Hey everyone. Many of you are aware of
my content demolishing the
pseudoarchchaeology cult, one of the
most toxic cess pools of pseudocience on
the entire internet. While I've been
pissing off all the grifters in this
space for quite some time, undoubtedly
none so much as a feral little cave
troll named Dan Richards. Let's see if
we can give him a mental breakdown
today, shall we? If you need some
background information, in April of last
year, I put out this meaty piece called
the great big pseudoarchchaeology
debunk. It focused on Graham Hancock
since he's the godfather of this cult
and the most influential figure on the
gullible sector of the public who lap up
fairy tales about advanced ancient
civilizations that definitely never
existed. It also dunked on two of
Graham's pointless henchmen, Dan
Richards and Jimmy Corsetti. I had
already planned to do follow-up videos
for each of them, but Dan promptly had a
complete meltdown about my video,
whining for his clueless flock about how
I don't understand archaeology. So, his
video came first where I exposed him
even further as a pointless troll who
knows literally zero things about
archaeology. In that video, I
obliterated him with utterly trivial
information regarding how we date the
pyramids at Giza, which we will come
back to in a bit. There was plenty more
debunking in there since everything Dan
says is insanely stupid, as well as
calling him out for countless lies.
Then, at the end of the video, I mocked
the crap out of him for being a [\h__\h]
idiot who can't read a Fox News article.
He was pretending that archaeologists
are confused about the age and nature of
a particular site when his dumb [\h__\h]
face just didn't realize he was reading
two separate articles about two separate
sites. I mocked him for being genuinely
illiterate and then pointed out that he
will never issue a retraction because
he's an intellectually bankrupt loser
desperately clutching on to the last
handful of people who take him seriously
and such an admission would lose every
last one of them. More on that a bit
later as well. And be sure to watch this
video in full if you want more details.
Seemingly immune to shame and unable to
come up with any other strategy to get
attention, Dan kept mouththing off about
me. This time on a second even more
pointless channel. Once again, I scraped
the bottom of the barrel and made
another video about what a butth clown
he is. I mocked him for his profound
science illiteracy and dishonesty as
usual. Reminded him that he's a [\h__\h]
who can't even read a Fox News article.
Coined the nickname Sasquatch taint,
which will likely end up on his
gravestone since nobody loves him enough
to prevent it from happening. And then I
washed my hands of him. Two full videos
on Dan was already more than he
deserved. And I had plenty of other
targets in this cult to annihilate. So I
moved on to ruining Ben Van Kirkwick,
which was glorious. And then I began
preparing a piece on Michael Button,
which will be out very soon. But in the
meantime, Dan has taken the concept of
obsession to a new level. You thought
Lord Jamar wouldn't shut up about me or
James Tour. You've seen nothing yet.
After my two videos on Dan, he decided
that he was going to fixate on me like I
was the six-fingered man to his Inigo
Mononttoya. He started pumping out
endless content, whining about me,
always totally devoid of substance,
pretending I'm avoiding some debate that
he conjured up in his imagination,
barging on to other podcasts like Danny
Jones to whine about me. I mean,
genuinely, this pointless furball thinks
about me every single day. His first
thought when he wakes up, and his last
thought before he passes out in a pool
of beard sweat, is how much he hates me
for showing the world what a pointless
ass clown he is. Dawn to dusk, complete
and total fixation. And believe me, this
obsession is not reciprocated.
>> I feel bad for you.
>> I don't think about you at all.
>> Now, here's the thing. The second video
I made on Dan was already beneath me.
This one is, too. Dan is a bug under my
shoe. There are half a dozen
flat-earthers who make videos about me
all the time as well. They invent
storylines where I'm dodging debates
with them, too, because for some reason,
ruining David Wuss and Austin Shitwit
wasn't enough. No, I have to listen to
every brainless loser regurgitate the
exact same script while I use the exact
same challenges to ruin them in real
time. They don't deserve to be
acknowledged. Dan doesn't deserve to be
acknowledged either. He's on the same
level as flat-earthers. But the problem
is that it's just so [\h__\h] funny. The
degree to which Dan has mastered the art
of being a pointless loser troll is
comedy gold. And I can't deprive you
guys of the hilarity. So, we are going
to dumpster dive a bit, dodging Dan's
makeshift hobo living space, of course,
and dunk on Sasquatch taint a little
more. You can grant me that, can't you?
Anyway, right after my second video on
him, Dan puffed up his chest and tried
his best to sound like a scholar,
debunking Dave, the mighty debunker.
This was another video on his profoundly
pointless second channel called Dave
Fina Doesn't Understand Radiocarbon
Dating or Math. Good call, [\h__\h] I
totally don't have an enormous amount of
tutorial content explaining all areas of
math from calculus to linear algebra to
differential equations, which is some of
the best content on my channel as
evidenced by the number of people who
use it to pass their classes. Danny boy
over here probably can't remember his
times tables, but it's Dave who doesn't
understand math. He's not projecting at
all. And then the radiocarbon dating
thing, as though that's not taught in
high school chemistry class, and I
didn't teach chemistry at the university
level. Let's get a load of this pile of
horse manure. Dave Fina doesn't know the
first damn thing about radiocarbon
dating as it applies to Egyptology or
archaeology. Or maybe he doesn't
understand math, or maybe he can't read
good, or maybe he's dishonest, or maybe
it's all of the above. Um, yeah, it's
all the above. and his followers lap it
up like their freaking queso does cheese
whiz. This is this is the most
ridiculous thing that Anyway, I'll waste
some time on this. Here we go. Let's
talk about Dave Fina's brilliance.
Doesn't know the first damn thing. Gee,
I was over here thinking that carbon,
like most other elements, has a
radioactive isotope in the form of C-14
and that this nucide decays in a
reliable way such that measuring the
amount of it in an object compared to
the amount in living organisms can
reliably give you the age of that object
up to around 50,000 years. Wouldn't that
be the first thing, Dan? And there is
organic material in the mortar between
the stones of the pyramids at Giza,
which is how we use radiocarbon dating
to determine their ages. Wouldn't that
be the second thing, Dan? No. Sorry,
you're right. I just can't read good.
Okay, you have our attention. Show
everyone what a scholar you are and
dazzle us with some facts.
Do you know why you're lonely?
It's cuz you're fat and Dave.
Yes. Thus begins Dan's new gimmick.
Pretending that I'm fat. That's how
science works, right? Whenever there are
competing theories, one scientist
shouts, "Fuck you, fatty." and their
theory automatically wins. Dan really
does seem completely broken at this
point. I mean, fat shaming would already
be pathetic enough, but to invent
fatness out of thin air to do it, that's
really another level of sadness. Oh, and
lonely, too. Yes, it's quite lonely over
here with my loving wife and two small
children who never stop talking or leave
us alone for a single second. Where's
your family again, Dan? Projection has
never been so blatant. There was this
guy named Bertrand Russell and he had a
thought experiment called Russell's
teapot where if I was to posit, hey,
there's a teapot in orbit around
Jupiter, but I have no evidence for it.
You can be rightfully understood in
dismissing my claim or ignoring it, even
if you don't have evidence to prove me
wrong. This is something that you see a
lot in the atheist circles and I'm quite
certain that Dave has seen this on a Tik
Tok or something sometime while he's
eating his freaking mukbangs or whatever
the heck it is that's got him on his
whole Nicado Avocado arc. Now, the
difference between believing in a flat
earth where we have solid evidence to
the contrary and believing in something
like Atlantis, for example, is the
difference between denying evidence and
believing there's no evidence to prove
or disprove. But Dave isn't talking
about Atlantis. Oh, no, no, he's talking
about my position that says archaeology
isn't function as a proper science and
that I have evidence for. We have the
Clovis first thing, but we also have the
Fulsome first debacle, which was
basically the same thing as Clovis
first, but it happened a few decades
prior. This dumb [\h__\h] actually brings up
Russell's teapot, which immaculately
describes Graham's imaginary law
civilizations. zero evidence, not real
science. Then he just regurgitates
Graham's pathetic script, distorting
history and smearing archaeologists
because he is genuinely that stupid.
Archaeology is objectively a science.
Archaeologists use principles of
geology, physics, chemistry, and other
physical sciences, which makes it
science. And they publish thousands of
papers per year using these empirical
methods. So, when Dan tries to pretend
it's not science by vomiting up this
Clovis first [\h__\h] or any other
ridiculous narrative from Graham that
I've already debunked in other content,
he sounds like a [\h__\h] It's like when
creationists bring up Pilt Down Man or
Nebraska Man to conclude that evolution
isn't science. Dan is as dumb and
pathetic as Ken Hovind. Lying about what
archaeologists have done isn't an
argument. Pointing at any scientific
field naturally evolving as more data is
collected isn't an indictment of
science, but rather just an
acknowledgement of how science works.
And none of it substantiates the dumb
stories that he and his idiot colleagues
and fraudulent pedal on the internet.
>> Anybody on the outliers of archaeology
is treated with extreme hostility more
so than other fields. Even again, I have
evidence for this. You can look at the
way that Graham Hancock's treated,
Randall Carlson's treated, Jimmy
Corsetti's treated, Ben Kirkwick's
treated, my dumb ass is treated.
