JRE #961 — Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson, and Michael Shermer
A Transcript of the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast, Episode 961
Joe: This is live ladies and gentlemen, and this is a very unusual podcast we’re going to have here and a very unusual discussion. I have to my left, Michael Shermer, a very famous skeptic. He’s been on the podcast before.
Of course, Randall Carlson, amazing gentleman who knows far too much about terrifying things like asteroids, and Graham Hancock, author, also a fantastic human being.
Many times been on this podcast as well. This all came out of a podcast that Randall and Graham and I did recently, and Michael Shermer commented on it. It was all essentially on the hypothesis that the great extinction that happened with the North American land animals, that happened somewhere around the end of the ice age, was caused by a common impact.
Michael Shermer had some questions about that and we said this would be an amazing podcast to get everybody together in a room and go over this. Since then, there’s been some interesting stuff that’s happened.
I thought this was really fascinating, that Forbes has a mainstream article in Forbes, ‘Did A Comet Wipe Out Ice Age Megafauna?’
This is actually from just a couple of weeks ago. Then there was also this interpretation that’s fairly recent as well, about one of the stone carvings rather, on Gobekli Tepe.
Graham, you would probably be the best to describe that.
Graham: Yeah. That was published in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Peer Review Journal, by a couple of scientists from the University of Edinburgh. They are proposing an interpretation of the Gobekli Tepe imagery, there’s quite a lot of imagery on those t-shaped pillars, particularly one pillar, pillar 43 and enclosure D.
Their deduction, what they take from their interpretation, of course many will disagree with them, their interpretation is that those images are speaking of the comet impact. They’re speaking of a comet that hit the earth roughly 12,900 years before our time.
Joe: Randall, this has been something that you’ve been obsessed with for many years now. You’ve documented and detailed it in many conversations that we’ve had on the podcast.
Randall: Yes. I can’t say that I’m that familiar with that article. I haven’t had a chance to get into.
Joe: But this idea, the comet impact is what has caused the end of the ice age.
Randall: Well, it’s so complex, but now what we do is we throw some type of an impact into the mix and it seems to fill gaps that have —
Joe: Pull this right up to you.
Randall: It seems to fill gaps that were, at this point, still unexplained. There’s varying theories between some extent of climate change and some extent of human predation that cause the extinction. I’ve always felt like you can’t blame it on one or the other.
I think humans probably had a role, but only in the very final stages of the extinction event. One of the scenarios would certainly suggest that there were extreme climate changes between what’s called the Bolling-Allerod, which was the rather gradual warming at the very end of the [Praisticine 00:03:38], which was then followed by the Younger Dryas, which was the return to full glacial cold, and then the end of the younger Dryas, which is dated at about 11,600, which is considered now to be the boundary of the Holocene, post Younger Dryas, Preboreal it’s called, would be the beginning of a Holocene.
It seems that most of the extinctions did occur between roughly 13,000 and 11,600 years ago, although the dating has a wide spread on it, so you can’t pin point it down to a specific event. I’ve always felt that there had to be something we needed to look at that triggered the extreme climate changes that we do at the end of the ice age.
To my opinion, you can’t attribute that solely to Milakovitch Theory, which is basically the changing solar terrestrial geometries, because they’re too slow, and what we see at the end of the ice age were very rapid climate changes. One of the things that I think as been missing, has been the trigger.
Wallace Broecker pointed out years ago that possibly, a major flood from the draining of Lake Agassiz, caused an interruption of the thermal [heiline 00:04:51] circulation, which basically the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean, and that this might have been what triggered the Younger Dryas and then also contributed to the mass extinction events.
But now I think that the dating of the draining of Lake Agassiz is too late for that and was probably a ladder event within the overall melting phenomenon that occurred between roughly 14,600 and about 11,000 years ago.
Somewhere in there, we have to fit that mass extinction event. I definitely have thought that climate change was the dominant factor in that, but then what triggered the climate change? That always seemed to me to be something that was not ever really explained. The comet impact theory is very controversial but the evidence has been steadily mounting now for a decade.
Joe: Including physical evidence, right? Like the core samples that show nuclear glass scattered out throughout Asia and Europe at roughly the same time period when they do the core samples?
Randall: Yes. Most of it’s dating to 12,800 to 13,000 years ago.
Graham: These are called impact proxies.
Randall: Impact proxies..
Graham: Nano diamonds, melt glass, micro spherules. These kind of things are associated with impact. Not necessarily always caused by impact, so this has been part of the reason for the controversy, but it’s the abundance of all of these, at a particular level, which leads a large group of scientists to feel that we have had a comet impact in the past.
Randall: It’s the full assemblage of things that is difficult to explain by processes without invoking some type of a cosmic event.
Joe: It also corresponds with what you believe is a period where earth travels through a series of comets.
Randall: This gets us to the ideas of what would be called the British Neo-catastrophes. Victor Clube and William Napier and a number of others that have theorized that from time to time, earth encounters the debrief from a large disintegrating comet.
William Napier addresses this in an interesting article I can pull up here pretty soon, that possibly, around 13,000 years ago, earth may have encountered some of the debrief from a disintegrating comet, which ultimately goes back to Fred Whipple, who’s one of the godfathers of cometary science.
