year-old
pyramid. Natawagia's paper did not cite
Yandre once. Yandre's work destroys the
narrative that these grifting losers are
trying to push. So they just pretend he
doesn't exist, which works wonderfully
on suggestible people because people who
want to believe these stories won't lift
a finger to fact check anything. The
absence of such an effort has only
fueled speculation. If this site were
properly explored, it might confirm an
advanced prehistoric civilization. Thus,
many suggest archaeology could be
blocking this to maintain the
traditional timeline. This [\h__\h]
narrative will never not be stupid.
Archaeologists want to find amazing
things. They want to uncover astonishing
sites. There is no traditional timeline.
Archaeologists are constantly revising
timelines. They wouldn't block an
amazing discovery for literally no
reason. Anyone who falls for this story
is an idiot. Now, I don't think this is
wholly true, and I do have an update on
this, which I'll get to in just a
second. But first, we need to talk about
what I believe is a pretty shady
reaction to the publication of this
paper. The reaction to the team's paper
on Gnung Padang has been, to put it
mildly, extremely shady. The paper was
met with an onslaught of criticism, much
of it coming from academics who have
never even set foot at the site, let
alone conducted any meaningful research
there. The paper's retraction wasn't due
to undisputed evidence proving it wrong,
but rather because certain individuals
didn't like its interpretation of the
data provided. Now, that's not how
science is supposed to work. You can't
retract a paper because you disagree
with the conclusion. Plenty of published
papers are the subject of intense debate
and disagreement. Nobody has to set foot
at a particular site to identify
scientific fraudulence, [\h__\h] Natawagia
did [\h__\h] science to push a grift. Real
scientists recognize that and exposed
him for it. That's not shady. That's
called academic and intellectual
integrity. A totally foreign concept to
everyone in this disgusting cult. Frauds
like Button want to portray deliberate
distortion of data as a different
interpretation. so they can slam real
scholars for being closedminded. But he
may as well be Terrence Howard saying 1*
1 equals two. There are legitimate
papers that spur legitimate debate. And
then there are frauds who publish
pseudocience. These are different
categories and this paper is in the
latter. Then there's Nature publishing
what can only be described as public
slander against this paper and others
branding this work as pseudocience when
in reality the science behind it is
sound. It's just the conclusions that
are being debated.
>> Nope. There is no slander. The science
is not sound. It is pseudocience. Cry
forever about it. Real science operates
through competing interpretations, not
dogmatic suppression. But throwing
around accusations of pseudocience, as
figures like Flint Dibble have done,
despite having no geological expertise
and never having visited the site is
reckless and career destroying. Stupid
jerkface wet blanket Flint is at it
again. He doesn't even understand
geology, and he didn't even go to the
site himself. Well, he's a [\h__\h]
archaeologist, which you aren't. And he
knows how to read papers and determine
that they're fraudulent, which that one
is. Also, career destroying. You're
whining about real archaeologists
calling out pseudocience as being career
destroying while every single fraud in
this cult has been mobilizing their
loser followers to try to get Flint
fired non-stop for two full years.
[\h__\h] hypocrites. The irony is that
the site itself hasn't even been
properly excavated. [music] Yet, these
critics feel confident in making
definitive claims about what it isn't
without offering a shred of counter
evidence. If anything, this entire
debacle reveals an ugly truth about how
rigid academic gatekeeping can be,
shutting down new ideas, not with better
science, but with institutional pressure
and public ridicule. Blah blah blah
gatekeeping blah blah blah. They don't
even have their own evidence. Hey,
dickbag. When you say yet again that the
site itself hasn't been properly
excavated, that's you being a [\h__\h]
liar. Even in that tweet from Flint that
you flashed, he explicitly states that
the site has been excavated. You're
whining about how real scholars aren't
treating this fake paper fairly while
you are literally denying the existence
of legitimate research on this site. You
aren't even telling your viewers that it
exists. So, who the [\h__\h] is the real
gatekeeper here, [\h__\h] It's you. You
don't want your viewers to know about
real science that has been done at this
site. You want them to know only about
the fake science you promote so that you
can paint the scientific community as
closed-minded jerkf faces. You can't
even bring yourself to put Flint's tweet
in the proper context. What you flashed
is part of an 18 tweet thread. Flint
wonders why nobody has asked local
archaeologists who obviously know a lot
about this site. Then the bit that
Button showed, which again mentions that
it has been fully excavated. Then a
video where he talks to Yandre, the
researcher who did the excavation.
Uh-oh, don't show that to anyone. And
then tweet after tweet after tweet
summarizing the findings of the
excavation, artifacts, analysis, real
actual science, followed by commentary
about how the retraction was mishandled,
leaving room for further waves of
disinformation. This is actual science
communication, not lying to the public
to infect them with [\h__\h] stories
that have been firmly disproven. But
this is where we're at today. This
paper, despite being retracted, was
amplified by the pseudoarchchaeology
cult using the whole ivory tower is
trying to silence the super hot truth
angle as ammunition. Grahamcock featured
this site in Ancient Apocalypse, spewing
all the exact same horseshit. endless
exposure for all the lies and the
legitimate push back is limited to a
thread on Twitter with a few hundred
retweets. That's it. I mean, until me. I
guess that's why all of the [\h__\h] in
this cult hate me so much. They've never
been exposed in such a visible way
before. So, let's continue. Many
archaeologists see Hanok as a threat to
their field, portraying him as a
pseudocientist, even when the research
he highlights, like Dr. Hillman's,
follows legitimate scientific methods.
If Ganung Padang really is as old as
this data suggests, it forces a
re-evaluation of human history,
something mainstream academics seem
unwilling to entertain. The aggressive
push back isn't about protecting
science. It's about [music] protecting
an entrenched paradigm. Again, this does
not mean that the proposed older date is
necessarily correct. I just think the
retraction, criticism, and slander is
unjustified, considering it's all based
on interpretation of good, solid data.
That being said, the authors did make
some pretty definitive claims about
Ganung Padang's extreme age, presenting
their conclusions with more certainty
than the evidence might strictly allow.
A more cautious approach in their
language could have helped avoid some of
the backlash. Likewise, some of the more
extreme reactions, accusations that
archaeologists are deliberately covering
things up or corruptly suppressing the
truth aren't helpful either. Not every
academic is part of some grand
conspiracy. Many are just skeptical,
which is a natural part of the
scientific process. He's so charitable,
you guys. He spent the entire video
poisoning the well, whining about
gatekeeping, and spewing horseshit about
how archaeologists don't want timelines
to be revised, even though that happens
literally constantly. But not all
academics are part of a grand conspiracy
that I am overtly outlining in every
single video. Okay, guys. At the end of
the day, wouldn't it be better if both
sides engaged in open-minded discussion
rather than resorting to dogmatic
dismissals or inflammatory accusations?
Well, yeah, that would be nice. As would
further excavation of the site, which
would really help us get to the bottom
of this fascinating mystery. [\h__\h] you,
Mike. If you wanted open-minded
discussion, you wouldn't hide real
research from your viewers. This attempt
to play the mediator between two
childish extremes is [\h__\h] pathetic.
You're a fraud pedalling pseudocience.
Real scholars expose you. You and Graham
can hide behind your accents and I'm
just asking questions costume, but your
grift is finally crumbling. Deal with
it. Moving right along, let's hit one
more video of his called an entire
civilization might be buried under the
Sahara. Man, this wanker really is just
a Grahamcock clone, isn't he? Even
though he won't explicitly mention
Graham so that he doesn't give away his
complete lack of originality, everything
in this video is some [\h__\h] Graham
has spewed that has been debunked a
thousand times. Let's check it out. The
collapse of the Green Sahara lines up
almost perfectly with the sudden rise of
ancient Egypt. That's odd. Why would one
of history's most iconic civilizations
emerge right after the environments got
worse? This goes against everything we
know about how civilizations form.
Usually, they rise because of abundance,
[music] not in the wake of environmental
disaster. But here's a thought. What if
the civilization we call ancient Egypt
wasn't [music] the beginning, but the
continuation? As the Sahara dried up,
what if the people who once lived in
those fertile lands were forced to
[music] migrate, clinging to the last
stretch of green, the Nile River? It
would have been the final oasis, the
last viable lifeline in a collapsing
world. Could the founders of Egypt have
been the remnants of a lost culture, one
that thrived in the Sahara during its
green golden age, and who [music] have
since been lost to time? What if indeed
you guys? Well, we don't need to
speculate. There were civilizations in
Africa before Egypt. They're called
pre-dynastic Egyptian cultures. This is
common knowledge among archaeologists.
That doesn't mean they were super
advanced cities with space lasers, but
it's a thing. Mikey is pretending to be
a super genius, suggesting a bold new
theory that is basically just facts we
already know. Amazing. Now, according to
the orthodox view, this is impossible.