>> Yes, you just rattled off a list of
pathetic frauds who lie about
archaeology to make money on the
internet. You're not outliers, you're
parasites, and you deserve every ounce
of mockery that you're served. I've
debunked every single one of you and
exposed you for the lying frauds you
are. And it's taken an enormous toll on
your ability to deceive people. That's
why your butth hurt face is here doing
damage control and failing miserably.
Dan calls these king lists the most
robust written records that we have of
those times. This alone is enough to
disqualify Dan as a complete [\h__\h] with
zero knowledge of archaeology. These
lists aren't immaculate compilations
with precise dates and lengths of rule.
They're all fragmentaryary, requiring
calibration of their discrepancies and
overlaps with one another and with other
evidence like inscriptions on monuments
and astronomical observations. They're
not robust at all. He just blindly
asserts that they are. In reality,
historians are forced to make
assumptions about how long reigns are
and extrapolate back from well-attested
historical periods in the first
millennium B.C.E. The further back you
go, the more uncertainty there is with
the assumed dates. Dan has never seen
these lists or any other archaeological
artifact. He can't read them. He can't
interpret them. He hasn't even read
literature from professionals
interpreting them. He just calls them
robust for no reason and then moves on
to the next lie. This is all he does.
>> First of all, most of my followers are
aware of this stuff. They're into
Egyptology and archaeology, and I go out
of my way to talk about science in most
of my videos. So, um, yeah. Anyway, most
of my followers do get this. It's your
followers that needed the, you know,
dumbed down explanation. I I I already
can assume that my followers understood
most of this stuff.
>> Your few dozen remaining followers don't
know their ass from their elbow, Dan.
Their eyes glaze over whenever you
pretend to explain science you
definitely don't understand and just
wait for the part where you crap your
pants about how mean and dumb those
ivory tower archaeologists are. Stop
pretending otherwise. But at any rate,
you zeroed in on me saying the word
kings list, but I did say written
records. And of course, these require
all kinds of different things, but
they're known colloially as written
records. You can call it the
chronological timeline, but the thing is
is that implies carbon dating mixed in
there. There's a time before carbon
dating and a current time after carbon
dating when it comes to archaeology.
Dave, if you would just put down your
freaking chopsticks for one minute, you
would see this. Okay. What the [\h__\h] are
you rambling about? I was mocking you
for pretending that these written
records are super robust and you just
pivot to whining about carbon dating and
telling me to put down chopsticks. This
is what happens when you press record
but don't actually have anything to say.
Egypt requires several avenues of
evidence to determine anything because
the written records themselves were
changed by different rulers over the
years. And some of the king's lists were
even thought to be the practice papyrie
for apprentice scribes. And these
include inaccuracies because the focus
was on learning different characters and
different manners of writing, not the
actual proper list. Anybody who's into
this stuff really knows these kinds of
things already. Most of my followers
know these things already. Your
followers don't know anything, dumbass.
You don't know anything and they know
less than you. They know less than
nothing. I was mocking you for
pretending that the written records are
super robust and you're now listing
reasons for why they indeed are not
robust. You're just doing it with a
condescending tone to pretend you're
refuting what I'm saying because your
idiot followers aren't even listening to
the words. Thank you for proving my
point for me. Before the advent of
radiocarbon dating, absolute dates for
the local relative chronological
sequence of the southern and central
Levant were heavily dependent on the
Egyptian historical chronology and also
the relative chronological sequences for
middle and late bronze age cyprus were
linked to the historical chronology of
the Nile Valley. Even much of the aian
bronze age chronology was linked to and
dated via the Egyptian historical
chronology. It's pronounced Aian. And
what you are reading confirms precisely
what I said. You're repeating what I
said about how historians and
archaeologists date things. Great job,
Slick.
>> Now, do you see how important that was?
Not only was the written record the
backbone of them actually making the
chronology that is the backbone of
ancient history in that region, which
means revamping, it's not exactly
something they're going to be too hot to
trot to do. revamping is something they
won't be hot to trot to do. So you think
that historians don't revise their
assessment of the ages of things when
they discover new evidence, a thing that
is happening literally all the time. So
you're a [\h__\h] idiot with no idea how
anything works. Got it? If you spent
some time reading the papers associated
with the topic you are discussing
instead of looking up insults on chat
GPT,
you would be able to, I don't know, keep
up with this conversation. Instead, you
accuse me of not reading the papers. And
that is laughable. Absolutely laughable.
It's not since you definitely do not
read papers. You can't even read a Fox
News article. Remember, dumbass. So, you
definitely do not have the intellectual
capacity to read primary scientific
literature, and you have never done
that. And sorry, chat. GPT can't come up
with anything as brilliant as Sasquatch
taint. That came from my noggin, and
it's how you will be remembered until
you die. Enjoy that. Now, on to the
carbon dating. Amazingly, Dan plays a
clip of me explaining science, something
he usually insulates his idiot viewers
from. But it gets much worse. Here's
that Bonani paper from 2001 that
presented and explained the discrepancy
between radiocarbon dates and historical
dates for the pyramids. As you can see,
they very clearly suggested that old
wood was burned to create the mortar for
the pyramids, which left the charcoal
that was dated. Radiocarbon dating
returns the date that organic material
was alive, which stops being the case
when a tree is chopped down. Wood from
trees can be used and reused. You
probably have a wooden chair in your
house right now that's been a chair and
not a tree for a very long time.
Furthermore, the interior of a tree
trunk might be centuries older than the
exterior. And this shows up in the
dating. So the very obvious conclusion
is that the wood used in the
construction of the pyramid is a bit
older than the pyramid. Did it return a
date for the wood that is younger than
the pyramid? No. Did it return a date
that is several thousand years older
than the pyramid? No. About 200 years,
which is perfectly in line with normal
tree growth and repeated wood usage.
>> Oh, the old wood hypothesis. Oh man, if
only I had thought of that.
>> Yes, that's it. His response to very
obvious science and logic is to put
footage of nachos behind me talking and
then respond with two seconds of blanket
sarcasm and nothing else. This is what
passes for a rebuttal in his pathetic
little brain.
>> The entire fourth dynasty that it's
ubiquitous. Okay. And that that means
everywhere. Kind of like your tummy. It
it's everywhere. Okay. So all the fourth
dynasty the end of the third dynasty the
beginning of the fifth dynasty there is
a variation between the carbon dating
and the written record it goes like this
because the 7th 8th 9th sixth dynasty
first and second dynasty they don't have
this problem there's a small disparities
but nothing like this what you're doing
here is basically ignoring what we
actually see as a problem. It's like oh
they're using old wood but they just
used it for you know hundred years or
so. Well, they didn't do that before or
after that. This is ridiculous. Okay,
this is expect
>> It's not ridiculous at all because the
wood isn't that old, [\h__\h] The
discrepancy is insignificant. You're
just shouting the word dynasty a bunch
to pretend you know things and then
completely ignoring the obvious stuff I
told you while piling in as many
cultural references as you can to
maintain the attention of the dumbest
people alive. Reanalysis of the
chronological discrepancies obtained by
the Old and Middle Kingdom monuments.
Gee, do you think there's some newer
data in here that Dan is ignoring? You
bet there is. I
>> mean, this is so funny. This is like if
I ever want to bully the stupid kid to
kind of, you know, get some nostalgia
from when I was younger, I know exactly
who to hunt up. I mean, this is
ridiculous. Does Does he even know what
data means? Does he even know what
empirical means? Does he even know what
he's talking about here? Let's find out.
Spoiler alert,
he does not. Yeah, I studied science and
did science and taught science. That's
how I know what science is. Sorry,
kiddo. As you can see, they recalibrated
Bonani's radiocarbon dates using a
different statistical approach to
prioritize samples from short-lived
species rather than longived trees.
>> No, pizza the [\h__\h] That's not what the
paper says. You have to read more than
four words in order to figure that out.
And I know that most of your followers
can't read more than 12 at a time
anyway.
>> It is what the paper says. I highlighted
the words which say the thing I'm
saying. That's how I know it says that.
You're illiterate and so are your
followers. So you can show them that the
paper says what I'm saying it does and
just pretend that it doesn't and they'll
believe you because they're stupid. One
potentially attractive avenue is to use
Beijian modeling to estimate a nominated
date or event. For this analysis, the
completion date of construction was
deemed the most suitable parameter.
Unlike the beginning or midpoints, this
boundary was more likely to be static
and unaffected by inbuilt age. In real
terms, it should represent the point at
which short-lived, non-stockpiled, or
recycled material was included on the
last day of construction. What they did
was use their Beijing modeling and
inserted as prior information the
completion date of these edififices. the
completion date, which is the latest
possible date. So already they're
skewing it as far possible as they can
away from those older dates because
Beijian methodology, you're talking
about a freaking mathematical equation.
And um as we'll talk about in a minute,
the prior information is actually a
pretty important part of that whole
thing. But the deal here is they're not
doing this in order to pinpoint seeds
and or something like that. They're
assuming that that might be the case.
