Read Time:1 Minute, 5 Second



Watch the after show with Flint on Patreon – https://patreon.com/dannyjones
Flint Dibble is an archaeologist whose research focuses on ancient Greece.

SPONSORS
https://buy.ver.so/danny – Get 15% off your first order
https://chuckdefense.com/danny – Be like Chuck Norris, click the link.
https://manscaped.com – Use code DANNYJONES for 20% off + free shipping.
https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP – Use code DJP for 20% off

EPISODE LINKS
Flint’s YouTube channel: @FlintDibble
https://twitter.com/FlintDibble

FOLLOW DANNY JONES
https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones
https://twitter.com/jonesdanny

LISTEN ON
Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/4VTLG0HiIZaCjH9gE6NFPq
Apple – https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/id1441238966

OUTLINE
00:00 – Graham Hancock
04:17 – Plato’s lie about Atlantis
23:36 – Timeline of the Atlantis story
27:31 – Ammon Hillman on Plato
36:05 – Socrates
47:59 – Graham Hancock’s sources & the EDFU texts
01:07:19 – Egyptian vases
01:27:32 – High precision ancient artifacts
01:34:05 – Dark magic & ancient drugs
01:47:47 – God & drugs
01:55:28 – Ancient mystery cults & Christianity
02:05:08 – Animal sacrifices in Eleusis
02:17:39 – Ergot: mind-altering fungus
02:27:10 – Socrates’ noble lie
02:32:39 – The Great Pyramid & Chris Dunn’s Power Plant Theory
02:46:39 – Alternative theories for the pyramids
03:05:50 – Ice core metallurgy

source

Danny Jones

About Post Author

Danny Jones

Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %

Average Rating

5 Star
0%
4 Star
0%
3 Star
0%
2 Star
0%
1 Star
0%

47 thoughts on “Atlantis, Ancient Egypt & Graham Hancock’s Lost Civilization | Flint Dibble

  1. Know you’ll never see this but I’m sorry Flint that you have to deal with this…… suburban kids in make believe land who’ve never done things with their life…. Like use a damn lathe and think that it’s more likely an entire advanced society existed with no archeological evidence than craftsman used tools over generations and became good with them………. 🤦🏼‍♂️ this shit is just absurd to listen to when you’re not indoctrinated into the cult of fantasy play. You can show art of the time displaying the method and they can’t grasp that a fixed point can make a level circumference…. How do you work with that?!? All of these people have the shoddiest evidence that’s paper thin and they just can’t turn loose of it even after you’ve shown this stuff to clearly be the fraud it always was.

  2. ☘️Jesus, get this guy off the channel, he’s an absolute moron. I can appreciate constructive criticism but this guy make absolutely no sense plus his foul mouth.☘️🥬🥬🥬🥬🥬

  3. ☘️Ok, skip the bullshitting and start talking fact. Can you make a similar vessel using tools found from Egyptian times. It’s easy to say they ‘may have’ used flint but the bigger question is ‘make it’. This guy is a total waste of space who brings up all sort of excuses for the manufacture of the vessel but cannot say for definite that the artifices were made using tools from that time. This guy is like asking a painted the working of an internal combustion engine.☘️

  4. I dont know how would egyptogolist talk about how these vases were made. Its a question for engineers, people who do vases and they know if its possible or not .

  5. I’ve finally figured out this clown…oops…host. He represents the naive, self righteous, uninformed, “I believe in Santa Claus ”, (and usually angry) portion of the population who have plunged down the rabbit hole with Graham Hancock and his ilk. He asks the questions these people would ask. And then inevitably doesn’t understand what he hears. A legitimate commentator would be embarrassed to be as unprepared as he obviously is. At least he admits his ignorance

    Endlessly.

    I’m tired of this knee jerk anti-science. Like it’s something to be proud of. For god’s sake, get off YouTube and get an education and then ask your stupid questions about your “ancient” fairy tales.

  6. So all the other Pharaos after Khafre, menkure etc. said:" i don't need a big pyramid. I need one who crumbles just months after i get down there guys. Because i wan't something diffrent".