There cannot have been any civilization
in this region that predated ancient
Egypt. But intriguingly, that's not what
the Egyptians themselves believed.
Cannot have been any civilization in
this region that predated ancient Egypt?
What the [\h__\h] are you talking about,
[\h__\h] The migration of Saharan
Neolithic populations toward the Nile
Valley as the region dried up is the
current working model in the field.
Nubia, the Bedarian, and the Natada.
Much is known about these cultures going
all the way back to 4,500 B.CE. The
relationship between Sahara and
Neolithic cultures and early dynastic
Egypt is an active and well-funded area
of research. Nobody in the field is
claiming it is impossible that people
lived in the Sahara before Egypt or that
those people didn't contribute to
Egyptian civilization. Yet again, the
assertion that the closedminded
orthodoxy forbids this question is
nothing but a lie to make Button look
like an ultra brave truth teller.
pushing back against a closed-minded
establishment. It's beyond pathetic.
>> The ancient Egyptians didn't see
themselves as the beginning. They saw
themselves as the inheritors of
something much older, a legacy
civilization. And we know this because
of the records that they left behind.
Three major ancient texts, the Abidos
king list, the Turing King list, and the
Polmo Stone give us our earliest
timelines of Egyptian rulers. In all
three cases, the Egyptians recount a
past that extends not just a few
centuries beyond a conventional
timeline, but over 30,000 years further
back. However, modern historians don't
believe them. Egyptologists today
selectively decide which parts of these
records to accept as fact and which to
dismiss as myth despite the fact the
original Egyptian authors made no such
distinction. Let's look at the Wikipedia
page for the Touring King list. It
confidently states that the papyrus was
originally a tax role, but on its back
is written a list of the rulers of
Egypt, including mythical kings such as
gods, demigods, and spirits, as well as
human kings. But here's the key problem.
The ancient Egyptians themselves never
categorized their rulers this way. To
them, this was simply a record of their
past, one continuous line of kings and
rulers stretching deep into prehistory.
This division between real and mythical
is a modern invention. But to the
ancient Egyptians, this was all one
continuous record. They didn't view
their past as legend. They viewed it as
history. As is often the case with
frauds like Button, we get a few
legitimate facts mixed in with a bunch
of [\h__\h] The Tin King list opens
with a mythological section listing
divine figures including Pat and Rah.
Then transitions through a category the
document itself labels the Shamsu [\h__\h]
or the followers of Horus and then
begins with the historical pharaohs. The
document organizes these categories
through its own structure, headings, and
the character of the entries.
Egyptologists did not invent the
distinction. He's lying. The Abbidos
king list is a cultic document. The
inscription above the cartes says
exactly what it is, a ritual in which Si
bestows offerings upon his royal
ancestors. It excluded the Amarna
pharaohs entirely because they were
deemed illegitimate. It is not a
chronographic record and it never
claimed to be. The American Research
Center in Egypt states directly that the
temple king lists served occultic rather
than historic function and should not be
treated as literal chronological lists.
Then this 30,000year figure comes from
adding up the reign lengths assigned to
the divine and semi- divine sections of
the Tin list. Egyptologists are aware of
those figures. They address them and
they note that these entries operate in
mythological time, not historical time.
The Egyptians had a conceptual
distinction between cyclical, eternal,
mythological time and linear historical
time. The divine reigns in the king
lists belong to the former. This is
documented in Egyptological literature.
It is not a modern conspiracy to
suppress a 30,000year prehistory. It is
source criticism, which is what
historians do with every ancient
document from every culture on Earth.
This is what all these frauds do. They
cite actual artifacts and sources that
genuinely exist and then just lie about
them as though clueless assets on
YouTube somehow know more about them
than the archaeologists who found them
and have been studying them their whole
lives. It's the most arrogant and
intellectually dishonest thing
imaginable. Those dumb archaeologists
don't know how to archaeology. So listen
to me fumble absolutely all of it to
sell dumb stories on the internet. The
pseudoarchchaeology cult in a nutshell.
So here's the question. What if the
civilization we call ancient Egypt
wasn't the first spark of human
advancement in the region, but a reboot
of a much older culture? One now buried
beneath thousands of years of sand in
what we call the Sahara. Yeah. So,
that's quite a bit different. It's what
we call the old bait and switch. What if
there was stuff before ancient Egypt,
which he presents as his own idea, even
though it's common knowledge that there
definitely was and we know a lot about
it. And then we jump all the way to what
if crazy super advanced 12,000-year-old
something or other every time. Let's see
how well he can do a Grahamcock
impression. Here's something that's
rarely [music] discussed. The ancient
Egyptians often spoke of a mysterious
place they called the land of the west.
It was associated with the afterlife,
but also curiously described in some
texts as a fertile, abundant land. In
the book of the dead, this paradise is
called the field of reeds, a place of
lush crops, flowing waters, and endless
peace. Mainstream scholars usually
interpret this as symbolic, a mythic
heaven. But what if it wasn't entirely
metaphorical? What if these visions of
green fields in the west were cultural
memories? Echoes of a time when the
Sahara itself was a fertile, thriving
landscape. And the Egyptians weren't
alone. Centuries later, classical
authors like Tommy in his geographica
described lakes, rivers, and settlements
far to the south and west of Egypt, deep
in what's now the Sahara Desert.
Strangely, some of the features he
recorded line up perfectly with ancient
river systems and paleo lakes we've only
recently detected using satellite
imagery. So, how could he have known
that? Unless this was ancient knowledge,
preserved and passed down long after the
land itself was swallowed by sand. This
all raises a compelling possibility. The
Sahara wasn't just green. It was
inhabited and not by scattered nomads,
but by structured societies with trade
routes, ritual centers, maybe even
cities. wiped clean by a brutal and
sudden climate collapse. It is a pretty
good Grahamcock impression. I'll give
him that. This interpretation of the
Field of Reeds as a cultural memory of
the Green Sahara is in fact one of
Graham's dumb talking points.
Egyptologists interpret the field of
reads as aerary paradise in the Egyptian
afterlife cosmology, a well doumented
theological concept with no ambiguity
about its function. His Tammy claim is
even worse. Tommy was a 2 century CE
geographer working in Alexandria. He
compiled geographical knowledge from
Roman era trade routes, military
surveys, merchant accounts, and even
earlier Greek sources. His descriptions
of African geography contain both
accurate information from these sources
and significant errors. The fact that
some features in his work vaguely
correspond to paleo river systems
detected by satellite is not evidence of
preserved ancient knowledge from a
long-lost civilization. It just shows
that Tommy drew on accounts from people
who had traveled into the African
interior and reported what they saw or
drew on earlier sources that did the
same. Academics who study Tomy's
geography have spent decades
reconstructing exactly which sources he
used and where his errors come from.
None of them have concluded that his
African data represents the transmission
of knowledge from a pre-dynastic
civilization. This is just a big bowl of
what if. Well, it's a powerful theory,
but myth and memory aren't enough. So
the question becomes, is there any solid
evidence? Well, interestingly, genetic
evidence has emerged that supports the
idea [music] of complex interconnected
populations living in the Sahara long
before the rise of dynastic Egypt.
Ancient DNA from sites like tool in
Morocco from 15,000 years ago reveals a
surprising blend of subsaharan African
and Neareastern ancestry, suggesting
long-d distanceance contact across what
was then a habitable Sahara. Yes, humans
existed. We already knew that it doesn't
support your super awesome lost
civilization claims. Got anything
better? No. Then I guess we're moving
on. But aside from all of that, one of
the most intriguing pieces of this
puzzle comes from a monument we all
know, the great Sphinx of Giza. The
Orthodox view dates the Sphinx to around
2500 [music] BC. Built during the reign
of the Pharaoh Cafrey of the fourth
dynasty. But here's the strange part.
There are no inscriptions [music] on the
Sphinx that actually link it to Cafrey.
And some geologists, most notably Dr.
Robert Shock, argue that the erosion
patterns on the Sphinx and its enclosure
don't match the dry wind blasted
conditions of the last few thousand
years. [music] Instead, they resemble
water erosion, the kind caused by
sustained rainfall over long periods.
This raises a staggering possibility. If
that erosion was caused by rain, then
the Sphinx must date back to the African
humid period. [music] The last time this
region experienced heavy, consistent
rainfall. In other words, the Sphinx may
have been [music] carved thousands of
years earlier than we thought. Not in
the age of pyramids, but in the time
when the Sahara was green. If that's
true, then someone, some [music] culture
was building megalithic monuments during
prehistory in the heart of a thriving
green Sahara. Oh, cool. A tired old
Grahamcock talking point presented as
new information. This water erosion
claim for the Sphinx was introduced by
John Anthony West, an author with a
background in esoteric studies and no
geological training, who was explicitly
trying to find scientific support for
the idea of a lost civilization. West's
own stated goal documented in his
writings was that if water erosion on
the Sphinx could be confirmed, it would
overthrow all accepted chronologies of
civilization. He recruited Robert Shock
to provide the geological framing. The
conclusion preceded the investigation.