But if you've ever worked construction,
you probably know that by the end of the
job, there's a really high probability
of having a lot of stockpiled materials
around. That's when you're going to burn
up the last of the stuff. The odds
there's just arbitrary idea that, oh
yeah, by the way, there's just going to
be seeds at the end of it. That's
completely arbitrary. There's no
reasoning behind that.
>> Dan is pretending to know what Beijian
means. He's pretending to know what
equations are. and he's patting his
bluecollar audience on the back and
ensuring them that their experience
working construction somehow applies to
archaeology while just generally
[\h__\h] his pants and saying nothing.
He said, "By the way, there's going to
be seeds at the end of it." What? The
seeds are in the mortar between the
stones. The stones which are being used
throughout the entire construction of
the pyramid. Even if you could somehow
pretend that all the seeds were
magically inserted into the mortar at
the moment of completion, it still
wouldn't be an argument. He's whining
about the end point of construction as
though the duration of construction
about 20 years is even remotely
significant compared to the age of the
pyramids. It's not. They're thousands of
years old. He's ignoring the rationale
provided in that passage for the
methodology they used and pretending
that it somehow taints the conclusions
of the paper, which it obviously
doesn't. They carbon dated material in
the mortar and slightly revised what we
know about the age of the pyramids.
That's the entire story. And would you
look at that? they match quite a bit
better with the historical and
archaeological timelines. So, it sounds
like it was simply a matter of getting
some initial data and then over only a
few years refining our methods to get
better data which corroborates the other
knowledge we have. It's almost like it's
a perfect example of how empirical
science works. Something Dan knows
precisely dick about and just talks out
of his ass on the internet to trick
gullible idiots into ignoring.
>> Really empirical science? Do you you
think that's what you think that's what
it means? Is you think this is empirical
science? Do you know anything about
Beijian inference? Right. No. Okay. Put
down the mobile scooter catalog. You'll
have plenty of time next month to get
one. Yes. It's an example of empirical
science. Carbon dating is empirical
science where quantitative measurements
are taken from which conclusions are
drawn. You don't know what Beijian
inference means and even your idiot
followers are rolling their eyes by now
about the fat stuff. You are completely
broken inside. Now in the case of carbon
dating, prior information can be all
manner of things including
dendrochronology, strategraphy or even
written records. And in the case of this
paper, they use written records and gave
them a high degree of certainty.
>> Prior knowledge pertaining to carbon
dating is the half-life of carbon 14.
They compare results from carbon dating
to those other things. Holy [\h__\h] you're
dumb. This will skew the result bad
enough, but in addition to this, they
eliminated any samples that didn't
correspond with known Pharaoh reigns.
So, what they did was they prioritized
the latest dates for each one of these
edififices
and they removed any samples that had
dates that didn't align with a known
Egyptian king. This basically before
they even did the math, they had already
removed all of the outliers and favored
everything towards one extreme. This is
this is creationist crap. Just like I
said to begin with, Dave, these guys are
trying to explain away the problem. No,
you just have no actual idea how this
data analysis works. Beijian modeling
inputs all manner of information, weighs
everything based on certainty, and
cleans it up statistically to offer more
precise results. In this case, date
ranges. Data from the historical record
that are uncertain will have less
influence. The one extreme you're
whining about is just reliable data.
Your incompetence does not demonstrate a
conspiracy within archaeology to
misrepresent the dates of objects. You
guys say, "Hey man, why doesn't Graham
Hancock use his cajillions of dollars
and buy a submarine and take all these
people down to check all these different
things out and hire archaeologists to
come with him?" Well, dude, when guys
like him do pay for things like that,
you guys just skew the data. You fudge
it.
>> When guys like him do that, sorry. Who
is like Graham? And when has he or any
other pointless fraud done anything like
that? When has Graham spent a bunch of
money funding archaeological excavations
to find Atlantis? Who is you guys? And
who would be skewing or fudging data
when he would be the one hiring the
researchers? Do you have any idea how
[\h__\h] dumb you sound?
>> You It gets explained away and then
boneheads like you come out there and
don't even know what the hell you're
talking about and say, "Oh, look at
this. This is empirical."
>> Ran out of steam on that one, a champ.
Yes, empirical science is empirical.
Your pathetic tantrums denying science
are not.
>> We know that the first ruler of the
fourth dynasty, Nefaru, has three
pyramids.
They're big ones and they're all built,
you know, tombs and tombs alone, right,
Dave? That's what pyramids are for.
>> Yes, pyramids are tombs. Anyone who
pretends pyramids aren't tombs, like you
and your idiot cronies, or brainwashed
podcast bros like Danny Jones, deserve
nothing but mockery for ignoring the
mountains of artifacts that prove
they're objectively tombs.
>> When they get information from you,
Dave, they walk away without knowing
anything. And it's amazing, to be honest
with you. It's amazing because Ken Ham
spent millions of dollars to do what you
do while you eat Doritos. Ken Ham spent
millions of dollars to do what thing
that I do while I eat Doritos? What? So,
beyond pretending that I preach
creationist propaganda when I actually
devote enormous amounts of effort to
debunking creationist propaganda,
including Ken Hams, you're pretending
that it would be better if I spent more
money to do it. So, I'm dumb because I
don't waste money. I genuinely can't
follow the logic of this intended burn.
And no joke, that's the end of the
video. That's his big finale. This is
the extent of his pathetic alternate
channel. Four videos, one on magic
cards, the atheism one we crapped on in
another video, the carbon dating one we
just crapped on where he said literally
nothing about carbon dating. And another
one whining about another science
communicator while still referencing me
in the title. Obsessed much. And of
course, don't forget these three shorts.
Let's watch all three.
>> Would you be gay for one hour for $1
million?
>> Siri, open archaeology with Flint
Dibble's YouTube page.
What fresh hell is this? I'm doing my
best to wrap my head around what that
was supposed to be. And I arrived at
haha, gay is bad and Flint is gay. Was
that about right? Even in the 1940s when
you grew up, where casual homophobia was
in style, this still wouldn't be funny,
but you decided to post this on the
internet anyway. Great job. Dave Fina
tried to trick his audience, but I saw
through it. He claimed that this paper
on radiocarbon dating used new data to
refine the dating of ancient Egypt, but
in fact, it was just Beijian modeling
used to eliminate data that didn't agree
with the paper's author's position. No,
it's science you don't understand and
deliberately misrepresent because you're
pretending to be smarter than
scientists, as we just demonstrated. In
other words, it's junk science. And I
made a video addressing that already,
but Dave hasn't responded to it. I know
he's seen my channel because I made a
really loweffort click bayy thing on the
first video on my new channel. He knows
who I am. We've talked before, but he's
hiding from me now.
>> No [\h__\h] I know who you are, dumbass.
I've been exposing your incompetence and
dishonesty for over a year.
>> Now, what did Dave say about Brett
Weinstein when he didn't debate Dave?
>> Well, their idea was to have me debate
Brett Weinstein. Just me, peers, and
Brett hashing it out. They asked if I
was willing and I said, "Abso
fuckingutely, I will crush that clown."
But wouldn't you know it, Brett
declined. Why do you suppose that might
be? Oh, right. It's because I've ruined
him in several videos. Well, Dave, I'm
holding you to those same standards.
Debate me, you coward. Or are you afraid
to? You're the one that brought up the
paper, and the moment that I proved that
you were wrong, you chickenened out and
disappeared. So, come on, Tubby. Let's
debate.
>> Yeah, Brett is actually influential. He
has a huge platform and he spreads
medical misinformation that kills
people. I salivated the opportunity to
expose a fraud like him or his loser big
brother right to their lying fraud
faces. And Brett knows that's exactly
what would happen. So he declined to
debate me on Pierce and he declined to
debate me on Danny Jones just like Eric
declined on Piers as well. You're
nobody. You're genuinely on the level of
the yapping flat earthers I ignore. I
wouldn't even be making this video if it
wasn't so [\h__\h] funny and people
didn't already know you from previous
content. Okay, one more.
>> Well, well, well, well, well, if it
isn't the big time hot shot lawyer man.
>> Oh my god, I do not have time for you.
>> Yes, I've been told I look like Charlie
and this is one of the best shows of all
time, but in what world are you the
lawyer? That's a real job. You're not a
hot shot anything. You're a feral cave
troll on measculine, remember? And in
what universe do you not have the time
for me when you've never stopped talking
about me for a single second in the past
year?
>> Yes, sir. We both have busy schedules,
so I'll make this quick. A shhatman's
words with you for long. I am
challenging you, sir, to a duel.
>> I accept.
>> Are you serious?
>> No, I accept your challenge.
>> Do you want time to think it over?
>> No.
>> Nope. Nope. Nope. Not at all. Um, what
time are you thinking of dueling?
>> Anytime is is good, really. I don't have
>> You don't have time cuz you would have
to go out and get a proper gun.
>> No, no, I have a gun.
>> Yeah, he plays this entire scene with
our names just sitting there like that.
We don't need to finish it. Anyway, this
hallucination of me challenging him to a
duel is beyond hilarious. I made several
videos exposing and humiliating him. His
credibility is now non-existent thanks
to me. And that's the extent of what
happened. What a sad and desperate
coping mechanism this is. Not even his
pathetic pseudoarchchaeology cult will
associate with him anymore. Look at who
Dan has to resort to collaborating with.