Graham: Could I just come in on that for a second? Specifically Bill Napier, Victor Clube, are identifying the remnants of this comet, with the torrid meteor stream, which is familiar I think to everybody. We pass through it twice a year, we see meteoroids, particularly end of October, early November. That debris stream is still there.
It still contains, according to their argument, bits of the comet. There are large objects in it like [Comen Inki, Reniki,Yojiato 00:07:40] and so on, four, five kilometers in diameter, and the suggestion is that the meteor stream has got lots of small bits of dust, but it’s got some larger stuff too, and some of that stuff fell out of the meteor stream 12,800 years ago and impacted primarily, the North America ice cone.
John: Michael, when you listened to that podcast, you had some questions. You are a professional skeptic so of course you were skeptical. What are your thoughts about all this?
Michael: Let me pull back and give it a bigger picture. After the podcast, I went and got the book, Magicians Of The Gods. Actually, I listened to it on audio, so it’s like 16–18 hours of Graham reading with his wonderful British accent, which is, you know, for Americans, that elevates the quality of the argument by an order of magnitude.
Joe: Yeah. That’s how they sell things in infomercials over here.
Michael: Graham, you’re a good writer. It’s a very compelling story.
Graham: Thank you. You’re a great skeptic.
Michael: A number of points about in general, the idea of alternative archaeology, which is really what we’re talking about here. I prefer that to pseudo archaeology, because that’s a little bit of… It’s supposed to be a little bit of an insult. Alternative archaeology, it’s good to remember that… You have these guys on the podcast for three or four hours, and the audience listening thinks, “Yeah, why don’t these guys get a fair hearing.” It’s like there’s the mainstream and then there’s these guys, but there isn’t just these guys. There’s hundreds of alternative archaeological theories.
Which one gets the play, which one gets attention, which one doesn’t? For a mainstream archaeologist who’s busy in the field and trying to get grants and so on, they mostly just don’t have the time to sort through all these alternative theories, because this is just one, and as we’ll see in the next couple of hours, there’s hundreds and hundreds of things to be addressed. That’s kind of what we do.
Just to rattle off a few, The Lost Tribes of Israel Colonized Who the Americans. Mormon archaeology explanation of Native Americans. The Kennsington Runestones of Minnesota, that the vikings had come here. The Black Egyptian hypothesis. When I was in graduate school, this book called Black Athena was published, that Egyptians were actually Black and that the western White, male dominance of history has written them out of the path.
This was a whole alternative history, alternative archaeology. Piltdown Man, Thor Heyerdahl, in his hypothesis that the Polynesian islands were colonized by South Americans who went east or west. That’s since been debunked, but that’s yet another one of these things. South American archaeology, Olmec statues seem to have African features on them, so maybe Africans went directly across to South America. Eric von Danagan, [Zecharia Sichin 00:10:34], most of these Graham, reject in his book, to your credit, so you’re a good skeptic too, but for an outsider to an anthropologist from Mars steps into this thing cold, doesn’t know anything, it’s like they’re all alternative, which is the right one and how do we know/.
The way it works in science is the default position is the skeptical position. We assume your hypothesis is not true, not just you, anybody’s hypothesis, like the Clube Napier hypothesis. That was widely published. It was widely covered in mainstream scientific journals and popular science magazines like Scientific American, and it has not fared i that well over the last decade or so.
It’s still around. It’s still debated. You put it in the mainstream through peer review journals, and then you go to conferences and you have it out, and that’s kind of where we end up with, “This is what we think is probably true for now,” and then all these other people out here, if they don’t jump in into the pool where everybody is, then there’s no way for an outsider to know whether these alternative things have any validity or not, other than they make a compelling case in a popular book, yes, but what do the mainstream scientists think?
The problem is that, a couple of specific things like what I call patternicity, the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise. The virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich or whatever. Those are fun examples, but taking petroglyphs and then comparing them to constellations like, “Here, we have some constellations on your roof here.” It’s easy in the mind’s eye to find a pattern.
The question is, did those people really think, ten thousand years ago, five thousand years. This is a field called archaeo-astronomy. Ed Krupp, the director of The Griffith Observatory here in LA, this what he does. Sometimes the patterns, he thinks the patterns mean something, sometimes they’re totally random.
Or take something like the pyramids. As Graham knows, there’s 100 theories about the pyramids. There’s the mainstream one and then there’s all these other ones. This is why people like the director there, he just can’t deal with them all. Just this one example I used in my book, Why People Believe Weird things, that one guy calculated that if you divide the height of the pyramid into twice the side of the base, you get the number close to pie. Then he just sort of works all these different numbers so therefore it’s cosmically significant.
Joe: Richard Hogan was the best example in that, right?
Michael: Yes, Hogan.
Joe: He would find these patterns in Mars and claim if you go from this rock to half the distance… Why would you do that? That doesn’t make any sense. He would create these patterns to make his case.
Michael: Right, and that’s okay. All scientists look for patterns. Like just take climate change. Either the earth is getting warmer or it’s not. Either it’s human caused or it’s not. There’s a pattern in the data. You can see the pattern. The question is, is the pattern real? This is why we use the term climate consensus.