Again, this is the central claim of
Graham Hancock and Robert Balville's
Keeper of Genesis. It appears in
Fingerprints of the Gods, too, and
obviously in several of Graham's Rogan
appearances. Button is really looking to
be handed the official torch, it would
seem. Anyway, this hypothesis is firmly
rejected by the archaeological
community. Mark Leonard, who has
conducted the most extensive ground
level survey of the Giza Plateau, has
documented that the architectural
sequencing of the Sphinx within the
Cafre complex does not allow for a
construction date earlier than Coffrey's
reign. Geocientist Yorn Christensen
concluded there is no geological
evidence that the Sphinx was carved
earlier than any other monument on the
plateau and the erosion profile is
consistent with water seeping through
natural fissures in the limestone before
the sphinx was carved, not with
sustained prehistoric rainfall on a
finished structure. Geocscientist James
Herrell published a detailed response to
shock, noting that the weathering is
consistent with water saturated sand
cover over the buried structure across
its history with no requirement for
prehistoric rainfall. Does Mikey go over
any of this? Of course not. Moving on.
But let's be clear again, this [music]
isn't proof of a lost civilization
beneath the Sahara. It's suggestive,
intriguing, but not conclusive. However,
one fact is beyond [music] dispute.
We've barely scratched the surface of
this vast desert. Due to its vast size,
over 9 million [music] square kilm, only
a tiny fraction of the Sahara Desert has
been archaeologically surveyed, let
alone [music] excavated. Some estimates
suggest that less than 1% of the Sahara
has been properly explored using modern
archaeological methods. Why? Well,
because it's hot, remote, politically
unstable in places, and simply
overwhelming in scale. But [music] under
all that sand could lie entire chapters
of human history we've never read. If an
advanced [music] culture did once
existed, climate collapse could have
buried its remains under dunes that
stretch for hundreds of miles, stone
structures, cities, [music] even
inscriptions preserved but hidden. And
until we look, we'll never know. So
considering the vast area now covered by
sand, and the fact we know this area was
once green, lush, [music] and inhabited,
isn't it at least possible that we're
missing something? that perhaps an
entire civilization [music]
or even multiple civilizations once
thrived here only to be erased by time
and sand. [music]
Anyone who watched the Flint Graham
debate has heard this [\h__\h] before.
Anything could be anywhere. Buttnut.
Atlantis could be under my [\h__\h]
house. But what if maybe is not how
science works. And since Flint debunked
this [\h__\h] attitude so well in his
debate with Graham, I'll just let him
respond to this exact same argument yet
again. What I mean is that due to remote
sensing, due to surface survey, and due
to archaeological excavation, we
actually have reasonable coverage across
the Sahara. We understand that during
green periods in the Neolithic, we can
see agricultural villages. And before
the Neolithic, we can find ephemeral
huntergatherer camps where they were
napping stones. That's right.
Archaeological survey does not require
excavating every square kilometer.
Remote sensing, surface analysis, and
satellite radar imaging give us
substantial coverage of the Sahara
without putting a trowel in the ground.
Ancient river channels invisible to the
naked eye have been mapped from space.
Paleoclimate data from lake sediments as
well as pollen cores document what was
living where and when across the entire
region. We have ancient DNA from human
populations across the humid period of
the Sahara. As he mentioned, we have
thousands of recorded sites. All of it,
every line of evidence paints the same
picture. Hunter gatherer camps,
Neolithic pastoralists, and the early
stages of agricultural societies. So, as
bad as, "But have you looked literally
everywhere though sounds when you really
think about it, the reality is much
worse. The evidence specifically
contradicts the claim." Again, Graham
famously admitted in that debate that
there is no evidence for his advanced
ice age civilization. None. And
predictably, his justification was that
we haven't looked everywhere yet. Just
like Button, it is the unfalsifiable
core that all of these
pseudoarchchaeology grifters use, which
makes it objectively pseudocience.
Whatever the evidence shows, the proof
is always in the place we haven't
searched yet. Even if what we know
specifically contradicts their claims,
and they just ignore that inconvenient
fact. This video is Buttons grift in its
purest form. He describes the African
humid period accurately. He describes
the desertification accurately. He
references real sites and real research
in shallow rapidfire fashion. He earns
your trust. And then once he has it, he
layers Graham Cox's lost civilization
[\h__\h] on top and presents it as what
the evidence specifically leads to.
That's the grift. While we could spend
several days doing this, these three
videos of his paint a very clear picture
of what his channel is all about. With
all of that covered, Mikey's Rogan
appearance won't surprise you at all.
imaginary lost civilizations, aliens,
you name it. So, let's pivot over there
for a few select highlights to finish
things off.
>> I love your channel, man. It's really
great. You You're really doing some
really interesting videos. When did you
get started?
>> Thanks. Well, I only started the YouTube
less than a year ago, so
>> that's crazy.
>> It's been a bit of a wild ride.
>> I don't even know how I found it. It was
like one of them YouTube recommends
things. It just popped up and I uh I
don't remember which one it was. It was
something on ancient history.
>> Yeah.
>> And I was like, "Ah,
>> does it matter, Joe? YouTube knows that
you're a gullible idiot who falls for
pseudoarchchaeology frauds left and
right. So, it fed you the newest model
for clicks. You bought the hell out of
it like everyone knew you would. And now
the loser fraud is in your studio ready
to poison over a million minds with
stories full of lies for cash. That's
the kind of insane power you wield." So,
did you start off on a traditional
academic journey and then sort of get
sidetracked into a YouTube career? Like,
how did this work?
>> Yeah, basically. So, I studied ancient
history at university for four years.
Um, and I've always been interested in
history. I've done history all the way
through like I was fascinated about
history as a kid and got to the stage of
my life where it was, you know, thinking
about going to university. So, I thought
I'll do ancient history at university
and study there for four years.
Graduated, all of that kind of stuff.
But there came a point during my degree
where I was kind of, you know, a little
bit I I didn't quite agree with the kind
of highlevel ideas regarding the
timeline of history. and what we're
taught about our ancient past. And it
wasn't that I disputed anything that I'd
been taught and I have like great
respect for the people that I met at
university and my professors. And I
don't dispute anything that we were
taught actually on the course, but it
was more the kind of highle macro
perspective of history that I found
myself having more and more questions
about. And sounds like somebody can't
keep up with his own lies. You told
Graham that you didn't agree with what
you were being taught, that they told
you we had already figured out
everything, which of course is a lie.
Now you're saying you respected your
professors and don't dispute anything
you were taught. Which is it, [\h__\h]
Once
>> what what bothered you? Like what were
the questions?
>> It was kind of the big questions
regarding the origins of civilization
and how deep civilization goes and how
complex human behavior, you know, I
thought went way back further into
history than what we were being taught.
And I wasn't too I I just didn't buy
this idea that nothing happened for like
vast stretch of time.
>> Nothing happened. A lot happened. Hunter
gatherers were doing hunter gatherer
[\h__\h] all over the place. When you try to
paint yourself as this bold independent
thinker questioning the institutional
dogmas, you just sound like a [\h__\h]
idiot. But this is the story that sells,
so you lead with it in the first two
minutes of the episode. Michael Button,
the wonderkinn who broke free from the
academic overlords suppressing the
truth, the real authority in a sea of
closed-minded woke Marxist academics who
are on their 10th booster and have
pronouns in their Twitter bios. This is
what you need to say to please the
dumbasses who watch Joe's show. In
reality, your degree has absolutely
nothing to do with the prehistoric
record. You didn't even take any
coursework on this stuff. You studied
Greece and Rome and whatnot. This is an
act and it's a transparent one
>> because it was during my course that
they found that modern humans they made
this discovery in Morocco in 2017 or
2018 I think and that was when I was at
university.
>> Was that Dennis Ovenans?
>> No. No. Homo sapiens. So I can't
remember this. It's called like the Jeb
Belud
site or something like that. But they
were modern homo sapien remains. They
thought they were Neanderthal initially
cuz they were so old.
>> How old were they?
>> They're 315,000
years old. Uh that's kind of like the
estimate. It goes up to potentially
360,000 years old. So they're super old.