Billy [\h__\h] Carson, the Anunnaki con
man, and Terrence Howard confidant, who
I have thoroughly dismantled in other
content. Two videos with this jackass,
one on each of their channels. Can you
believe this crap? Whenever anyone
points out Graham's laughable past
pushing ancient aliens [\h__\h] Dan
flips out and calls it a straw man. And
then he goes ahead and affiliates with
someone pushing stories that are 10
times more idiotic about non-existent
emerald tablets and aliens forcing
humans to mine gold for them. This is
how Dan, the loser hypocrite, is trying
to manufacture credibility for himself
now that nobody will even look at him
for 10 full seconds. Quite predictably,
instead of accepting his complete
irrelevance with grace, he just throws
endless tantrums about me on his main
channel as well. Professor Dave is
scared and hiding. Anyway, we will come
back to this pathetic debate challenge
in a bit. First, let's pivot to Danny
Jones since it will be worth taking a
few minutes to make fun of both Dan and
Danny. You see, Dan has been on Danny
Jones, and that makes him feel very
special. Pathetic, I know. He thinks
it's something to be proud of. So, he
didn't like it one bit when I went on
there, especially since I made fun of
his ridiculous cult on the show. Here he
is whining about it in a short because
the public can't compartmentalize
science.
>> Dave Fina thinks you're too ignorant to
understand the difference between a hard
science like chemistry and a soft
science like archaeology. And as a
result, he thinks questioning how the
pyramids were built leads to all manner
of science denial. Archaeology isn't a
soft science just because you don't know
what geology and physics and chemistry
are. Excavation and data collection
utilize rigorous empirical science you
will never understand. And yes, people
who deny what we know about how the
pyramids were built are delusional ass
hats who like stories that make them
feel smart and special. The ones that
frauds like you and Graham tell want to
cry about it. But the way that these
grifters come at this, you know, oh, all
the archaeologists are closed-minded and
they're idiots and they don't know about
this and they don't know about that and
they're denying this for whatever
reason. That poisons the public against
the scientific community, right? And
that is what leads to enhanced vaccine
hesitancy and all these other things,
right? Because the public can't
compartmentalize science.
>> You thought I was making that up, didn't
you? But no, there it is. The guy is so
freaking arrogant, he doesn't think
you're even capable of seeing the same
things that he sees. And as a result,
you probably shouldn't talk as much as
him. Uh, yeah. If you don't understand
the very obvious thing I said while Dan
was doing his meth shakes and playing a
random song for no reason, then you're
stupid and your opinion doesn't matter.
Pseudoarchchaeology frauds promote
science denial and distrust of
legitimate experts. Are all your idiot
followers also antiaxers? Dan, didn't
touch that one, huh? Since you know they
[\h__\h] are. So, yes, the science
illiterate masses who fall for these
anti-science narratives are not capable
of seeing what I see or they wouldn't be
gullible science deniers. You're saying
nothing. Anyway, pivoting over to Danny,
he's decided to take a page out of the
Joe Rogan Book of Intellectual Integrity
when it comes to acknowledging my
existence. Just like how Flint Dibble
taught Joe archaeology for four hours,
only for Joe to turn around and talk
[\h__\h] about Flint in a dozen episodes
after the fact in order to protect the
pseudoarchchaeology grift. Danny has
decided to do the same with me to
protect his supplement grift. Check out
this clip from his episode with Kurt
Mezer. Oh, you have no idea who that is?
Yeah, because he's literally nobody.
Brace yourself,
>> you stupid [\h__\h]
>> We need to get you I need to get you to
debate Professor Dave. Yo, I
like where the [\h__\h] does Professor Dave
come from? And why the [\h__\h] is he like
what a worthless [\h__\h] he is?
Holy [\h__\h]
Yes, it's true. Helping millions of
people reach their academic and career
goals while pushing back on the intense
wave of science denial that is poised to
destroy human civilization isn't nearly
as important as being an unknown and
unfunny stand-up comedian who can't even
make Rogan Bros laugh.
>> By the way, uh that weird mom thing you
were talking about earlier, that chick
went on just before you. You could
probably still get her.
Ouch. But hang on, guys. Let's hear him
out. Maybe he's got some insight up his
sleeve,
>> bro. He's defending the institutions.
Okay. There you go. Against our toxic
podcasters.
>> Oh, I'm toxic cuz I got two of the
[\h__\h] vaccines. Dave, you
>> Yeah, now I probably am. Thank God
nicotine can break down the nano
machines.
>> Jesus Christ, there's so much to unpack.
Danny laughs about me defending
institutions. Which ones would those be
[\h__\h] You mean like FDA and CDC and
EPA, which are supposed to protect
citizens from the corruption of the
private sector, like the pharmaceutical
companies you aim your limp dick rage
against? Yes, I am defending those
institutions since Trump and RFK have
completely dismantled them in service of
the oligarchy to the great detriment of
public health. Or by institutions, did
you mean universities? Yes, I defend
those as well. I defend them from the
brain dead anti-woke culture war losers
who unwittingly echo the whims of
fascist oligarchs in destroying public
trust and legitimate expertise. You
know, all that academia is communism
[\h__\h] that gives Peter Teal an even
bigger raging boner than early Justin
Bieber. Were those the institutions you
were referring to or did you mean
something else? Did you mean the Church
of Scientology, corporate headquarters
of Pizza Hut? By all means, don't get
specific or actually say anything
concrete at all ever. And Kurt is toxic
because he got vaccines obviously since
all vaccines are radioactive and they
make people who take them radioactive
too as though reality is a [\h__\h]
superhero comic book. This is really A+
material here, guys. Keep it up.
Somebody look the [\h__\h] pharmaceutical
companies need somebody to protect them.
They need an attack dog, okay? To defend
against defend against these [\h__\h]
toxic uninformed podcast.
>> His expertise is what? Some with
pharmaceuticals, is it not?
>> He's a chemist. I think he's like a high
school chemist teacher.
>> Why is he blathering about all the other
things that aren't in his uh millu?
>> If you think it's arrogant to use the
word millu, then just don't use it,
dumbass. You're so transparently
offended by the existence of smart
people that your inferiority complex is
even bigger than your inflated ego. And
for [\h__\h] sake, Danny, way to prove
that your little pee brain didn't absorb
a single word I said in our entire
episode, such that you would jump
straight to Dave is a pharma shill, just
like your idiot followers want to hear,
who also didn't listen to a word I said.
In reality, we all know that you're just
defending your livelihood as a
supplement shill.
>> And that's what led me to Marsmen.
That's why I've been taking Rorow
Nutrition's liposomaal NAD. That's why I
keep Liquid IV's hydration multiplier
with me at all times. That's what led me
to Ultra's sleep pouches and the
difference has been huge. Introducing
Americanmade Ivormectin. You sell snake
oil for a living. That requires
demonizing real medicine and real
medical knowledge. That's why you played
dumb about RFK being a maniac and
defended his insane claims about poppers
causing AIDS. That's why all the nuanced
dialogue I offered regarding these
topics, including legitimate criticism
of the pharmaceutical industry is being
completely ignored and you just
reflexively whine about big bad evil
pharma. That's the level of
sophistication that your idiot viewers
can handle and that's all your flidian
bath salts brain can muster. And more
importantly, that's the angle that lines
your pockets. So that's what you're
going to stick with. Just to drive home
what a worthless coward Danny is, after
I saw this exchange, I texted him and
told him to watch my video on Russ vote
and the complete dismantling of the
American scientific community, a
blatantly fascistic move that will kill
people. Because in reality, that's what
I fight against. That's what I do with
my channel. No response. Because why
would he? What is there here for him to
engage with? Suppression of free speech.
Elimination of any science that doesn't
follow a conservative political agenda.
the generation of a trillion dollar
slush fund with our tax dollars that is
supposed to go towards saving lives. No
way. Danny don't give a [\h__\h] about stuff
like that. He's all about imaginary
corruption, not the real kind. This is
all you need to know about dumb [\h__\h]
podcast bros like Danny or Joe or any of
the rest. in platforming frauds like the
Weinstein or their clones who are
promoting these anti-science narratives
that are coming directly from the
oligarchy. They are complicit in
propaganda that is being used to bring
about literal authoritarianism.
Whereas I am actually spreading
awareness and mobilizing the public and
fighting for justice. So he can smirk
and cry pharma shill all he wants. In
the end, douche nozzles like Danny are
actually the ones defending corruption
for a paycheck, no matter how much they
want to gaslight their viewers to the
contrary. And finally, what was the dumb
thing Kurt said again?
>> Why is he blathering about all the other
things that aren't in his uh mill?
>> Why am I blathering about what, Kurt?
Why am I blathering about science? Well,
I studied chemistry and am therefore
knowledgeable about chemistry and
adjacent topics like physics, astronomy,
biology, medicine, and a bunch of other
stuff. I have multiple degrees. I have
experience in a chemistry lab. I taught
for a long time, and I possess actual
knowledge. That's what it is to be a
science communicator. That's my job, to
know and explain things about science.