It’s not a democracy, it’s not like we voted on it and decided this is the truth, it’s that independently, all these different scientist working in different fields, publishing in different journals, come to the same conclusion.
We call this consilience science or convergence of evidence science, that it’s not like these guys are meeting on the weekends going, “Boy, we’ve got to combat those crazy right wingers with our data. They’re independently coming to these conclusions. That lifts our confidence that, yeah, there’s probably something to their theory, such that there’s now so much data converging to this, you’d have to deconstruct every one of those independent lines.
Then you have things like, what I call “the problem of the residue of anomalies”. In any field, there are residue of anomalies we can’t explain. Like UFOs for example. UF-ologist and me, a skeptic, agree that 90–95% of all the UFO sightings are explained by natural phenomenon. Venus, swamp gas, airplanes, geese, whatever.
They know that, so we’re really only talking about 5%. How do you explain that one right there, 1967 on June 3rd. I don’t know. No one knows that one. Then from there, they build, “That’s my case then. If you can’t explain that, then I have a case.” No.
Joe: That’s very different than what we’re talking about here though, right?
Graham: How is that relevant to us here?
Michael: It’s totally relevant because I think almost all of your argument is based on this residue of anomalies. What we call the god of the gaps argument. If you scientists can’t explain this particular rock right here or that particular petroglyph, I’m going to count that toward my compilation of data to support my hypothesis of a lost civilization.
Joe: But no one is saying that the scientists can’t explain it. What essentially, particularly Randall, with the series of images that’s shown, is that what you have here is something that can be explained by rapid melting of the ice caps. Randall, step in, if you will. Okay, go ahead if you want.
Michael: Depends on what you mean by rapid. A glacial dam that as archaeologists will tell us in a moment, that breaks, that’s fairly rapid. Back in ’96, there was a very popular book called ‘The Noah’s Flood’. This was a serious book by two geologists that said it was the rapid filling up of the Black Sea, that swamped over the civilizations living on the edges of this, and that’s where the Noah Arkian story comes from.
It was widely debated and it hasn’t fared that well, but that’s fairly rapid. We’re talking over the course of weeks or months or years. To a geologist, thousands of years is rapid. An impact by a comet that happens in a couple of hours or couple of days or weeks, versus a couple of months or years, what do we mean by rapid?
Joe: But what are you saying then? What are you saying about their theories in particular?
Michael: The problem I think, Graham, the deepest problem is much of your theory depends on negative evidence, that is, I don’t accept the mainstream explanation for the pyramids, the sphinx, the Machu Picchu, whatever.
Joe: Let’s not talk about that. Let’s just talk about this specific subject, because it’s going to take a long time just to cover asteroidal impact. My final point is the falsifiability one, that is, what would it take to refute your hypothesis?
For me, the answer would be like if Gobekli Tepe turned out to be what you think it might have been, the place where advanced age and civilization once inhabited or they used it. Where are the metal tools? Where are the examples of writing?
Graham: Perhaps a decision was made not to use metal. Perhaps a decision was made that errors had taken place, that in re-inventing civilization, we shouldn’t perhaps go down quite the same route as before. Perhaps writing isn’t always an advance. Perhaps an oral tradition which records in memory, which enhances and uses the power of memory, may be a very effective way of dealing with information. We regard writing as an advance and I can see from lots of reasons, why it is an advance, but if we put ourselves into the heads of ancient peoples, maybe it wasn’t.
There’s a tradition from ancient Egypt that the god Thoth, the god of wisdom, was the inventor of writing, but we have a text in which he is questioned by a pharaoh, who is saying, “Well, actually, have you really done a good thing by introducing writing, because then, the words may roam around the world without wise advice to put them into context and what will happen to memory when people… There might be a choice not to go that way.
Michael: Okay. All right. But then what do you mean by advance when you say there used to be a lost advance civilization before 10,000 years ago. What do you mean —
Joe: Let’s just pause here for a second because what we know for a fact is that the carbon dating in all the area around Gobekli Tepe, is somewhere around 12,000 years. Is that correct?
Graham: 11,600 years ago is the earliest they found so far. The great deal of Gobekli Tepe is still underground.
Joe: At least what we know is someone built some pretty impressive structures 11,600 years ago.
Graham: Yeah. 7000 years before Stonehenge.
Michael: When that story broke, this is long before you came along with your book, it was controversial in the sense that we thought hunter gatherers could not do something like this because to do that, you need a large population with the division of labor and so forth and what the response to archaeologists was, “Well, I guess we were wrong about hunter gatherers.
Maybe they can do more stuff than we gave them credit for.” Why is that not a reasonable hypothesis, versus it was actually advanced, but we mean something completely different by advanced. Not writing, and metal and technology, we mean… I don’t know what you mean. What do you mean?
Graham: We have a body of archaeology which goes on for decades, which is saying that megalithic sites, for example Ġgantija, in Malta or Hagar Qin and Mnajdra, megalithic sites date to no older than five and a half to six thousand years old. Ġgantija would push it close to 6000 years old. There are no older sites than that and therefore the megalithic site is associated with a certain stage of neolithic development.