And
>> yeah, they thought they were initially
Neanderthals because of this age, but
then they discovered a few more and they
were they classified them as homo
sapien. And when I saw that, I was like,
how is this not kicking up more of a
fuss? Because before them, the oldest
homo sapien remains we had were around
200,000 years old. And that had been the
case for like a decade or something. And
before that, it was like a 100,000 years
old. So this discovery pushed back the
age of our species by another third,
like a 100,000 years. So I saw that and
I was thinking like how are we still
basing our kind of idea of history
around the fact that nothing happened
for you know 310,000 years and then
everything happened in like the last you
know 10,000 years. Yes. What a perfect
example of biological anthropologists
revising timelines based on new data.
The precise thing you pretend doesn't
happen literally ever, right Mikey? And
of course you're just lying half the
time anyway. The Jabel Orhood remains
were not classified as Neanderl because
they were so old. Originally, the site
was thought to be around 40,000 years
old, roughly around when Neanderls went
extinct. When the dating was revised to
315,000 years in 2017, they were
reclassified as early homo sapiens. So,
they were classified as Neanderl when
they were thought to be young and then
they were reclassified when they turned
out to be old. You have the causation
completely backwards. Then he asks, "How
is this not kicking up more of a fuss?
Are you [\h__\h] me? It was published in
Nature." Then Nature ran a news article
calling it a rewrite of our species's
history. The Maxplank Institute issued
press releases. BBC covered it. NPR
covered it. It was global news. It was a
pretty [\h__\h] big fuss. But most
importantly, all of this has absolutely
nothing to do with advanced ancient
civilizations that definitely didn't
exist. Just because homo sapiens evolved
earlier than previously suggested, it
doesn't make your dumb stories true. And
it doesn't mean nothing happened. [\h__\h]
was happening. There just wasn't any
Atlantis or any crap like that.
Mainstream, for one of a better word. I
don't really like using that because I
don't think there's such thing as a a
mainstream. It's not like there's a
group of people that all collectively
decide. But some particularly vocal
mainstream kind of historians and
scientists seem to claim to know
absolute truth about the past. And
that's just stupid. like how can anyone
know about what happened 100,000 years
ago or 200,000 years ago? And it kind of
gets gets me a little bit riled up
because at the end of the day, none of
us know what happened back then. So I
think a lot more possibilities are, you
know, possible than than what many
people appreciate.
>> No, we know what we know based on the
evidence that we have. If you uncover
new evidence, you can revise what we
know. That's how literally all science
works, you [\h__\h] dong. Nobody claims
absolute truth. You just want gullible
viewers to not even look up what we know
in the first place because mainstream
whatever is just arrogant jerk faces.
You want them to accept the dumb stories
you tell based on zero evidence
whatsoever. We know things about what
happened in the past. Nuh-uh is not a
counterargument.
>> Yeah. Did you ever see there was a a
video documentary back in the day
something about the mysteries of the
Sphinx and um there was this
archaeologist that was mocking uh Graham
Hancock's ideas and Dr. Robert Shock's
ideas about the timeline saying, you
know, talking about things that existed
pre10,000 years and he was saying what
ev he was like laughing like what
evidence is there of any civilization
from 10,000 years ago. This was
literally I'd think around the same time
that they discovered Beckley.
>> Yeah.
>> Like that this guy was mocking it. I
think slightly thereafter they
discovered Gobeclet which threw
everything into a Tizzy because now
you've got something that was absolutely
covered. They believe intentionally
somewhere in the neighborhood of 11,000
years ago.
>> Joe, you're [\h__\h] stupid. Gobecepe is
not civilization. Words mean things.
Nobody in that documentary was saying
that no organized human activity existed
10,000 years ago. They were asking for
evidence of the specific civilization
supposedly responsible for an earlier
sphinx. And Graham is not even mentioned
in that documentary. What actually
happens is that James F. Romano, curator
of the Egyptian collection at the
Brooklyn Museum, makes a complete fool
out of Western shock by asking one very
simple question. If there was a
sophisticated civilization thousands of
years before dynastic Egypt, where is
the [\h__\h] evidence? Where are the
tools, the settlements, and the material
remains of that civilization? You would
need a sophisticated pre-doluvian
culture, building monuments with
characteristic Egyptian iconography and
leaving absolutely nothing else behind.
As Dr. Romano puts it, that sounds like
a Star Trek episode. It's the same
[\h__\h] every time. just endless
whining about how closed-minded
academics mock these bold ideas which
are actually just dumb stories based on
precisely zero evidence. You know,
there's speculation that one of the
pillars from Gobecleti that is unearthed
is some sort of a calendar of events and
they believe that it depicts some sort
of a disaster like that these
whatever how they they're making these
images to be associated with either an
impact or something. But there's a
timeline that's inscribed in these
pillars.
>> Yeah. They there's like a a study that
was written or a paper that was written
and they think it's the pillar 43 I
think it is is kind of like a cosmic
calendar and it's like a almost a
prediction model of an impact that could
happen or already has happened and that
it's like a warning for the future that
I mean that is still disputed but I mean
there's been good research that's done
into that that suggests that's what it
is and it's certainly a site that has
cosmic alignments and has been built
with the the stars in mind which is
something that we can say about so many
ancient sites around the world, which is
another thing that isn't really
considered by, you know, quote unquote
mainstream archaeology perhaps as much
as it should be. Um, no guys, there is
not good research to support what you're
spewing. This crap is from Martin
Swatman, an engineer, not an
archaeologist, who visually matched
animal carvings on Pillar 43 using
modern constellation software and
decided they lined up with the sky on
the date of a supposed impact around
10,950 B.CE. That's one guy with
stellarium and a hard on for
confirmation bias. And we debunked the
[\h__\h] out of this in the Jimmy video. The
animal carvings don't have established
associations with those constellations
in the ancient near east, which is kind
of a massive [\h__\h] problem if your
whole theory depends on exactly that.
Button presents this to a huge audience
like it is seriously supported and not
just a fringe claim unanimously rejected
by the people who actually work on the
site. And sorry, that line about
mainstream archaeology ignoring cosmic
alignments just makes you sound like a
[\h__\h] idiot. Archoastronomy has been
an established academic field for
decades. You can't say that
archaeologists are ignoring something
while describing a sub field with a name
that means studying that exact thing.
Stonehenge, lots of sites in Mexico,
Giza, it's a robust field. And there is
peer-reviewed literature on Gobeclete's
possible alignment going back to at
least 2013. You are telling millions of
people that academia ignores a field
that academia created. Great work,
Dingus.
>> Bizarre thing that, you know,
agriculture appears in multiple
different places at pretty much the
exact same time all over the world. And
that's never made sense to me because if
agriculture was such a kind of vital
invention for civilization to flourish,
then why did no one invent it for, you
know, 310,000 years? And then in South
America, in Mesopotamia, in ancient
China, and you could argue there's other
different places that so say there's
like South America and there's Central
America. I mean, you could argue that's
potentially connected, but a lot of
people say it isn't. So, how can
agriculture if it's such an incredible
invention
be invented by multiple people at the
same time? And then, but no one else
thought of it before. I It doesn't It
doesn't make sense to me.
>> It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't
make any sense they wouldn't figure out
seeds. Why didn't humans just magically
invent agriculture like a million years
ago? And why didn't ancient Rome have
the internet? It doesn't make sense, you
guys. Well, when you're [\h__\h] stupid
like these two, nothing makes sense. To
everyone else, it's just basic cause and
effect that has been understood for a
very long time. The end of the younger
das around 11,700 years ago brought
climate stabilization for the first time
in roughly 100,000 years. The preceding
period had temperature swings too
dramatic and unpredictable to sustain
long-term crop cultivation anywhere on
Earth. When the climate stabilized, the
conditions that made agriculture viable
appeared globally at the same time
because it was a global climatic event.
Of course, it appeared in multiple
places at once. The whole planet's
climate changed at once, you nimrods.
Also, migration is a thing. People can
change locations. A group of people can
figure out agriculture. And then some of
those people can go to other places and
do more agriculture. Merchants are a
thing. Seeds can be traded. How the [\h__\h]
is this so hard to wrap your heads
around, guys?
>> Yeah. So, this is the preservation
problem. And this is something I talk
about in my videos. So I kind of always
ask the question like what if a human
culture had flourished in the emian for
example which was from 130 to 115,000
years ago what realistically would
survive because
it's it's such a vast vast length of
time that it's really unlikely at least
as far as I can tell and obviously I'm
not a scientist I'm not like a you know
a material I'm not any kind of I'm just
a guy I'm not even a historian
technically but as far as I can tell
it's extremely hard for these for any
materials, but even our modern materials
in our huge civilization that you know 8
billion people, industrial society,
sending rockets to space, you know, all
the crazy stuff that we're doing. Even
us, if we disappear tomorrow, I think it
would be extremely unlikely that pretty
much anything would survive when you get
up to these huge time scales of like a
100,000 years. So, I've been doing quite
a lot of, you know, research into this
and because I don't I obviously don't
want to, you know, get things wrong and
put falsehoods out there and mislead
people. I don't want to look like a a
[\h__\h] in front of like like millions
of people or whatever. So, I've been
trying to like, you know, debunk myself
or play devil's advocate to myself on
this point because, you know, that's the
best way to make your argument airtight
and no one's really out there debunking
me. Um, I don't know if that's because
I'm right because like no one knows me.