You dumb [\h__\h] on the other hand, what
are you talking about in this episode?
Let's check the chapter breakdown.
gender affirming care, the occult, the
Iran war, religion, free will,
consciousness. When did you become an
expert on any of these topics, jackass?
Nobody listened to Dave, the science
communicator about science. He doesn't
even have a Nobel Prize. Instead, let's
listen to Dtier standup comedian Curt
Mezer. He's going to tell us how the
world works with his big brain. You
[\h__\h] along with every other podcast
bro and every other podcast bro guest
talk with supreme authority and unearned
condescension on literally every topic
while you have literally no [\h__\h] idea
what you're talking about literally
ever. So maybe tone down the Inquisition
regarding expertise. Okay, [\h__\h]
>> Not in his uh what do you call it? His
area of he teaches himself about all
that stuff like he's self-taught I
guess. And then he uh
>> I thought that's not allowed.
That's a good point.
>> That's not a good point since I'm not
self-taught. Again, I actually got an
education. When you get a chemistry
degree, you have to learn a bunch of
other [\h__\h] too. Same with graduate
school where I learned some biochemistry
and molecular biology in addition to
working in a chemistry lab. That's why I
understand these topics and am more than
qualified to explain the basics to the
public. But it doesn't really matter,
right? Universities are all woke
indoctrination camps full of Marxist
shills. And you would never listen to
any legitimate scholar, no matter what
their pedigree, as long as they are
providing facts that hurt your feelings.
So why the [\h__\h] are you [\h__\h] your
pants about my educational background,
pretending that I'm self-taught, and
then whining about that like it's bad
when you [\h__\h] don't have a single
college credit between you?
>> I thought I shouldn't be doing that.
>> Well, he talks to people like Flint
Dibble who educate him on the reality of
stuff. So, right, he goes to
>> here's the reality of archaeology for
all of Flint. Okay, archaeology the
science itself was
>> Clint Dibble actually is an expert on
vaccinology too, just so you know.
>> Hey, and we all have don't do your own
research. That's all I know.
>> Sweet Moses, the intellect is just
wafting off of these two ass hats. Danny
is on the Flint Dibble is the devil
train because he follows Joe Rogan
around like his little brother, copying
everything he does. Flint is just one
archaeologist of many thousands whose
work I can easily refer to in order to
expose all the pseudoarchchaeology
frauds you losers worship. And I
regularly reference a variety of
literature from the field to debunk
frauds like Dan and Graham and Jimmy and
Ben and more. Flint is also capable of
discussing basic information regarding
vaccines because he's not a [\h__\h]
[\h__\h] like you. So you're both basically
just dumping loads in your pants because
smart people exist. That's all. You are
triggered by the existence of smart,
educated people because we remind you
how dumb and pointless you are. Neither
of you have ever researched anything in
your life. You don't know what research
means. You think it means looking for
something on the internet that confirms
a story you want to be true. In other
words, you're gullible morons who fall
for frauds on the internet and in
Danny's case, also platform them. And of
course, we can laugh about how Kurt was
winding up to say some grand thing about
archaeology even though he's a clueless
toolbox who can't spell the word.
Dunning Krueger incarnate all day long
with ego maniacal [\h__\h] like these.
>> I just remember the instructions.
Nothing suspicious
>> about being told not to do my own
research. What?
>> And I certainly have gotten over it and
I'm not harboring a deep grudge against
any [\h__\h] that said that. Of
course I'm not.
>> Just trust the science, Kurt. Don't do
your Don't waste your time.
>> Yeah, I believe that's not what science
is supposed to be. I thought you don't
believe it in science. You know or you
don't know. It's a system for testing
what you can know for sure is what I
thought it was. But no, it's a system of
authority and obedience.
>> Who the [\h__\h] is stopping you from
learning high school level science,
dickbag? Everyone would love it if you
would shut the [\h__\h] up for two seconds,
crack open a textbook, and learn
literally anything whatsoever about
biology or any other area of science.
But no, instead the internet is
overflowing with loudmouthed, brainless
ass clowns like you bragging about how
aggressively clueless you are. are like
it's a virtue. What the [\h__\h] is this
reality?
>> By the way, the only reason we have a
dippy word like pseudocience, do you
mean fake science? That's what that
means,
>> right?
>> Why are you calling it pseudocience?
Because the Carnegie Rockefeller
Foundation decided that was going to be
the term that we use. It's from some I
don't know, some guy in the 1700s
insulting someone else.
>> I forget. Who cares what [\h__\h] Anyway,
>> who cares indeed, Kurt. Well, I'm sorry,
but nobody coined the word pseudocience,
you dumb piece of [\h__\h] It's just the
word science plus the prefix pseudo.
Pseudo means fake or false. Fake science
as in something that masquerades as
science but isn't. Like astrology or
homeopathy or pseudoarchchaeology. It's
not a very complex word. You're
literally whining about a [\h__\h] prefix
while [\h__\h] your pants about
Rockefeller or something or other like a
goddamn flat-earther. In reality, the
concept of pseudocience was popularized
by Carl Pauper, a philosopher of
science, as he outlined the importance
of falsifiability for something to
qualify as empirical science. He
recognized that people were engaging in
pseudocience and that it's important to
make a rigorous distinction. For
example, Graham's ancient high-tech
civilization [\h__\h] That's
pseudocience for several reasons, but
mainly because it's unfalsifiable. When
asked for evidence, he just deflects and
says, "Well, we haven't looked literally
everywhere yet, so it probably exists."
Which isn't how science works. So
basically, you're just buttthurt that
you're dumb enough to fall for
pseudocience. And when you get this
worked up about it, it seems like deep
down you know how [\h__\h] dumb you are.
>> We have that cuz it's a marketed term to
us. Pseudocience.
>> Pseudocience.
>> Like gender affirming care, which is
really gender deforming care.
>> You know, in the real world, that's
disfiguring you for life. Here we go.
None of these worthless cretins can go
more than five minutes without whining
about trans people. Gender affirming
care affirms the gender identity of
trans youth. There is no bodily
deformationation. You're just
regurgitating alarmist conservative
propaganda and you're lambasting healthc
care that prevents trans kids from
killing themselves. That's what
qualifies as pseudocience to you. Great
job. Anyway, they're now going to whine
about trans people for a very long time,
just like every single podcast episode
featuring losers like these. So, let's
pivot to Dan's illustrious recent
appearance.
>> Yeah, it's not often we get to see a
Sasquatch taint roaming around Florida.
>> Yes, that's what that's what uh Dave
calls me.
>> And that's fine.
>> 36 seconds in. That's how long it took
for them to start talking about me. Yes,
Dan, it is fine that I call you
Sasquatch Taint because no phrase has
ever described you more accurately. You
are like if Bigfoot existed and the
patch of skin between his dick and
butthole had a human face. We can switch
to Yeti Grundle if you prefer, but it
doesn't have the same ring to it.
>> Yeah. Uh, we were talking earlier about
that podcast I did with that dude Dave
cuz that that like like we were talking
about before the show,
the whole rift between the ancient
archaeology skeptics and the promoters
of ancient archaeology or like the gaps
in our knowledge of this precision stuff
or the pyramids or the sorapium all all
of the all of the mysteries of the
ancient world. It's like, it's so crazy
to me how these people will fight
so viciously against each other on the
internet about [\h__\h] that was happening
thousands of years ago.
>> Like, it matters today.
>> Like, it really matters that much. Like,
it's fun. It's It's fun. It's
interesting.
>> It doesn't even matter. It's so
meaningless. So, naturally, anyone who
bases their entire identity on spreading
pseudo archaeology and desperately
attacking real scholars who defend real
knowledge must be the biggest loser in
human history, right? Morons. Who would
base their entire lives around something
so meaningless? Way to deflate your
entire existence in the first minute of
the episode. Mysteries are elucidated by
archaeologists who perform excavations
and analyze artifacts. So, not Graham or
Dan or Jimmy or Ben or any of the other
loser tourists who lie about archaeology
to make money on the internet. If you
don't want anyone to fight about it,
then stop falling for frauds and
actually learn something. You know, uh,
when Fina was on here, he said it
really, uh, he really illustrated the
problem when he was like, "Ah, most
people can't tell the difference between
different sciences. They just think all
scientists are boneheads." And it's
like, dude, that's that's really
reductive and really assuming that the
masses are stupid as hell. Most people
can tell the difference between, you
know, archaeology and physics, for
example.
>> Yes, most people are indeed dumb. That's
why they fall for frauds like you and
Graham. and they specifically can't tell
the difference between archaeology and
physics. That's why they have no idea
that archaeologists regularly utilize
concepts in physics and chemistry and
geology. When the brainless lemmings in
your cult whine about how archaeology
isn't a real science because douchebags
like you train them to say it, they are
admitting that they have no idea what
archaeology is. You are proving my point
for me. And um they try to blame they
try to make it a more overarching thing
so they can attack so they don't feel
bad when they argue with us about big
rocks which is what it really comes down
to. So they'll oh it's racist or oh this
is this is why people were rejecting the
jab or oh this is why people are
questioning other fields of science.