Then along comes Gobekli Tepe, 7,000 years older than Stonehenge Incredible sophisticated site. Very large scale. Klaus Schmidt, sadly he’s passed away, I spent three days working the site with him. He was very generous to me. He showed me a lot. He talked to me a lot and he said, basically, 50 times as much as they’ve already excavated is still under the ground, that there’s hundreds and hundreds of giant stone pillars that they’ve identified with ground penetrating radar.
He’s not even sure if they’re going to excavate them, but by all accounts, we are looking, if we take what’s still under the ground into account, we’re looking at the largest megalithic site that’s ever been created on earth. It pops up 11,600 years ago with no obvious background to it. It just comes out of nowhere that we know of.
To me, that’s immediately a rather puzzling and interesting situation, and I would be remiss as an author and an inquirer into these matters, if I didn’t take great interest in that. The sudden appearance, 7,000 years before Stonehenge, of a megalithic site that dwarfs Stonehenge, to me, that’s a mystery and it’s really worth inquiring into.
Joe: We love to put into perspective. That’s more than 2,000 years older than what we now consider to be the building of the Great Pyramid of Giza, in comparison to us to then. Between our time now in 2017, and the construction of the Great Pyramid, you’re talking about 2,000 years earlier than that, and that is unbelievable. When you’re talking about 7,000 years before what we thought people were doing.
Michael: My point was that, before we go down the road of constructing a lost civilization that was super advanced but different from our idea of events, why not just attribute to these fully modern, hunter gatherers who had the same size brains we have and so on, that they were able to figure out and do this. We just under-estimated their abilities.
Graham: Why did archaeologists tell us for so long hunter gatherers couldn’t do it and we needed agricultural populations that could generate surpluses, that could pay for the specialists to —
Michael: Yes, that was the theory. Now what archaeologists are saying is, “I guess we were wrong about hunter gatherers.”
Joe: Well, they might be wrong about hunter gatherers, or there might be another civilization that they had not discovered, that has been on earth by time. We’re talking about so much time.
Graham: Sorry, Michael. Lost civilizations are not such an extraordinary idea. Nobody knew that the Indus Valley civilization existed at all until some railway work was done around [Noe Jadaro 00:22:30] in 1923. Suddenly, a whole civilization pops up out of the woodwork, that’s just never been taken into account before the 1920s. We still can’t read its script, you know?
The idea that we come across, that another turn of the spade reveals information that causes us to reconsider not just was it hunter gatherers or agriculturalists, but perhaps something bigger than this is involved.
Michael: Or in between that.
Graham: That’s not such an extraordinary idea. I get it that mainstream archaeology doesn’t want to go there, but that’s my job to go there.
Michael: No, I don’t think that that’s correct. They would be happy to go there if there’s evidence for it. By what you just said, they now fully accept the Indus Valley civilizations. How did that happen if they were dogmatically close-minded?
Graham: I don’t say that they were dogmatically close-minded about that. The evidence, the massive amount of evidence that came up with the discovery of Mnajdra, Harappa, Dholavira and other such sites, is very difficult.
You have to be completely stupid to say that that’s not a civilization. Gobekli Tepe is a bit more nuanced. We have stone circles. We have some interesting astronomical alignments. The world’s first perfectly north-south aligned building.
Graham: No, definitely.
Michael: Again, that’s a patternicity thing.
Graham: I’m citing Klaus Schmidt, you know?
Michael: That’s all right, but any of us who read back into history, 10,000 years ago, what we’re thinking, that they might have been thinking, that always a dangerous for anybody, not just you, all of us —
Joe: That’s a good point. Who’s Klaus Schmidt?
Graham: Klaus Schmidt was the original excavator of Gobekli Tepe. He was the head of the German Archaeological Institute dig at Gobeklie Tepe. He kindly spent three days showing me around the site, and really, nobody is disputing the astronomical alignments of Gobekli Tepe. They weren’t particularly interesting to Klaus Schmidt, but they’re there.
Joe: What is the alignment? How was it established?
Graham: When you have a perfectly north-south aligned structure, perfectly north-south, to true north, not magnetic north, then you are dealing with astronomy, by definition. There are other alignments of the sun —
Joe: True north as established today or with the procession of the equinox as we were talking about?
Graham: True north is always true north. It’s the rotation axis of our planet.
Joe: So to this day, it points exactly in the same place where it was pointing?
Graham: It always points to true north, yeah.
Michael: Back to this, they don’t want to go? Sure, they want to go there. They would be happy to go there. Case in point, two weeks ago in the journal Nature, the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, there was published an article that humans or maybe Neanderthals, lived in San Diego area, 130,000 years ago. This is an order of magnitude older than the clove estate.
Joe: This was the Macedon bones they found that were smashed they believed —
Michael: Macedon bones, yeah. Clearly, there’s not some conspiracy to keep alternative people or fringe or radical theories out. It was published and peer reviewed, the most prestigious journal in the world. There it is, two weeks ago.
Graham: Then what happened? Hasn’t there been a massive reaction to that and lots of scaving remarks by other academics.
Michael: Yes, but that’s normal. That’s how science works. You get pushed back. You’ve got to have a thick skin. It’s just the way it goes.
Graham: You’ve got to have a thick skin, that’s for sure, but maybe sometimes your skin is so thick that you just can’t sense anything around you.
Michael: Of course we don’t want that either.