    Yeah, pharaos had no ego 🙄

  7. Im knee deep in the evidense. Except the coast lines have not been surveyed. We have no idea what is under the oceans. You know the places that civilozaions would have been…

  8. I found the archaeologist fairly compelling. I'm not in favour of him going on this podcast because it subjected me to listening to a whack job like Danny Jones as he just poses questions about the pyramids pre-dating the Egyptians and all the bullshit about stone vessels with no provenance because they were basically stolen. Give me strength to withstand the US led internet dumb down. At least Danny seems to not buy in to the bullshit about Atlanta being real.

  9. The man makes some great points though ngl. The thing about Atlantas being a just a thought experiment from ancient philosophy makes a lot of sense to me.

    The earth is definitely flat though can’t convince me otherwise!

  10. This guys a fool. Tell him to Binge watch The Dark Journalist. Some crazy thing just got released. Danny. You too. Both of you Binge watch DJ The Dark Journalist. Bet you'll want him on if you do. Good luck.

  11. Flint is really good in this, and Danny came more prepared that a lot of people are. Yeah, he's arrogant, and his mannerisms are jarring – but his mannerisms are just that. He's not polished like Hancock. Obviously he got his ass kicked by cancer last year and that can f with your head too.

    He made a really strong case for Ancient Greece and Atlantis, however. He explained that brilliantly. And the stories of the drug trips in Greece and Rome were interesting af.

  12. I am a student of optometry and optics (the science of the eye and vision). The MAR (minimum angle of resolution) equals what is possible for the eye to clearly perceive (with high resolution) between two points = 1 minute of arc (1') = 1,75 mm on the distance of 6 m from a vision acuity chart (standardized) = 0,0 logMAR on the logMAR chart = normal VA (visual acuity).

    So let's say you have a normal VA (visual acuity) of 0,0 logMAR (1 minute of arc = 1') and make a hard stone vase with hand-tools, only using your hands, eyes and hand-tools and the normal work distance (the distance between your eyes and hands when working with the stone vase) is about 0,6 m.

    The following equation: 1,75 mm/6 = x mm/0,6 equals x = 0,175 mm (about 0,2 mm). This means that your eyes MAR (1') at 0,6 m is 0,2 mm. So you can at a minimum see 0,2 mm clearly on the hard stone vase you're working with using only your eyes, hands and hand-tools at a normal working distance of 0,6 m (which is about one armlength distance for many people).

    If you than try to make a perfect circle (circularity), you would likely achieve a perfect circle with a deviation of about 200 microns, which equals 0,2 mm, when you're carving/polishing/cutting the hard stone vase using only your eyes, hands and hand-tools. That means the tolerance is about 200 microns (0,2 mm).

    One of the hard stone vases that the vase scanning team (including engineers of metrology) did scan, had a circularity precision (tolerance) of only 16 microns, which equals an astonishing deviation of 0,016 mm from achieving a perfect circle. That would most likely mean you could not reach this kind of tolerance when trying to make a perfect circle (circularity) using only your eyes, hands and hand-tools because your eyes would not clearly be able to measure a deviation of only 0,016 mm from a perfect circle because it's 12,5 times less than what your eyes can perceive clearly of 0,2 mm.

    So if you can't measure and clearly see how much exactly you're carving/cutting/polishing away of the stone, there's a big risk you've carved/cut/polished away too much stone in some place of the perfect circle you want to achieve. The tolerance of that circularity (that perfect circle) you want to achieve that happened to be 16 microns (0,016 mm) would be gone. You couldn't correct it because the mistake was already done. There’s also a big risk you cut/polish/carve away too little because you can’t clearly see and measure such a small deviation of 0,016 mm (16 microns) from a perfect circle.

    Probably you can do hard stone vases to a certain degree of tolerance/precision when it comes to circularity (which is only one aspect of precision/tolerance) by using your hands, eyes and hand-tools but most likely only based on what's possible for the eyes to clearly perceive on the precision-spectrum (tolerance-spectrum) at your working distance. Because the eye and its vision system has it’s limitations.