It's like no this specific thing right
here let's deal with this.
>> We do deal with this specific thing. I
and other science communicators have
debunked every dumb lie you [\h__\h]
tell about archaeology conclusively.
Then we also elucidate the broader
context regarding science denial and
distrust of legitimate sources of
information that pseudoarchchaeology
exacerbates. Every single one of your
gullible followers is an antivaxer.
Everyone dumb enough to fall for you or
Graham or anyone who whines about big
archaeology is also a [\h__\h] idiot who
believes that vaccines are harmful
because big pharma blah blah blah. It's
the same thing. And don't even start
with the racism crap. I refuse to
explain for the thousandth time how
Graham objectively references white
supremacist sources, which is why he
attracts the attention of literal white
supremacists. Every time you whine about
this, you are just bragging about what
an intellectually bankrupt loser you
are. But
>> well, Dave found a lane, right, to
create to to exist in where he can he
can use people like Graham and Ben and
Jimmy and you to basically like like you
you guys are his ammo for what he does
and and he is just going completely
against the grain on everything you guys
do. They're the ones going against the
grain, you [\h__\h] halfwit. They lie
about science for money. Academics are
too busy to push back or unwilling to
deal with the onslaught of abuse from
trolls like you. So, I do it for them.
When frauds poison society with science
denial, someone has to clean up the
mess. That's me. Deal with it.
>> And like what I said to him when he was
in here is my biggest gripe with what he
does is that he looks to the government
and the ivory towers of science as his
north star.
>> Jesus Christ, Danny, you genuinely are
dumber than rocks. I look to the
government as my north star. You mean
the Trump administration and all the
worthless frauds he appointed to every
cabinet position like Bobby Kennedy? Are
those people my north star or have I
been vigorously exposing their
fraudulence for years? The literal polar
opposite of what you're saying? And what
are the ivory towers of science [\h__\h]
Is that synonymous with government to
you or do you mean universities? Why
would I not look to the output of the
global scientific community in order to
communicate what we know about science,
[\h__\h] It's unscientific to reference
what scientists do? You're too stupid to
even formulate a coherent thought. The
educated person just has to be wrong so
that you don't have to deal with
reality. You desperately want to reduce
my work to blindly repeating some
doctrine from one institution or another
because that's what you do. You blindly
repeat what frauds tell you on the
internet or in your studio. When I
debunk pseudocience using basic
principles of chemistry and physics,
when I use absolutely trivial
information regarding molecules and
cells to debunk the insane [\h__\h] that
frauds pedal to make money on the
internet. There is no ivory tower.
There's no government. It's just a smart
person using basic knowledge to
dismantle lies and propaganda. You'll
never have the courage to admit that to
yourself because beyond losing your
income stream, you'd have to come to
terms with what a pointless loser you
are.
>> Yeah.
>> And that is the exact opposite of what
journalism actually is.
>> Yeah. Yes. That was a really good thing
for you to point out on him, but he
didn't really have a good answer for
that. It's it's, you know, he kept
circling back to this whole, well, these
guys are right and these guys are wrong.
Like when you asked him, well, what
would happen if people demonetized you
for what you're saying? Well, that that
would just be truth being destroyed.
It's like, dude, Hubers much. And come
on, man. How arrogant can you be what
what I say is factual and what other
people say that they believe is factual
is just BS.
>> Yes, I provide factual information in
order to debunk [\h__\h] on the
internet. Whining like a little [\h__\h]
and shouting hubris doesn't change that,
you dunce. I was saying that censorship
of medical disinformation during the
pandemic was undoubtedly a net positive
for society in terms of health outcomes
and then conceded that whether or not we
want to allow that kind of censorship
even when it is beneficial is a separate
matter that is up for debate. If factual
information was being censored like what
I provide, that would indeed be
horrifying. And in fact, that is what we
are now seeing under the Trump
administration, especially as pertains
to Israel, but other topics as well,
especially if the OM ruling goes into
effect. But you dick bags can't tell me
where I'm wrong about absolutely
anything. So just keep [\h__\h] your
pants and crying about how Dave says
he's right about things. Pathetic.
>> And then then there's the fact that Dave
doesn't properly portray the
information. I mean, guys like him
honestly are are the grifters because
they've, you know, when Graham Hancock
comes out and says, you know,
>> everyone's a grifter at some level, bro.
>> At some level. I won't argue with that.
I can't argue with that. Nope. Just you
[\h__\h] wads. And I love how it went from
Dave is a grifter to everyone is a
grifter, making this entire thread
totally meaningless. Dan, you're a
grifter because you lie about science on
the internet for money. Danny, you're a
grifter because you platform frauds who
lie about science to garner enough
clicks to sell shitty, untested,
unregulated supplements, which you know
lie about to get ad revenue. You're both
grifters. I'm not. You can sit there and
talk about what a liar I am or whatever
else you want to call me, but it's all
projection. And this is I think this is
important thing for a lot of the
debunkers to wrap their head around.
There's a certain cross-section of
humanity that's just not going to go
with science. They're going to have
faith in something. And this is there
this you can't change this. This is a
genetic thing in my opinion. Um and by
attacking these people, all you do is
polarize them. If I get up and push you,
you're going to push me back. This is
no-brainer [\h__\h]
>> Yes, there are a lot of people who
reflexively distrust anyone who actually
knows things. It's a pathetic character
flaw born of profound insecurity. There
are dumb people who can accept that they
are dumb, that they don't have the
intellectual capacity to comprehend
science. So they just accept that
scientists know better and should
generally be trusted in a broad manner
with the occasional exception. These
people are not problematic in the
slightest and they receive no scorn from
me. But then there are dumb people who
don't have a shot in hell at
understanding science, but their
malignant narcissism prevents them from
accepting reality. So they pretend to
understand science better than
scientists. That would be ass hats like
Terren Howard or Kurt Mezer, for
example. The problem isn't so much that
they exist, but rather that disgusting
frauds infest the internet peddling
pseudocience to capitalize on this type
of dumb and gullible person. They infect
people's minds with lies and polarize
them against the scientific community,
which results in distrust of medical
science and leads to quantifiable human
deaths. So, I make content exposing and
neutralizing these piece of [\h__\h] frauds.
This isn't me wandering around a coffee
shop and hunting for antivaxers to
berate. I'm providing fact-based content
to neutralize the script of frauds. If
their followers find the courage to
watch it and deprogram, that's great. If
regular people watch the content to arm
themselves with the ability to deprogram
their friends and family, that's great,
too. But whining about debunking
activity makes you a [\h__\h] loser. The
internet is a cesspool of disinformation
that is ruining human civilization.
There aren't nearly enough people doing
anything about it. I'm one of the people
who is doing something about it and
anyone who doesn't like that can kiss my
[\h__\h] ass. All right.
>> But um as an as an influencer, you'll
get this one. If I make something that
all my constitu all my followers click
on, I make good money. But if I make
something that all my haters click on,
too,
>> I and the country might get torn in
half, but who gives a [\h__\h]
>> And exact. That's exactly true.
>> Uh if you're talking about me, my haters
don't watch any of my videos ever. As I
proved in this gem of a video right
here, every single piece of [\h__\h] troll
who comments whining about how mean I am
has never watched a single second of any
of my content. If you're talking about
yourself, then you're just admitting
that you post false information on
purpose to stir up debunking activity to
remain relevant. So, you're either
clueless or admitting to fraudulence.
And on top of that, the way these
algorithms work is they want you to po
to to produce content that is in the
same line and right on brand with all
the other content that gets the most
amount of views. They incentivize you to
do that. So it it's easier for the
algorithm to determine what audience to
send it to so they can make more
advertising money. And the downstream
effect of that is you get people like
Dave, you get podcasters that will just
like find something that works and
they'll just keep hammering that.
>> Yeah.
>> As long as they possibly can because
that does make the most money and that
does get them the most attention. Ding
ding ding. Danny has accurately
described the podcast Brose Pseudocience
Pipeline. Bring on an endless parade of
worthless fraud guests who tell stories
that idiots like to listen to because it
makes them feel smart and special. And
then rake in the dough. It's funny. I
thought he wasn't listening to me at
all, but I guess this morsel snuck
through the cracks.
>> It's really hard to go the other way on
stuff, especially if you rely on social
media for your income.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah.
>> Like and like a and entertain ideas that
are completely counterintuitive to what
your audience is accustomed to or what
you're accustomed to exploring, you
know?
>> Yeah. That's why you realized you [\h__\h]
up hard by having an actual smart and
honest person like me on your show,
promptly decided to never ever do that
again and then just talk [\h__\h] about me
on every episode moving forward. The
epiphies are rolling.
>> Yeah, I'm sure you get all the time.
Unsubscribed because you had Billy
Carson on or unsubscribed because
>> No, Billy Carson. My my fans love Billy
Carson.
>> My my f I I had a lot of my fans liked
the fact that I had it that I was
talking to him and some people were
like, "Oh, no. You can't can't believe
you had him on there." And I said,
>> "Well, he lost his he lost his luster
after the Wes Huff thing."
>> Exactly.
>> Yes. Billy Carson is one of the most
blatant frauds on the entire internet.