Maybe that would change after a show
like this. But
>> what would survive from some awesome
advanced ancient civilization? Well,
definitely more than literally nothing,
genius. Yes, you're not a scientist or
historian or anything else of relevance.
That's why you don't know that. But as
to the rest of the crap you said, no one
has been debunking you because
archaeologists are busy doing
archaeology and they're tired of getting
harassed into oblivion by your toxic
cult members every time they fact check
one of you [\h__\h] But don't worry,
I'm here now. So, get ready for your
reputation to find its way over to the
toilet. And sorry, you don't want to
mislead people. That's literally all you
do. You make endless content
deliberately misleading people. You want
to debunk yourself? Really? Have you
considered doing a 10-second Google
search on any of the dumb [\h__\h] you say?
Because that would do the trick. That's
why it's so easy for a generalist like
me to debunk you. I just have to be able
to smell [\h__\h] and read things. I've
been really looking into the kind of
degradation of modern materials as much
as I can and trying to work out how much
would survive from a civilization like
ours if we disappeared tomorrow in a
100,000 years time. So if you
>> right like some place like London or
Manhattan like what would be left in a
100,000 years?
>> Yeah. Of like an actual modern city. And
the scary truth is it's it's almost
nothing.
>> Nothing really nothing. Today's
Manhattan in 100,000 years would become
literally nothing. Just a [\h__\h] forest
without so much as a single girder, not
even microscopic traces of plastics.
Nothing. I know you keep saying you're
not a scientist and it shows. So what
the [\h__\h] are you basing that on?
>> As far as I can tell, and obviously
>> cement buildings, they would just
deteriorate.
>> They would go they would go like
concrete would crack and you'd get CO2
in there and freeze door weathering. And
over these huge time scales of like
5,000 years, 10,000 years, they would
just crumble down into dust and be
absolutely imperceptible.
>> 10,000 years,
>> I think. So, obviously, these I mean,
I'm just doing this off the top of my
head. I haven't got any notes in front
of me or anything, but as far as I can
tell from my research, it's going to be
a few like 10,000 years, 20,000 years
max. It's not going to get up to these
time scales of 100,000 years.
>> Okay? So based on your research, which
is just you making [\h__\h] up, you must be
right about the thing you're objectively
wrong about because you say so. Got it.
There's just there's it's just such an
incredible amount of time that all these
materials that we build with are just
going to corrode and they're going to
they're going to rust away if they're
metals. They're going to oxidize.
They're going to flake until they're
just tiny little fragments that just
disperse in the sedimentary record and
they're just invisible to see. And rust
isn't invisible. Flakes aren't
invisible. Sediments aren't invisible.
Geologists know how to analyze soil,
sweetie. This is Pete Dunning Krueger.
>> Nuclear weapons, like we test nuclear
weapons in the atmosphere. You could
argue if we knew when to look and what
to look for, we could see traces of
plutonium in the atmosphere from our
nuclear weapons testing. Or you could
see our nuclear waste deposits. After
telling us for several minutes that a
prior industrial civilization would
vanish without a trace, you then tell us
precisely how we could easily detect
traces of industrial activity. You're
too dumb to even know that. you're
contradicting yourself. Yes, geochemical
and isotopic signatures would be some of
the most obvious indicators of a prior
advanced civilization. Evidence of such
a civilization would be contained in the
geological record. This is the Curan
hypothesis. It's been discussed and
people have even looked for those
signatures since scientists are actually
open to all possibilities. They found
nothing. Shocking, I know.
>> And the crazy thing is like do you Joe,
do you know how many sites we have? Homo
sapiens sites from more than 100,000
years ago.
>> How many?
>> Nine. We have nine sites, nine glimpses,
nine snapshots into over 200,000 years
of history. Nine moments in time. And we
use that to extrapolate out what every
single human was doing for
>> nine globally.
>> Nine globally. Yeah. Yeah. What's your
source on that, jackass? I ask. Because
a single published database covering
only Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and
Libya catalogs 993
middle stone age sites spanning up to
370,000 years ago. The Southern African
Stone Age site index for South Africa,
Lotho, Esatini, and Namibia documents
another 492. So where the [\h__\h] did you
get nine? And no, they're not just caves
with fire pits and stone tools. The
middle stone age record includes shell
beads used as personal ornaments,
abstract cross-hatched engravings on
ochre, long-d distanceance obsidian
trade networks dated to 320,000 years
ago, composite hafted tools using
adhesives, bone tools, projectile
weapons, and ochre paint workshops with
complex multi-step production processes.
It's funny because ass hats like Button
are always whining about how
closedminded academia denies all this
super awesome ancient stuff. And here he
is just flat out denying all these
hundreds of fascinating sites. The
hypocrisy is off the charts.
>> Even if you kind of look at the
conventional model of history, the
ancient Egyptians were wildly ahead of
everyone else.
>> It's just so weird. It's
>> so weird.
>> And that's that's if you and the
conventional model doesn't really give
us any explanations of how they were
doing what they were doing.
>> They arrogantly dismiss any other
explanations, which is really weird when
you're talking about these immense
structures that are baffling.
>> Yeah. absolutely baffling to anybody
who's being honest.
>> Always with this, how the hell did they
make the pyramids [\h__\h] every [\h__\h]
time? We live in an era where anyone can
access the entirety of human knowledge
in a single second with the push of a
button. And dumb [\h__\h] like these are
still asking questions like this. It's
like saying, "What's the capital of
Mongolia?" Nobody knows, and there's no
way to find out. I've debunked this crap
so many [\h__\h] times, but here's yet
another lightning round. Egyptologists
have been studying pyramid construction
for over 150 years and the evidence for
our current understanding is
overwhelming. The Wadi Aljarf Papy are
actual administrative records written by
the people who built the Great Pyramid
detailing labor, organization, food
supplies, and logistics in granular
detail. The workers village at Giza
shows us exactly who built it, how they
lived, what they ate, and how they were
organized. A ramp system at the Hot Noob
Quarry dates specifically to the reign
of Kufu and shows exactly how they moved
blocks up steep inclines. We know where
the limestone came from and how it was
transported via purpose-built canals. We
know this [\h__\h] guys. Archaeologists
know things. So, if you would take your
thumbs out of your asses for 10 [\h__\h]
seconds and educate yourselves, you
could know what other people know, too.
Give it some thought. I don't even see
any evidence that the Great Pyramid at
Giza I mean what's the evidence that
that was a tomb. I mean they I don't
think they've ever found a body in
there. No,
>> it's just a chamber which they've called
the king's chamber.
>> Right.
>> I mean I'm not an expert in ancient
Egypt by any respect, but it's always
baffled me that they're so determined
that the pyramids are tombs just because
some later pyramids have had, you know,
uh mummies and pharaohs and sarcophagi
found inside them. But
>> I'm not an expert in literally anything.
But where is the evidence for this
obvious fact that I could find in 10
seconds of googling? Jesus [\h__\h]
Christ. Always with the tomb [\h__\h] At
least this jerk admits that mummies have
been found in pyramids since most of
these frauds will pretend that's never
happened at all. But for [\h__\h] sake,
can we ever get past this tomb [\h__\h]
Kufu's granite sarcophagus is still
inside the pyramid. There was never a
body found in it because it's a giant
pyramid, which is not exactly a discrete
tomb. And Egypt has had looting problems
for thousands of years. That's why they
built false chambers and hidden passages
to deter tomb robbers. Tutin Common's
tomb was found intact specifically
because nobody knew where it was. Beyond
the sarcophagus, there is work gang
graffiti inside the relieving chambers
referencing Kufu by name. Inscriptions
in nearby mastas referencing Kufu and
his pyramid, specifically a mortuary
temple, a causeway, a valley temple, the
tombs of his family and officials, and
administrative records detailing the
construction. That's what I call
evidence. Now, what evidence do you have
for it being anything other than a tomb?
Absolutely nothing. That's what I
[\h__\h] thought.
>> And you can you find bodies in like, you
know, buildings today, and that doesn't
mean the purpose of that building was to
be a tomb. It's just someone's buried
there. Well, someone Yeah. As you say,
>> it's a weird assumption. It's a very
weird assumption,
>> right? Because a modern building is
totally comparable to a pyramid with a
sarcophagus inside, named for the
pharaoh who built it, surrounded by a
mortuary complex with administrative
records detailing its construction.
Exactly the same situation. Great job,
morons.