Joe: So what do you think is going on? When you look at something like Gobekli Tepe that’s covered up purposefully, right? 12,000 years ago.
Graham: Yeah, deliberately buried. Again, I cite Klaus Schmidt, he’s the authority on this. He’s the excavator. He absolutely adamantly insists that that site was deliberately buried and finally covered with a hill, which is what Gobekli Tepe means in the Turkish language, pot belly tail.
Joe: You were talking about something. Give me the perspective of how large they believe it is currently, as of current.
Graham: What’s excavated at the moment is on a scale on Stonehenge. What’s under the ground may be as much as 50 times larger.
Michael: Gobekli Tepe, no one lived there. There’s no tools, there’s no…
Joe: You’re talking about 12,000 years old.
Michael: But if it’s buried, there should be pottery. There’s no pottery, no writing, no articles of clothing, no one lived there.
Graham: You’re saying nobody lived there, why should they have pottery? Why should pottery be in the field? Why would they go along and break some pots and stick in the artificial fill.
Michael: How about something, their trash, something that would indicate it’s different, a different kind of people than what we’re used to seeing in the archaeological record. In other words —
Graham: It was just rubbish that they poured in. It’s just stones and earth. Buckets of it.
Michael: In other words Graham, for you to gain support for your theory amongst mainstream archaeologists, they want to see positive evidence to overturn the old theory. In other words, the burden of proof is on the person challenging the mainstream, in every field.
Graham: I completely agree.
Joe: But isn’t there some proof that the mainstream idea of these hunter and gatherers, never had anything in what the theory was, that would indicate these people were capable of building something even remotely the size of Gobekli Tepe?
Michael: To me, that’s the stunning beauty of this find. It overturns our ideas of primitive hunter gatherers that could not do this. Apparently, they can.
Joe: That’s one possible assessment.
Michael: Yeah, that’s right. I call this, somebody else called this, the bigotry of low expectations. We had these low expectations for these hunter gatherers. Maybe we should Jetterson that idea. In my own other field of history of religion, it also threw that off, because this apparently was kind of a spiritual-religious, that’s the wrong word they would have used —
Graham: Actually, nobody can know that.
Michael: That’s right. But if it was, this is the big national geographic article emphasized that, maybe this is the very first religious spiritual temple ever build, because they didn’t live there, so they went there for a reason.
Joe: Isn’t it also possible that this is signs that civilization was more advanced 12,000 ago, than we thought?
Michael: More advanced, again, what do we mean by advanced?
Joe: We’re talking about the ability to construct an amazing structure. How big was it? How tall were these stones?
Graham: Some of them are 20 feet tall. Some of them are smaller, with astronomical alignments. Klaus Schmidt called it a center of innovation. He was intrigued by the way that agriculture emerges around Gobekli Tepe at the same time that Gobekli ,Tepe is created. He went on record with me, perhaps he’s not right, but he went on record with me as saying, that was the first agriculture.
These were the people who invented agriculture. To me, the notion that a group of hunter gatherers wake up one morning and invent megalithic architecture, the world’s largest megalithic site, and at the same moment, invent agriculture, stretches credulity a bit, and I think I would prefer to propose and I have proposed, that what we’re looking at is evidence of some kind of transfer of technology, that people came into that area, who had other knowledge, and that was a plight and perhaps they mobilized the local population around this site. Perhaps that’s precisely why we see agriculture developing there. Perhaps that’s the skill that’s being passed on.
Michael: The stone work is spectacular, but that’s not any more advanced than a few millenniums afterwards.
Joe: But you’re talking about something 20 feet tall, made of stone, but people that were hunter gatherers?
Michael: But a couple of hundred people can move multi-tone stones.
Graham: There’s no mystery in moving the stones. They’re still moving 20-tonne stones in Indonesia today. Megalithic culture still exists.
Joe: You also know that the carving on the outside is extremely complex. It’s three dimensional carving. But do you know what that means?
Michael: But Lascaux at 30,000 years ago has magnificent cave paintings with three dimensional animals.
Joe: But that’s painting. Hold on a second. Do you know what I’m saying when I say three dimensional carvings?
Michael: Like the venus.
Joe: No. The carvings were on the outside, meaning they didn’t carve them into the rock, they carved away the rock around them, which is pretty sophisticated stuff for hunter gatherers, and they’re doing this on these 20 foot tall stone columns. It’s pretty impressive stuff.
Michael: But there the assumption is that they couldn’t have figured this out. We know from modern societies, where say Australian Aborigines, in one generation, they go from stone tools to flying airplanes. The brains are quite capable of doing these amazing things.
Graham: Did they go from stone tools to flying airplanes without somebody introducing them to airplanes?
Joe: Exactly. You’re actually making his argument for him.
Michael: No. It’s not that much of a reach to carve stone. People have been carving stones —
Graham: But the entire archaeological opinion on megalithic sites, for decades before this, was precisely that it was beyond their ability to do that.
Michael: Right, and now, the mainstream is changing or at the very least —
Graham: A little shift.
Joe: Let’s pause for a moment. Let’s pause for a moment. For sure, we all agree, human beings made this?
Michael: Yes, not aliens.
Michael: Even he rejects the aliens.