And anyone who platforms him is a
[\h__\h] idiot. That's a club that
includes both of you ass hats. People
are right to mock you for doing that
because it's an admission that you don't
give two shits about facts or reality.
It's stories for clicks, nothing more.
You
>> know, if Dave had his way and all the
podcasters did what he was saying, well,
we need to change the podcast space and
make it all Science wouldn't advance.
>> If the podcast space stopped platforming
charlatans and started valuing factual
information, science wouldn't advance.
Did that just come out of your hairy
dumb [\h__\h] grundle-shaped face? You think
the scientific community gives two shits
about what podcasters are doing? This
might be the single dumbest thing you've
ever said, Daniel. Science advances by
scientists doing science. Podcasts are
entertainment for public consumption.
Some podcasts feature real scientists
who explain real science for the benefit
of the public. That can be very good.
Most podcasts feature loser frauds who
lie about science for personal financial
gain. Polarizing people against real
science in the process, which sometimes
kills people. That's bad. Me suggesting
more of the first thing and less of the
second thing is a [\h__\h] no-brainer,
and you're an idiot for protesting it.
Scientists would be, as he said, they
don't like conflict for the most part.
They would argue with their friends, but
Dave's going to come out there. Any one
of them that goes against the status
quo, he's going to be, "Yeah, you're an
idiot. You're a bonehead. You're a
[\h__\h] You're stupid. Any scientist that
goes against the status quo? You mean
the thing that is determined by the
scientific community?" Dan, you brain
dead hick. You're pretending that I
would get mad at scientists for
advancing science. That's how [\h__\h]
dumb you are. I don't involve myself in
the process of scientists acquiring new
knowledge because I'm not a scientist.
I'm a science communicator. I report the
findings of the scientific community to
the public. If scientists were
explaining science on podcasts in a
factual, nonsensationalist way, I don't
care if it's trivial [\h__\h] we proved a
100 years ago or a brand new paradigm
shifting discovery that was done
yesterday. If it's real science, it's
real science. This desperate portrayal
of me as being closed-minded and devoted
to unwavering pillars of dogma is
[\h__\h] idiotic because science isn't
like that. It never has been and it
never will be. I'm devoted to science
and I am the bitter enemy of
pseudocience pedalling charlatans like
you. Cry about it.
>> He believes that he's combating the
toxicity of the people on the other
side, which this true that people can be
toxic on both sides on on social media.
>> Absolutely.
>> That's not the point, Danny. Yes, some
frauds are horrifically toxic, like
Ashton Forbes, and I mock them for it.
Some aren't at all. Look at Discovery
Institute. Look at Steven Meyer. Look at
how much effort he puts towards
appearing like a rational, mildmannered,
science-minded person. It's a
wellpracticed facade. In reality, he's a
disgusting charlatan who has devoted his
life to a propaganda mill that is in bed
with Christian nationalists who are
trying to take over the government and
dismantle democracy. So when I expose
him, I make no mention of his impeccable
manners. I focus on his deliberate
distortions of science and the
theocratic motivations behind them. How
are you this incapable of understanding
literally a single thing about this
issue? The way I get really interested
and learn about stuff and become like a
a mediocre level expert on certain
things is by hearing the crazy
over-the-top claims and speculations
about stuff like,
you know, hypothetical example, the
pyramid was a [\h__\h] power plant. You
aren't a medium level expert on
anything, Danny. You don't possess even
the most basic knowledge on literally
any academic subject. You're a gullible
[\h__\h] who falls for dumb stories on the
internet. Just because you backpedal
from the most insane claims you can find
over to run-of-the-mill science denial,
it doesn't make you knowledgeable or
discerning. You're still an idiot. When
you proudly proclaim that you don't
believe the pyramids are tombs when they
objectively are tombs, this is what
you're announcing. That you're a
brainwashed halfwit who has convinced
himself he possesses real knowledge. You
could take a course or read a textbook
or listen to actual archaeologists, but
you don't do that. You just listen to
the loser frauds who inhabit your
podcast, bro. The same goes for medicine
and every other topic you try to open up
your dumb mouth about.
>> As a matter of fact, I would say that's
better. Christopher Dunn's a better
science communicator than Dave Fina
because of that exact sort of thing. He
sends people down that rabbit hole.
>> Chris Dunn isn't a science communicator.
He's a loser fraud who makes up [\h__\h]
about pyramids being power plants. He's
a grifter. You guys can't seem to figure
out what any of these words mean.
>> One pays better. You look at Dave's
videos. If he's trying to educate
somebody on Latin, he ain't even getting
10,000 views.
>> I'm dead serious. You look, it's
consistently that way. But if he's going
after somebody now, he gets big views.
>> Yeah.
>> And so it's it's incentivized
>> every time with these douchebacks. Wow.
Dave posted a Latin grammar tutorial and
it only got 2,000 views in a day.
Actually, that's a [\h__\h] miracle since
the people who will watch that are
almost exclusively people currently
studying Latin and specifically on the
day when they are learning that specific
learning objective. Want to check out my
chemistry tutorials or physics or
biology, the [\h__\h] that lots of students
are studying every day all over the
world. I have plenty of tutorials with
millions of views, Dan. I've done quite
well with my tutorial content and I'm
immensely proud of it. But this is all
you ass hats have. Do I enjoy the money
I make from my debunking content? Yes,
almost as much as I enjoy ruining idiot
frauds like you. It's a win-win. But
money isn't an argument. When I debunk
frauds who get rich off of their grift,
not you, of course, since nobody watches
your channel, I also specifically
explain how they're lying about
everything. That's something you have to
pretend to do to me, and you suck at it.
Anyway, we're not going to do a deep
dive of all the dumb [\h__\h] that was said
in this episode, and trust me, there's a
lot. Atlantis, Gobecletepe, all the
classics, and virtually nothing I
haven't debunked multiple times already.
This video is already longer than it
should be, but amusingly, there are
quite a few comments mocking Dan, as
well as Danny, for having their heads
completely up their own asses. And a
number of people did tell me they
discovered me through my episode on his
show and started watching my content
instead. So, I still think it was worth
my time. Plus, I got this banger video
out of it, immaculately distilling the
problem with the podcast Bro Space,
which you should definitely watch if you
haven't. Anyway, back to making fun of
Dan and his endless whining about me on
his own channel. To listen to all the
whining would be overkill, but we can
get just a little taste of the butt hurt
cope.
>> Dave Fininoizes a rule. He deliberately
edits people out of context. He
misconstr forms a straw man and attacks
it for money. He demonizes others for
money. He is bottom of the barrel stuff.
The kind of people like the Inquirer
that get sued all the time for lying
about people.
>> Yes, I'm such an evil demon man who
slanders people for money. For [\h__\h]
sake, Dan should run for office in
Israel with the amount of gaslighting
he's doing. This desperate accusation of
slander really is laughable. Dan does
nothing but slander all day long. Flint
is a liar. Dave is a liar.
Archaeologists are frauds. and he does
it for money, even if it's only pennies
compared to the fortune Graham has
amassed with his much more polished
grift. So, when Dan's childish slander
is exposed, it's nothing but I know you
are, but what am I? Like a [\h__\h]
8-year-old. No, Daniel, I'm not lying
when I expose your lies and
incompetence. There are no straw men.
Exposing your lies is not slander.
Slander would be like if I accused you
of being a child molester. If I straight
up said that Dan Richards molests
children, that would be slander if I
were to say that. Of course, I would
never do that. I mean, even though, holy
[\h__\h] you look exactly like a child
molester. Like, to a tea, I still
wouldn't do it. I mean, even though I
found these charges of domestic abuse.
Wow, what's that all about? And you even
plead guilty. Did you beat up your
ex-wife or whoever was dumb enough to be
around you for more than half a day? Or
was it your kid that you beat up? Is
praying on small children your thing?
But no, I refuse to speculate. Even
though child molester fits you like a
glove, I would never call you that
outright because that would be slander.
And I am very careful to only convey
objective facts. You're not the first
fraud to throw a tantrum and pretend
that my facts are slander. Peter McCulla
and Nick Holure threatened to sue me if
I didn't take down my video exposing
them. These are wellestablished frauds
with a lot of money and power behind
them. Of course, I didn't do a [\h__\h]
thing to comply with their empty demand.
And of course, they did nothing
whatsoever either because they were
bluffing. I'm always right when I expose
frauds like you, and there's [\h__\h]
nothing you can do about it. So, you
really don't have a leg to stand on
here, Sasquatch taint. Anyway, to wrap
this up, let's circle back to Dan's
pathetic debate challenge. This is the
focal point of countless videos, shorts,
community tab posts, live streams, all
whining about what a stupid jerk I am
for exposing his entire pathetic cult
while puffing his chest up and
pretending that I would have any reason
to hide from debating such a brainless
lump of coal. Let's observe some of the
pageantry. I uploaded this on my other
channel about a month and a half ago,
and it's caused Dave Fina to run and
hide from me. Professor Dave explains he
he's off in a corner somewhere hoping
that I don't talk about him anymore.