>> And did you ever read any of Christopher
uh
>> Christopher Dunn? Yeah,
>> Christopher Dunn's work.
>> I know a bit I haven't read his book,
but I know a bit about it. It's
interesting. I mean, he's like a serious
guy, isn't he? He's like Exactly. And he
has quite serious theories that
>> he thinks it's a power plant.
>> Yeah. Which would be crazy, wouldn't it?
[laughter]
>> Especially if you you add into that the
Graham Hancock's ideas and some of these
other people's ideas that perhaps some
of these structures are far older.
>> Yeah. When you start stacking grifts on
top of each other, [\h__\h] does get crazy
real fast. Anyway, we've mentioned
Christopher Dunn before. He's a
machinist and his power plant [\h__\h]
has no basis in legitimate science. He's
not a serious person and you sound
dumber when you reference him. Stacks of
rocks can't be power plants. Sorry, we
made it.
>> But we figured out doors.
>> We did.
>> We figured out walls and doors and that
changed the game.
>> But when did we do that, Joe? That's the
question.
>> That is the question.
>> Because a lot of people would claim
[snorts] to think and the kind of
consensus always is that we didn't do
that until 12,000 years ago. We didn't
settle down and form permanent
communities until the Neolithic
Revolution. And I think that's one of
the major paradigms, if you like, that
we have regarding our past that simply
doesn't make sense in light of new
evidence.
>> Every single one of his rants always
ends with that doesn't make sense to me.
As though quantum mechanics should be
regarded as wrong just because it's
unintelligible to people who have never
learned any physics. Hey [\h__\h]
archaeologists have never claimed that
all humans prior to 12,000 years ago
were nomadic wanderers with no built
environments or sight use. There are
structured living spaces, complex
huntergatherer settlement systems, and
longduration site use across multiple
regions well before the Neolithic. The
conventional position is that
large-scale sedentary village life
linked to farming, storage, and later
urban complexity becomes far more
widespread in the holene. Every time you
whine about mainstream consensus, you're
always just spewing some horseshit that
is directly contradicted by a ton of
science you've never bothered to learn.
How embarrassing. What is that evidence
that they found of wood construction
from far longer than they thought?
>> Yeah, this is the Columbbo structure and
this is something I talk about a lot in
my videos because I think it's a crazy
find and I don't understand why it's not
kicking up more of a fuss. Like if I'm
the guy that has to kick up the fuss
about it, then I'll be that guy. Because
basically, we've the idea has always
been that humans were nomadic hunter
gatherers that moved with the seasons
and lived in caves or just kind of
walked around for all of our history
until the Neolithic Revolution, the
invention of agriculture 12,000 years
ago. And no earlier than that did we
ever settle down and live in permanent
settlements. The Colombo Falls discovery
is two intentionally modified logs
fitted together dated to around 476,000
years ago. It's very interesting, but
construction is not the same thing as a
permanent settlement. And it sure as
hell is not the same thing as
civilization. The reason it is such a
remarkable find is specifically that the
preservation conditions were
exceptional. Water logging in and low
oxygen sediment drastically slows decay,
which is the reason that organic
material from that era almost never
survives. exceptional preservation does
not mean there were wooden towns
everywhere that disappeared without a
trace.
>> We've always had this idea that there's
been this very popular idea in in kind
of mainstream historical thought that
humans only got smart around 50 to
60,000 years ago. And that's just homo
sapiens. We've always thought that other
human species never got smart, never
achieved what we call behavioral
modernity. And this has always been the
kind of idea that we went through this
cognitive revolution around 50 to 60,000
years ago. And the the most obvious
proponent of how entrenched this is in
kind of academic thought is have you
ever [snorts] read the book Sapiens?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Yeah. By Noah Harrari. It's an
extremely popular book. It sold
something like 60 million copies
worldwide. By far the most popular book
about prehistory and you know the story
of Homo sapiens.
>> Sapiens is a book written for a general
audience. It's not an authoritative
statement from the field of paleo
anthropology. And in fact, it's a
garbage book full of exaggerated claims.
So, no to whatever you want to say about
that book. But this crap about
mainstream thought saying humans only
got smart 50 to 60,000 years ago is
outdated public simplification. The
field has been revising that picture for
years through evidence like prepared
core technology, pigment use, shell
beads, engraved ochre, complex
adhesives, shunning spears, and other
signs of earlier behavioral complexity.
He just takes things we already know and
presents them as his own insight. It's
ridiculous.
>> Well, it's also when you think about the
history of the earth, there are times
that we know that there was like there's
great bottlenecks that occurred because
of some sort of a massive natural
catastrophe like the Toba volcano.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. The Toba volcano which was 70
70,000 years ago. Is that what it was?
>> Something like that. Yeah.
>> Um brought people down to a few thousand
survivors. Yeah. on Earth.
>> A bottleneck is not evidence of any kind
of civilization. Population crashes
happen in huntergatherer populations,
and catastrophe does not magically
become proof that cities, monuments, or
writing systems existed beforehand. It's
the same [\h__\h] every [\h__\h] time.
Something bad happened. Therefore,
Atlantis because they say so.
>> Just look at what we know about the
Amazon now.
>> Yeah.
>> Because of LiDAR and because of, you
know, what is his name? Percy
>> Faucet.
>> Percy Faucet. Because these people that
made these journeys down there looking
for these complex civilizations that at
one point in time now we know did exist
there. Yeah.
>> And just a hundred years later they
called those people liars cuz they went
back to the same place and there was
nothing left.
>> Yeah.
>> Amazon discoveries are a perfect
argument against you. Actually,
archaeologists revised the picture of
Amazonian societies because those
societies left traces, including
earthworks, settlement signatures,
ceramics, anthropogenic soils, and
landscape modifications. Researchers
found them with wellestablished
scientific methods. When evidence is
there, the model changes. That's how the
field works. You're just pointing at
archaeologists doing archaeology and
saying, "So archaeologists could be
wrong because you don't understand that
complex civilizations can't just vanish
so immaculately that they leave
literally zero trace behind. Grow up."
>> Well, here's what's really crazy. Have
you seen Detroit? Have you seen the
evidence of Detroit where trees are
going through houses
>> and that's like 50 years less? Or if you
look at Chernobyl, the the kind of
exclusion zone where no one lives, it's
already like trees everywhere and like
nature is already taking root after less
than half a century.
>> Yeah. Bizarre. Holy [\h__\h] There are
trees and buildings. Overgrowth is not
eraser. You goobers. Archaeologists
don't need a fully intact Detroit
skyline to substantiate an ancient
civilization. They look for ground
signatures, chemistry, artifacts,
modified landscapes, settlement
patterns, and stratified remains. Those
can survive in jungles, deserts, caves,
flood planes, and even under later
construction for thousands of years.
Learn literally [\h__\h] anything about
archaeology. I'm begging you.
>> This thought that Neanderls were stupid,
they're kind of abandoning that now,
too. They're thinking they had language,
they had tools, they had society.
>> They definitely did. There's so much
evidence. This kind of puts into the
cognitive revolution argument which is,
you know, that we were the only smart
species. Like our name that we gave
ourselves, homo sapiens, literally means
smart man. It's always been the idea
that we're the smartest humans and
that's why we won. And to be fair, we
did win.
>> We did win.
>> Win whatever you want to call.
>> We might just be the most evil.
>> Yeah, we might be the most evil or we
just might be the luckiest ones, you
know.
>> Well, we're the weakest, so we probably
had to be evil. True. We had to figure
out weapons that were would be able to
defeat the Neandertols who had by the
way larger brain capacities.
>> I think they were just as intelligent as
us to be.
>> That's nuts.
>> Bigger cranial volume does not equal
more intelligence. Cognition depends on
brain organization, body size,
developmental pattern, and what
different neural systems are doing, not
just volume. Yes, Neanderls had large
brains, but that doesn't mean they were
smarter than modern humans. This is
basic paleo anthropology and these two
nitwits still managed to make it sound
like a bong hit revelation.
>> Either I mean maybe they got wiped out
by something like disease or did they
even get wiped out? Because if you even
look at the DNA of non-affrican humans,
it's something like 20% in some
populations as Neanderthal. So they're
kind of still here.
>> No, Mikey, nobody is something like 20%
Neanderl. Individual living non-affrican
humans typically carry around 1 to 2%
Neandertol ancestry. Across the full
modern human population, different
people carry different Neanderl derived
DNA segments. Pooling those segments
together, you can recover roughly 20% of
the Neanderl genome in aggregate. That
doesn't mean any person walking around
today is 20% Neanderl. It means the
surviving Neanderl fragments are spread
around across millions of people because
introgression does not distribute every
inherited segment equally to every
descendant population.
>> The the whole history of humans is weird
and for academics to deny this
possibility to me seems so shortsighted.