Joe: The argument is not whether or not aliens made it, the argument is whether or not humans made it, that were sophisticated. They were clearly sophisticated enough to make this incredible structure that is some sign of some sort of civilization.
Graham: I believe so.
Joe: It is. It’s a gigantic structure.
Michael: Here I agree with Graham, that we’ve undersold who these people were. My friend Jerry Diamond goes to Papua New Guinea. He talks in the opening chapter of Guns, Germs and Steel, how smart these people are, that live out there in nature and what it takes to survive. He wouldn’t last an hour from LA. He wouldn’t last an hour with his Papua New Guinean friends out there in the wild.
Joe: That’s just because he doesn’t know how to survive and they’ve been passing down the information for generation after generation.
Michael: That’s right. They’re very smart. It’s not a problem of intelligence. Here’s the other thing we don’t know, is that there might be lots more of these sites and where there’s —
Graham: There are. I visited one of them, Karahan Tepe. You’ve the t-shaped pillars sticking out the side of a hill in a farmer’s backyard. I think we’re actually at the beginning of opening up this inquiry, not at the end of it, by any means.
Michael: Why not just say, “We don’t know. This is a spectacular mystery,” and leave it at that. Why write a book that say, “I’m going to fill in all the gaps.”
Graham: You guys on the mainstream side won’t speculate and won’t explore. I don’t claim to be an archaeologist. I’m not a scientist. I’m an author. It’s my job to offer an alternative point of view and to offer a coherently argued alternative point of view, and I must say, Gobekli Tepe strikes me as a gigantic fucking mystery. A mystery that is worthy of exploration from a point of view that may not satisfy you.
Michael: You don’t have to satisfy me.
Graham: You and your colleagues, and I certainly don’t have to satisfy you or them. That’s not my project.
Michael: Your opening chapter with Schmidt, I thought I really loved the kind of conversational style you had with Schmidt in the book, where he’s dialoguing, where Schmidt goes, “Look at this,” and then he says, “But wait, what’s that again?” It’s a little bit like Colombia, like, “Wait, I have just one more question.
Just one more question.” That mystery thickens. That’s perfectly okay. That’s great. That’s what science is all about, is uncovering mysteries that we then have to figure out, so there’s always more mysteries, but that doesn’t mean, that’s not positive evidence in favor of a particular theory like a lost civilization. It’s just, we can’t explain this. Full stop.
Joe: We certainly can’t explain it and you can’t explain it by saying that we underestimated hunter and gatherers either?
Michael: Why not? We know they made it. Whatever you want to call them.
Joe: We know humans made it.
Michael: That’s right. We know humans made it. Whatever you want to call them.
Joe: But why do they believe that people were only hunters and gatherers 12,000 years ago? It’s because they didn’t have any evidence to the contrary. This is evidence to the contrary.
Michael: Right. I agree.
Joe: You agree that they weren’t hunters and gatherers?
Michael: There’s several stages in between. 12 people living out in the jungle by themselves versus us. There’s like a whole bunch of different —
Joe: I would say that Gobekli Tepe is a gigantic stage.
Michael: They didn’t live there so we have to figure out where were they living and what was there? That has to be excavated.
Joe: They’ve only excavated 10% of it, right?
Graham: Meanwhile, what you’re saying is we shouldn’t speculate at all, because mainstream archaeology’s speculating.
Michael: Speculating is perfectly okay.
Graham: Mainstream archaeology is speculating when saying it definitely was hunter gatherers who did this. That’s also a speculation.
Joe: That seems more of a reach.
Michael: They may be more than hunter gatherers. They may have been partially settled. You can have any kind of number of stakes —
Graham: But what you can’t apparently have is the possibility of a transfer of technology from people who were really masters of that technology when they came in?
Michael: But where are these people? Where were their homes?
Graham: 12,000 years ago, their finger prints are there. Let’s find their homes. I don’t know that their homes matter. Would their homes even survive after 12,000 years? I’m not sure.
Michael: What homes? Their trash, their tools, their something.
Graham: Screw trash and tools. We’ve got Gobekli Tepe. It confronts us. It challenges the mainstream model. I think it’s reasonable to consider the possibility that there was something more than just hunter gatherers involved here in creating thin extraordinary place. That’s all I’ve done.
Randall: It seems to me that to say hunter gatherers could build this, wouldn’t be a posy idea that they’re hunting and gathering, but it does certainly imply a lot of leisure time. A lot of leisure time.
Again, if we place this back, particularly within that climate zone, at 11,000, 6–12,000, 13,000 years ago, whatever it turns out to be, we’re dealing with an extremely demanding and challenging climate, which wouldn’t necessarily, to my mind, be conducive to the emergence of a settled culture, that would be capable of undertaking a project on this scale.
As somebody who’s built a lot of things and moved quite a few heavy weights in my time, I find the idea sort of perplexing to me, that they would be… What I would have to ask is what is their motif? What is their motif for undertaking a project on this scale? Because it’s an enormous project. To move a 20-tonne block of stone is really a challenging task to undertake.
Randall: Today. Well, without the infrastructure of large machines and so forth, but to do it by hand, it would be an enormous undertaking, and to me, it’s like when are they having time to hunt and gather when they’re engaged in a project of this scale.