He's afraid to debate me now. He used to
as soon as I'd comment on one of his
videos, he'd be like immediately. He'd
be sitting on a toilet or at a bar or
whatever the hell it is that he does, he
start pressing buttons immediately and
reply. Ever since this video came out,
he's hiding. He won't even talk to me
now. At a bar? Yeah, nobody is hiding,
Dingus. And yes, when you've been dumb
enough to comment on my channel, I mock
you just like I mock every loser troll
who decides to do that from the comfort
of my home office. Not the shitty dive
bar where you blow dudes for fers. Here
is one such thread where you wind about
my content debunking moonlanding denial.
You started out real strong with Dave is
dumb and fat. Then a bunch of people
mocked you for being a pathetic loser,
including me. Then you just vaguely
whined about how I don't understand
something or other and pretended that
you're an adult who is capable of doing
science when you couldn't pass a middle
school science quiz. Then you accused me
of being a sexual predator and called me
fat again while pretending that your
insults are better than mine right
before offering the lamest insult
imaginable. Avocados? Really? Then more
people mocked you. And then I mocked the
[\h__\h] out of you, throwing your precise
loser tactics back at you along with a
harsh dose of reality. Then you shhat
your pants some more. Then other people
mocked you a whole lot again. Then I
reminded you that you're a revolting,
unlovable incel. Then more mockery. And
then you ran away like a little [\h__\h]
never having said a single substantive
thing. Even your accusations of hiding
are nothing but projection. This is who
you are, a pointless troll. As I've
documented several times before, you
have zero interest in science or facts
or reality. You throw toddler tantrums.
This is why absolutely nobody takes you
seriously.
>> Because I really would like Mr. Fina to
see that well, you don't get to hide
from debates like this. You don't get to
go and slap people in the face with the
gauntlet and then when they're like,
"Okay, I accept." Then be like, I mean,
you can if you want, but
then this happens. What gauntlet? You
accept what? I never challenged you to
anything, you delusional muppet. I
debunk loser frauds like you and then
promptly move on to the next one. You're
not all worth debating, dick cheese.
Everyone knows that I jump at the chance
to do a live debate with frauds who are
actually influential. James Tour, Steve
Kersh, and Pierre Corey. These were
worth my time because these frauds are
actually skilled enough to capture a
certain portion of the public and
brainwash them with their script of
lies. Those two debates were some of my
most important work as they completely
obliterated the reputations of those
highly influential frauds. Even online
debates with whichever idiot
Flat-earther is currently being propped
up as the reigning superstar were good
for an hour or two. Their hero was David
Weiss until I ruined him. And it was
Austin Witset until I in Antarctica
ruined him, too. Even those losers were
worth my time. Dan, you just aren't. You
are genuinely that meaningless. You
fixate on me because I do matter. I am
influential. I'm the most important and
influential person who has ever exposed
your fraudulence. Me debunking you is
the highlight of your life. How pathetic
is that? And you'll never let it go
until your deathbed. Now, because I'm
doing my part to amplify this crap,
admittedly, for the views, and just to
shut his dumb [\h__\h] face, I would gladly
agree to humiliate Dan for sport
regardless. Do you hear that, Dan? I
accept your pathetic half-assed debate
challenge. However, I have some
conditions. You regularly make such a
performative stink about honesty and
integrity. You even leave comments
insinuating that I should be issuing
retractions presumably for all the facts
I provide that hurt your feelings. So, I
really need you to abide by those
imaginary standards yourself in order to
take you seriously as a combatant.
Therefore, my debate participation will
require a formal retraction video from
you regarding how badly you [\h__\h] up
that Fox News article in what became one
of your most viewed videos. Remember how
I said that you're an intellectually
bankrupt little [\h__\h] who will never
apologize to your idiot followers and
admit fault about that? Well, you're
going to have to if you want to interact
with me. Your video must include the
verbatim recitation of the following.
Verbatim. Here we go. Hey guys, remember
when I made this video about the lies of
Egyptology? Remember how I rambled like
a smug douche about how clueless
archaeologists are? Always contradicting
themselves and never able to get their
story straight about ancient Egyptian
sites and how I'm so much smarter than
all those dumb archaeologists. Well, it
turns out that I'm actually a complete
[\h__\h] [\h__\h] and I just didn't realize
that I was reading two different
articles about two completely different
sites. So, it turns out that
archaeologists aren't clueless at all.
Rather, I'm a brainless inbredad pile of
barbershop hair clippings that somehow
acquire just barely enough sentience to
drool into a microphone and humiliate
myself. Abidos and Sakara are in fact
two totally different places.
Egyptologists obviously know that. And
I'm deeply sorry for spewing a bunch of
self agrandizing tripe on my pathetic
excuse for a YouTube channel in order to
cosplay as someone who knows literally
anything about literally anything. I'm
also sorry for not issuing a retraction
sooner, even though Dave Fina, an actual
smart and honest person, challenged me
to do so. Instead, I told everyone on
Twitter calling me out for my stupidity
to get AIDS like the class act that I
am. And then I whed about how he is the
one who should be retracting all of his
objective facts because projection is my
toxic trait. So again, I'm sorry about
all of that. I'm very dumb and nobody
should ever listen to me for a single
second about so much as a Yelp review of
the Waffle House where I work the night
shift, let alone anything of a scholarly
nature. Unsubscribe immediately and
listen to actual smart people. That is
all. Did you get all that, Dan?
Remember, it's got to be word for word
exactly that. And you have to mean it.
No tricks. No, Dave made me say this in
order to be able to debate him. So, stop
playing the video now. It's got to come
from the heart, and I want to see
comments from your viewers, either
applauding you for your sudden newfound
honesty or unsubscribing due to your
profound incompetence. If you can muster
up the courage to come clean, I will
gladly humiliate you right to your dumb
roadkill face about the pyramids or
whatever the [\h__\h] else you want to crap
your pants about. Do you hear that?
You've been bragging all over the
internet about how badly you want to
debate me, and here's your chance. You
just have to show everyone how [\h__\h]
dumb you are. A small price to pay for
the opportunity to look your arch
nemesis in the eye, right? In which
case, we're going to have to fix your
pathetic attempt at humor with the
always sunny meme since you got all of
it exactly backwards.
>> Okay. Jesus Christ. All right, I'll get
on it.
>> Well, well, well, well, well. If it
isn't the big time hot shot lawyer man.
>> Oh my god. I do have time for you.
>> Yes sir. We both have busy schedules so
I'll make this quick. I shin words with
you for long. I am challenging you sir
to a duel.
>> I accept.
>> Of course I know you'll never agree to
this since narcissistic frauds like you
are physically incapable of admitting
fault. So, I'd like to offer you a
separate challenge that requires no
conditions at all. Ready? Let's fight.
Let's physically fight each other in a
traditional boxing match. I mean, like
you said, I'm so fat and weak and
pathetic, right? It should be easy for a
manly man of the outdoors like you in
such peak physical condition to beat up
a fat losser like me, right?
Come on, champ. Are you a coward? Are
you a chicken? Of course not. You're a
big, strong, brave boy who definitely
wouldn't get his face permanently broken
by a relentless fury of punches.
>> And you even have a history of violence,
remember? It seems like you love to hit
women and or children. So why not take a
swing at a man for once? You really have
no choice. Since I've arbitrarily
decided that this challenge is the beall
end all determination of who is a better
person in every single way. So, how
about I just make endless videos
challenging you to fight me and calling
you a coward every day all over social
media. That would be fun. Or you can do
what we all know you're going to do.
Hide like a little [\h__\h] and talk trash
on your now completely irrelevant
channel, hoping your loser followers
don't watch this video. You're an
invalid who is physically incapable of
fighting. You don't even actually want
to debate me. You're too afraid to even
watch my debates and see what I do to
frauds that are 10 times smarter than
you. No, Daniel, you don't want to
debate me. You want a buck 50 and
change, a slim gym, and directions to
the nearest overpass for a good night's
sleep. You want a reason to stay alive
another day. What a truly sad existence
that must be. And that'll about do it.
In the end, Dan really is one of the
most pathetic people I've ever debunked.
He's like a troubled teen who acts out
just for attention because being
invisible is more painful than getting
in trouble. This would be pathetic
behavior even for an actual teenager,
let alone a decrepit old bag of farts
like him. I don't even know how old he
is, but he looks like he's [\h__\h] 70.
And I can't even check because when I
Google Dan Richard's age, it lists a
bunch of other people because he's not
even on the top 10 list of most
important people with his own name. And
every day that passes, he slips lower on
the list. He can't handle fading into
complete irrelevance, even though he's
been there for quite some time already.
So, he would rather act like a pathetic
troll and try to get me to acknowledge
him as though that will make him
relevant when it just results in
hundreds of thousands of people getting
a few belly laughs at his expense. If he
wants to remain the laughing stock of
the entire internet just a little
longer, I'm happy to grant that to him.
So, that's it for Dan Richards, ideally
for the final time, as I really don't
think I can get much more mileage out of
this douchebag. But who knows, maybe
he'll agree to fight me and I'll get to
share footage of some well-deserved
elder abuse or maybe something even
stranger still. For now, enjoy this
artist's depiction of potential future
events.