>> I know it will change silly. I think
we're on the brink of quite a massive
shift in our perspective regarding
>> I think so too and I think it has to
happen where I don't mean to say this to
be cruel but they the old people have to
die.
>> There's that quote isn't it? Um science
advances one funeral at a time.
[laughter]
>> I hope it doesn't take that long though
to be honest Joe. I hope it I hope it's
just in the next few years.
>> Well the good thing is a lot of
scientists don't take care of
themselves. So [laughter]
>> which is also weird.
>> Yes. When all those old, unhealthy,
closed-minded scientists finally die, it
will be the era of the podcast bro. A
glorious paradigm shift will occur and
all the podcast bro [\h__\h] will
finally be accepted by the scientific
community. Except no, it won't since
educated people of all ages laugh at you
losers. Even smart high school students
make fun of you on a weekly basis. One
of the things that I find uh very
promising is that a lot of young
academics are embracing a lot of
alternative ideas whether quietly or
whether they're doing it publicly.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think the advent of
the internet um and you know, shows like
this or the medium of podcasting has
really kind of democratized the access
to information and allowed people with
theories that potentially wouldn't have
been able to get out there in the the
pre- internet age where they were kind
of you had to go through a kind of
academic institution to get a theory
heard or debated. Yes, the Joe Rogan
experience is part of the
democratization of information. Why
Google things and learn basic facts when
you can listen to some [\h__\h] distort
reality and lie to you for money for
three full hours? These morons are so
far up their own asses it's [\h__\h]
tragic. Hey Joe, you've been platforming
countless grifters for over a decade.
Have any of them discovered a lost
civilization or corrected a genuine
scientific error or produced a single
piece of original evidence for literally
anything? No. That's all happening
within academia which you hate so much.
Funny how that works, huh? In reality,
the only thing that's been democratized
with dog [\h__\h] shows like yours is the
rapid spread of disinformation being
pedled by sociopathic frauds who will
never admit that they're trivially wrong
about literally everything.
>> I mean, that's the thing about history
is it's all based on massive
assumptions. It's not like a hard
science. It's interpreting evidence. And
that's fine. Like, that's how we do it.
But
>> that's why I don't get the only way to
do it right now.
>> It's the only way to do it. So that's
why I don't get why people make these
definitive conclusions and then don't
allow anybody to kind of speculate or
hypothesize about anything else.
>> It's gatekeeping.
>> It's not gatekeeping to mock pointless
frauds who lie to make money on the
internet. Gatekeeping is actually what
Joe does by exclusively platforming
frauds and almost never bringing in
legitimate experts. As for this soft
science full of assumptions crap, it
wouldn't be a pseudoarchchaeology video
without this ridiculous claim.
Archaeology uses strategraphy,
sedimentology, micromorphology, tonomy,
radiocarbon dating, luminescence dating,
stable isotope analysis, DNA sequencing,
zoarchchaeology, paleobatney, usewear
analysis, residue analysis, remote
sensing, geoarchchaeology, and Beijian
chronological modeling. That means
interpretation constrained by
stratified, dated, independently
replicated material evidence from
multiple lines of inquiry that all have
to agree with each other. That's hard
science. Anyone who vomits up anything
even remotely resembling a claim that
archaeology isn't science is a
brainwashed [\h__\h] with no idea what
archaeology is or what archaeologists
do. Blatantly unsupported speculation
from unqualified idiots on podcasts does
not deserve equal standing with material
evidence and rigorous data analysis
being performed by actual experts all
over the world. Cry about it. It's also
this these people that have been
teaching this one thing forever being
threatened by the fact they were wrong.
The last thing an academic wants wants
to hear is like you wrote this book,
this stupid book. This book misled
people for decades. You were so wrong.
Like they will fight it with every ounce
of their being because it's essentially
their identity. Their identity is being
the gatekeeper of their understanding of
human history. You're describing Graham
and every other fraud in this space,
dumbass. They write shitty books full of
lies. And when real scholars expose
their fraudulence, they run to their
safe space on JRE and whine about how
mean and closed-minded those nasty
academics are. For how much you [\h__\h]
never stop whining about cancel culture,
you sure are a bunch of [\h__\h]
snowflakes.
>> And these are the guys that are telling
us we we can't explore these things. And
those are the people that are attacking
Graham Hancock with every possible
insult, calling it the most dangerous
show on television. Like this, but it's
also it's it's so revealing because it's
so obvious that if you watch the show,
you're like, "Wait, this is the most
dangerous show on TV." [laughter]
Ancient Apocalypse. Yeah.
>> Yeah. How is that dangerous? He's like
just talking about these bizarre
structures that exist that seem to defy
our modern understanding of how things
are built.
>> They don't defy our modern understanding
of anything. You just refuse to spend
even one hour gathering legitimate
knowledge that pertains to our modern
understanding. You're whining about this
one Guardian article that called it the
most dangerous show on television, which
might be slightly hyperbolic, but yes,
it is dangerous. It teaches millions of
people to distrust archaeology while
giving them absolutely nothing in
return. Every site is proof that
archaeologists are lying. Every
alternative interpretation is a
suppressed truth. Every baseless story
is the brave heterodox position that the
establishment is too threatened to
accept. That framework teaches millions
of people to distrust scientific
expertise and instead trust a man who
has been wrong about everything he has
ever claimed consistently for 30 years.
Every single person who is gullible
enough to fall for this [\h__\h] will
immediately swallow any other
anti-establishment narrative, most
critically regarding medicine, vaccines,
and all the other [\h__\h] that actively
kills people. So yes, Joe, it's
dangerous and you are responsible for
its popularity more than any other
single person on the [\h__\h] planet.
Enjoy that.
>> But you know, Ben from Uncharted X, you
know, he's done a lot of work on these
things. Like those just those voses are
very bizarre.
>> Very bizarre.
>> And they appear right in the start of
the Egyptian dynasties.
>> Yeah.
>> And they forget how to do that as well.
>> We have no idea how they made them. We
don't know what tools they used. Anybody
that says that they do, you're lying.
You really don't know. You can't know.
These things are perfectly symmetrical.
>> Nobody can know things, especially if
the things they definitely know
contradict the lies I fell for because
I'm stupid. Great work, Joe. If you
don't know what he's talking about with
these [\h__\h] vases, go ahead and watch
my video on Ben's pathetic rift and how
his ultra precise vases were debunked by
his own research team. More on these
things and the scam they prop up in a
future video. And of course, no matter
how much Joe wants to whine about it,
hard stone vessel manufacturer in Egypt
has been studied extensively. Pecking,
grinding, drilling with abrasives,
shaping, and polishing in the hands of
skilled craftseople working across
generations in dedicated elite workshop
traditions are entirely capable of
producing extremely fine results. We
have the developmental sequences across
pre-dynastic and early dynastic
contexts. The precision claims are
grossly inflated by people who don't
understand measurement uncertainty,
sample selection, or manufacturing
variability. All the precision tells you
is that people who made these objects
were really good at making them, nothing
more.
>> Like one point people always make in
like my comments and stuff to try and
debunk me is like, oh, we would see
pollution. We would see kind of lead
signals in the atmosphere or whatever if
there was like a a big civilization
100,000 years ago. But that's only the
case if it was someone on the scale of
us now because
>> or if they were doing it the way we're
doing it. That's the thing where we're
talking about a completely different
pathway. Clearly there's some technology
that they had that we don't understand.
When you talk about the drill holes that
they find or the way they had carved out
these enormous
um massive chunks of stone, we don't
know the things that we totally know
always every time. I covered the
drilling and cutting of stone in the Ben
video as well, but about the pollution
thing, we don't need that. Large and
technologically sophisticated societies
leave signatures regardless of their
specific development path. settlement
hierarchies, midens, quaries, modified
landscapes, burials, artifact
standardization, ecological disruption,
metallurgical residues if they worked
metal, storage infrastructure, regional
exchange patterns. There are countless
ways for civilizations to leave traces
of themselves behind that it's literally
impossible for no trace to remain. The
only way to avoid leaving any of those
things at all is to not exist in the
first place. Once you acknowledge that,
all that's left is, well, maybe we
didn't find it yet, which is permanently
unfalsifiable and therefore
pseudocience.
>> Again, if someone is a historian and
they got into this, someone's an
archaeologist and they got into this
because they have this fascination for
it, for them to become professors and
then start teaching and writing books
about this stuff and and not still be
fascinated by the new stuff.
>> Yeah. is to me so weird.
>> It's like you miss the whole reason why
you got into this in the first place.