    The Russians (scientists against myths) used not only their eyes, hands and hand-tools when they during 2 years made a hard stone vase. They also used a modern turning-table with a spindle to pinn away high points on their hard stone vase. Moreover, science against myths didn’t measured all the aspects of precision like the vase scan team did with their hard stone vases from a metrological point of view. So the measures from their example is not valid to use in this case. This only shows how difficult it is to achieve high tolerances of a hard stone vase when using only your eyes, hands and hand-tools because your eyes can’t clearly perceive and measure such small deviations as 16 microns from a perfect circle (circularity).

    Scientists against myths also didn’t hollowed out their vase so they didn’t achieved consistent thin and curved vase-walls like other hard stone vases have, they just drilled it out. Still a good try from them even though their only purpose was to debunk others and prove their own narrative, their true purpose was not to do it in an open-minded and objective way.

    The hard stone vase mentioned above with a tolerance (precision) of only 16 microns in circularity that eyes with normal VA (Visual Acuity) can’t clearly perceive and measure, have most likely not been made by only using your eyes, hands and hand-tools at a normal working distance of 0,6 m, but probably with the help of some other kind of technology too.

    Weather that technology would include turning wheels with bearings, bushes and spindles, pantographs (to achieve geometric relationships), mechanically guided-tools with a pre-determined tool-path or not, some other kind of technology would most likely be necessary too than only your eyes, hands and hand-tools to achieve such tolerances.

    So this supports the argument that such high-precision hard stone vases were most likely made with the assistance of some kind of technology too, rather than entirely by hands, eyes and hand-tools.

    It's really important to remember this aspect that the human eye and the human vision system have their limitations in the debate of how precise hard stone vases you can achieve using only eyes, hands and hand-tools or if other technology also is needed when it comes to such high precision as only 16 microns!

  13. 🇫🇷Hey Danny Jones, it’s great to have someone like you, a real honest open minded person, unbiased with superb total infallible 🧠 knowledge of human history. We are extremely lucky and gratefully humble to have you. You who stirs us away from charlatans. 🧟‍♀ you are the only source of trustworthy reputable, truthful, and reliable knowledge. Plus you seemed to be highly regarded in the sphere of Egyptology as a fair honest source of true unbiased verifiable accurate informations. Unlike the comedian and delusional ghastly Incompetent Graham Hancock. Thank you again because you saved all of us mere mortals from believing this incompetent ghastly charlatan. Merci beaucoup, the world is a safer place 👍 with the sole mighty gardian of truth of Danny Jones. I feel a bit of jealousy because of Graham succès. 🇫🇷 Best wishes from France.

  14. O-My-Gawd. who let the flint out of his cave? theres an annyoing little brother with a hot older sister vibe over the dibbler. He`s the kinda guy that would keep talking after been thrown out of the room.. And after 1 season of banging his sister, you eventually become friends with him after defending him from bullies that threw him in a dumpster. Stay tuned for next season of "Flintlocked"

  15. Re Graham Hancock and pre diluvian civilisation, Hancock is not suggesting a technological society that is the same as ours, he has never suggested ancient advanced metal working. Hancock is suggesting an advanced society in different ways, advanced knowledge of the stars, advanced spirituality, advanced understanding of Chemistry.
    Dibble knows a lot about a very limited subject, but he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know – so he is stuck inside the little box he has made for himself, and can’t see outside it. A pity.
    Dibble, should you ever read this, open your mind and consider reframing what past societies might have looked like – an advanced functioning civilisation might not have needed all the material rubbish we have today, so no need to smelt metal – we might even look at our society and consider it to be out of balance?? And perhaps not so advanced as we think.

  16. Flint really seems to know what hes talking about when he is in full control of the conversation, giving something akin to a powerpoint presentation; his information against Plato is very compelling and interesting. Flint wants to stick to the facts and the observable data ONLY… and thennnnnn, once we start talking about the precision of the vases that have been made popular by UnchartedX, he goes into all sorts of assumptions. He refuses to say, "Hey, these ARE actually very interesting and i'm not at all sure whats going on here."

    Inconsistent. Untrustworthy.

Comments are closed.

1737806459 Maxresdefault.jpg Previous post Sentinels – Glitch
1737822089 Maxresdefault.jpg Next post The Rise of Vietnam