Michael: But we know hunter gatherers have way more free time than modern society people do. That’s the one thing we’ve learned, is that it’s a pretty good way to make a living actually. They have a better, varied diet than we have. This is the Neanderthals diet, right? They have a better varied diet and a lot more free time.
Randall: Yeah, but that’s —
Michael: And a lot less stress.
Graham: We knew that all along about hunter gatherers when we were saying they couldn’t build megalithic sites.
Randall: We’re looking at the time.
Michael: They have the time to do it.
Randall: Where the environment is undergoing rapid changes to which adaptations would be extremely challenging. We know those changes are going on all over the planet. We know that sea levels are rapidly rising over a period of a few thousand years from a sea stand low of about 400 feet, up to the present level.
We also know that biotas were shifting dramatically all over the planet. The effects of the Younger Dryas were global. Pretty much that is, I think, the emerging consensus now, that both hemispheres, north and south, were being affected by the climate changes of the Younger Dryas. What we’re doing is replacing this phenomenon, this project, within this context of these extremely challenging times, in which adaptation to the environmental changes could easily be the all-consuming challenge of the times.
I’m just finding it difficult to see this disconnect between a project of this magnitude and the motif for doing it, during a time when obviously the environment could be posing serious constraints upon people’s ability to function, in that —
Michael: Randall, we don’t even know the motives of the Eastern Islanders —
Randall: No, we don’t.
Michael: And why they raised these huge .. but we know they did it.
Randall: But things like that become a central question. Something had to have motivated them.
Joe: Let’s get Gobekli Tepe. Let’s just be real clear. We know they were humans. We know that it’s at least 12,000 years old, and we know that the real dispute here, the real question is did these people have structures and did they have agriculture. We know that they were human beings. They were essentially modern human beings. Were they hunter gatherers or did they have structures and agriculture.
Graham: Before Gobekli Tepe, they didn’t have structures and they didn’t have agriculture. After Gobekli Tepe, they did.
Joe: The fact that they were able to build something so monumental, what kind of a leap is it at all to think that these people could figure out how to plant food and figure out how to make a house.
Michael: Again, if you look back 30,000 years, 40,000 years to these cave paintings, these are pretty sophisticated. Beautiful.
Joe: Yeah, they are.
Michael: Clearly, they had abstract reasoning. They could think from the concrete to the abstract and so on. It’s not a big reach to go from that to moving stones around.
Graham: I’d say there’s a big difference between painting and engraving on cave walls.
Michael: I don’t think so.
Graham: You’re creating the largest megalithic site that’s ever been built on earth. I think there’s a huge different between those two. Nobody would compare the construction effort on Stonehenge or Ġgantija with cave paintings. I agree with you, the cave paintings are magnificent. I’ve had the privilege to visit many of the painted caves. Stunning work. As Picasso said when he came out of Lascaux, “We have invented nothing.”
That was that modern human mind, symbolic mind at work there, but this is another matter. This is a large scale construction project that’s going on, and it’s not just a construction project. It’s not like huts. It’s hundreds and hundreds of very large megalithic pillars, which have to be mobilized, brought to the place. Organizing a workforce in order to do that, even that requires preparation and time and learning and practice. It’s not something that you wake up one morning and just can do overnight.
Joe: You think that the paintings are more impressive than Gobekli Tepe?
Michael: Yeah, or at least comparable.
Joe: I think that’s absolutely ridiculous.
Michael: To convey three dimensionality on a 2D plane, that’s what Picasso meant. It’s like, “Wow! That’s incredible.” It’s like developing perspective, and to use the natural shape of a wall to create a three dimensional perspective look, that’s pretty abstract.
Graham: You’re comparing apples and pears. It’s not a construction project.
Michael: We don’t have to compare them.
Joe: But I don’t think it’s even remotely as impressive.
Michael: What I’m saying is that, it doesn’t take a huge leap of imagination to think… These people were pretty smart.
Joe: We know that they were smart. We know that they were smart just because of the fact that those construction projects were done, by who? By whoever. We know that they were smart. Whoever built Gobekli Tepe was clearly intelligent. Whoever made those 3D carvings, clearly, they were intelligent. But to think that someone drawing on cave paintings is more impressive than erecting 20 foot stone columns with three dimensional carvings on them, of a lot of animals that weren’t even native to the region, is that debatable?
Graham: That’s not necessarily the case. The animals were native to the region.
Michael: My point Joe, is that these paintings are like say 30–40,000 years old to Gobekli Tepe, so there’s tens of thousands of years to develop more that we’re very likely to find more archaeological sites.
Graham: And yet, up till now, we haven’t found that. We haven’t found all of that intermediate material which… If I could actually see that intermediate material between the upper Paleolithic cave art and Gobekli Tepe, if I could see the gradual evolution and development of skills, I wouldn’t need to invoke a lost civilization that survivors of a lost civilization, who’ve mastered those skills elsewhere, to come in and teach those skills at Gobekli Tepe, but it still looks to me like a transfer of technology, unless you can show me that evolutionary process whereby I can understand how this group of hunter gatherers became equipped to create this giant site, where they practiced, where they learned the skills to move the stones, to organize the workforce, to feed and water the workforce in a rather dry place. All of that is actually quite a logistical challenge.