>> Scientists are all fascinated by the
science they study, dumbass. They're not
fascinated by the [\h__\h] stories
pedled by the frauds you platform
because they're not idiots like you. So
they immediately smell the grift and get
back to their legitimate and fascinating
science. You are the one who is not
actually fascinated by science or you
would have [\h__\h] learned some of it by
now. But the thing is when you go
through these kind of systems and I'm
I've sort of got experience of this
obviously I was never a professional
academic or anything like that but you
know I I did history for 4 years I was
kind of inside and I got to the point
where it was almost you know it was do
this as a career become a professional
academic or not. It's very hard to kind
of even think this way because everyone
around you is thinking within these
boxes that we've created for ourselves.
You were never inside academia Mikey.
You got a [\h__\h] bachelor's degree in
ancient history. You wrote some papers
about the Roman Empire. You've never
done an ounce of research in your life
and there are no boxes. Archaeology is
constantly changing as is evidenced by a
bunch of the [\h__\h] you yourselves have
been bringing up. Jabel or Hoot,
Gobeclete, Neanderl Cognition. Who
figured this [\h__\h] out? Grahamcock or any
of his clones? [\h__\h] no. Academics.
Academic archaeologists and
paleanthropologists
figure out all of this [\h__\h] What you
chuckle [\h__\h] refer to as mainstream
science is where all of this comes from.
You're constantly using the fruits of
academic science to whine about how
closedminded academic science is. It's
[\h__\h] idiotic.
>> Just think about the Clovis first issue.
>> Yeah. I mean, that's the best example.
>> It's the best example because that guy
was destroyed.
>> Nope. And nope. And more nope. You
morons will never drop this [\h__\h]
because when Grahamcock brainwashes you
with [\h__\h] you will never allow it
to dislodge from your tiny pea brains,
no matter how many times it's debunked.
That's why it's become a mantra. You
think you can just shout Clovis and walk
away like you've won something. We've
talked about this in multiple videos.
Clovis first was an established model
that was challenged with new evidence.
That evidence was scrutinized, debated,
tested independently, and subsequently
held up all by archaeologists. The model
was then revised. Clovis first changed
because the pre-Clovis case had
stratified sites, dated footprints,
lithics, and repeated independent
verification. You are simply proving
your entire mantra wrong by
acknowledging that academics update
their understanding when new evidence
arises. And absolutely nobody was
destroyed at all. Jacquesync Mark
continue to work until retirement.
You're repeating a lie that Graham told
you, nothing more. You want the [\h__\h]
stories you spew to be the next
pre-Clovis, but they never will be
because you have zero [\h__\h] evidence.
It's all it is, man. It's human ego is
so gross. And this brings me back to
psychedelics because what what do
psychedelics do that's most important?
Well, the the the dissolving of the ego.
It's one of the most important aspects
of it. It makes you realize the folly of
your ways. then you need to do a [\h__\h]
ton more DMT Joe because you're a
pointless egoomaniac who is confidently
wrong more or less always and you're
poisoning society with your confident
wrongness in a way that is genuinely
destructive. Maybe switch to ketamine or
something. Whatever you're doing is
building up your ego, not killing it.
>> The understanding that these academics,
these archaeologists and historians can
give us of our world and our history is
really cool. It's really awesome. But
there's a whole lot more out there. And
for them to pretend and dismiss people
like they should embrace people like
Graham Hancock and then they should
correct him when he's saying something
is wrong.
>> Yeah.
>> But instead of lying and then calling
him a racist and saying all these
terrible things about him. Well, that
just shows me that you don't really have
an argument and you're trying to protect
your identity. Your identity is the
gatekeeper of this information that is
not yours to gatekeep.
>> They correct him all the time. [\h__\h]
Flint did it for 4 hours on your goddamn
show. Your response was to ban him
permanently and slander him indefinitely
on Graham's behalf. You [\h__\h] weasel.
Nobody's lying about Graham. Nobody
called him racist. You are the liar. You
and your worthless lying guests like
Benjamin Button over here. You are the
problem. Not the nasty academics that
hurt your feelings by actually knowing
things. You're almost 60. Figure out a
way to finally grow the [\h__\h] up. Joe,
>> have you ever heard of the Saluran
hypothesis?
>> No.
>> That's what is it?
>> It's it's kind of linked to this uh
>> it's linked to this, you know, ancient
civilization stuff. It's the idea that
there could have been an advanced
civilization on our planet, you know,
100 million years ago, a non-human one
that, you know, was uh
>> advanced and industrial and we just
wouldn't see any trace because of how
long ago it was. And they could have
been here and, you know, we just
wouldn't know because it's been so long.
It's kind of like where I come from with
my kind of human idea. Obviously, it's a
further uh time span, but it's been it
was proposed by two physicists is why I
uh why just thought of it just then.
It's a guy called Adam Frank and uh
>> Oh, I've had him had him on before.
>> You've had him on Adam Frank. There you
go. I mean, did you didn't you might
have
>> We had him on, Jamie. Right.
>> I don't know.
>> Didn't we?
>> Let me see. [laughter]
>> That's a problem that happens all the
time.
>> Never heard of it even though we had
that guy on the show. Or did we? I can't
remember. Classic. Anyway, the Curan
hypothesis was published by the director
of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, Gavin Schmidt, and
astrophysicist Adam Frank in 2018. It's
not a genuine proposition. It's a
thought experiment. Its purpose is to
ask what kinds of geochemical traces on
industrial civilization would leave in
the geological record over deep time
scales in order to understand the limits
of our ability to detect such a
civilization if one had ever existed.
Again, Schmidt and Frank are not
claiming such a civilization existed.
They do not believe that such a
civilization existed. Button distorts
their work and pretends that academics
have genuinely proposed something that
supports his [\h__\h] So, their idea is
kind of like, well, what what if, you
know, a civilization in the kind of era
of the dinosaurs had, you know, become
very advanced and an industrial society.
And they say we would see absolutely no
evidence. Like when I'm talking about
human civilization, we would see some
potential evidence like you know rock
carve stone or whatever. But they would
say you wouldn't even see the nuclear
waste deposits cuz it's that long ago
that nothing would survive. And then I
think about that and I think well isn't
it almost more likely that something did
happen considering we know that
intelligence can emerge relatively
quickly. Multisellular life has been on
the planet for so so so so so long.
>> A limited understanding of the fossil
record.
>> Exactly. Why why couldn't why couldn't
something have happened before? And then
then you start getting a bit, you know,
stoner about it and you start thinking,
well, maybe they're still here because
they
>> That's what I like to do. [laughter]
>> I like to go interdimensional.
>> Yep. This is the precise moment that the
podcast goes completely off the rails.
And from here until the end, over
another hour from now, they just ramble
about all the outlandish [\h__\h] they
specifically pretend to distance
themselves from when attempting to
appear as though they can challenge
legitimate academics. Because I think
like well if you do have these quantum
computers that can go back one second in
time and you you you move forward a
thousand years from now and they're run
by AI like what can they do? Like what
do they cease to do these beings cease
to exist in this dimension? Do they
develop the ability to be
transdimensional? Do they do they no
longer exist in our space and time? And
that's our cue to get the [\h__\h] out of
here. two morons lying about archaeology
is worth listening to for debunking and
educational purposes. The rest of
whatever the [\h__\h] this is just isn't. No
matter how rational they initially
present themselves to be, these frauds
are always Graham Hancock in the streets
and Billy Carson in the sheets. Because
conmen always cast as wide a net as
possible. Brazilian UFOs, three-fingered
beings, supernatural sulfur, demonic
encounters. That's what's on the table
for the rest of the episode. And ain't
nobody got time for that. In the end,
apart from the relentless bastardization
of science for money, it's just so
tragic that this is what popular media
has become. Two pointless douchebags.
One of them actively lying for money,
and the other performatively falling for
it for way more money, having a contest
for who can be the most dumb and wrong
while acting like they're the brave
rebels bringing the real truth to the
public and sticking it to the corrupt
establishment. This is it. This is how
millions of people view the world
because of ass hats like Joe and the
frauds like Button who craft entire
grifts with Joe's show in mind as a
catapult. I don't know how to help
people wake up and smell the roses. At
least not beyond making content like
this. So hopefully a few Button fans
were able to get through this video and
see what a fraud he is. Maybe some
people were able to see through toxic
scumbags like Dan and Jimmy, but were
still clinging to this guy, thinking he
was a little more polished and genuine.
I am only too happy to disillusion them
so they can see that there isn't a
single corner of this cult that is
anything other than deception and grime.
That's why it's become one of my
favorite cults to expose. We get to ruin
some frauds and learn some cool facts
along the way. And isn't that what it's
really all about.
So, that's it for Michael Button, the
Graham Hancock wannabe, who's really
just another lazy dime a dozen grifter
that lies about archaeology to make
money on the internet. With the old ones
falling off and the new ones having
their credibility demolished left and
right, will we finally see this pathetic
cult evaporate in the near future? We'll
just have to wait and see. Until next
time.