Michael: Yes, and obviously, somebody met it somehow.
Joe: Some humans.
Joe: So the real question is did they have structures? Did they have agriculture? Did they have some sort of a community where they lived in an established location?
Michael: Probably something like that. I would imagine so.
Joe: That would push back the time where we thought that there was a civilization. That would push them back into a realm of at least stepping out of the hunter gatherer stage. Correct?
Michael: Your guy Schmidt, as you show in your book, he did not go as far as you go.
Graham: Certainly not.
Michael: But he admitted it’s a mystery. That would be the scientific approach, “I don’t know what it is. Great mystery. Let’s just wait and see,” versus, “I’m going to postulate a lost civilization.” Nothing wrong with that, Graham. It’s a free country and scientists do this all the time, as you’ve mentioned.
Graham: There’s a rather humorous thing, which I have to say. Actually, I might even ask Jamie to pull up the couple of images of ‘Fingerprints of The Gods’. That’s the book I’ best known for. When I published ‘Fingerprints of The Gods’ in 1995, essentially, I was saying civilization is much older and much more mysterious than we thought. I was ridiculed for proposing that. 2013, one of the magazines that ridiculed me, New Scientist Magazine in Britain, publishes as a cover story, picture of Gobekli Tepe and the headline, ‘Civilization is Much Older and Much More Mysterious Than We Thought’.
Michael: Okay, fair enough. Scientists do do this. I’ve followed paleoanthropology for my whole adult life. One of the big mysteries is how did we get a big brain? How did we get to abstract reasoning, from what chimps can do? No one knows.
Joe: The doubling of the human brain size over a period of two million years, right?
Michael: Because no one knows, every couple of years there’s a new book out. It’s climate change. It was —
Joe: The throwing arm, cooking food.
Michael: That’s right. Cooking meat. Meat is another big one. These books come and go. Some of them have legs, some of them don’t. It’s just the way it goes.
Joe: Then there’s Terence McKenna’s theory.
Graham: It’s pretty obvious, it was psychedelics.
Joe: Yeah. That’s Terence McKenna’s Stoned Ape Theory.
Graham: Not that it made the brain bigger, but that switched the brain on.
Michael: Is this the old Julian —
Graham: Julian Jaynes’, no, the bicameral mind. Not at all. This is David Lewis-Williams, who’s professor of anthropology at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa. His neuro-psychological theory of cave art, old [inaudible 00:44:53], Terence McKenna and food of the gods. What a brilliant thinker.
What a brilliant alternative thinker, but David Lewis-Williams at the University of Witwatersrand had been working on this problem since 1973 and his argument is that the remarkable similarities that we see in rock and cave art all around the world are explained that we’re dealing with a shamanistic art. Shamanism involves altered states of consciousness. This is typical visions of altered states of consciousness, and it seems to have accompanied a great leap forward in human behavior.
Joe: You covered this in your book.
Graham: I covered it in Supernatural.
Michael: As did Richard Wranghman’s theory. This is a highly regarded scientist at Harvard. He’s the meat eating guy. That’s it’s cooking meat. That by cooking the protein, that’s what gives you the energy to build a huge brain. This guys is starting with ten pluses on his side. He’s Harvard and already respected. Even so, his book was like, maybe.
Joe: It’s probably a series of different events and a bunch of different factors.
Michael: It could be, that’s right. It could be a number of different things.
Joe: Let’s get away from Gobekli Tepe and ancient civilizations and let’s get back to the geological evidence which Randall, you’re an expert at. This is one of the main things that you had a dispute with and this is one of the reasons why we got everybody together. Now, what is your thoughts on what Randall and Graham propose, specifically Randall, who is much more on the geological side of things?
Michael: This is why I brought in my fauna friend, a geologist. By way of background, after your show, I thought, “Let’s just give this a fair hearing. This is what we do.” This will be our cover story in the end of summer issue comes out quarterly.
Graham: I hope that Mark Defunct is going to be doing so more work on the draft of his article for you that is up online, because that article is full of bullshit statements about me which are demonstratically false.
Michael: He’s on.
Graham: Yeah. He’s there and I’m happy to engage with those particular issues.
Joe: What statements Graham?
Graham: I’ll have to put on my reading glasses.
Michael: Whatever article’s online, this has not been published yet.
Graham: It claims that it’s a draft of the article that will appear in the 2017 edition of Skeptic Magazine.
Joe: Pull it up Graham and give you a chance to have your time… Let Graham go over it first and then we’ll have Mark on to refute what he said.
Graham: Here’s Defunct on ‘Magicians of the gods’. By the way, Michael, you say that you’re here to respectfully and to gather truth.
Joe: There it is. Conjuring up the lost civilization from nothing.
Graham: Let me just get to the top of this. I’ve got it here. Just near with me a second. Amongst the words in Mark Defunct’s article, he’s accusing me of duping the public. He’s saying that I’m public enemy number one. He’s accusing me of arm waving. I do wave my arms. Pontificating. Well, my grandfather was a minister of the church. Little interest in peer reviewed research. Claimed that no academic would debate. That’s utter bullshit.
I had a debate with Zahi Hawass. He’s a leading Egyptian Egyptologist, back in 2015. That was not my fault that Zahi Hawass walked out on that debate. I can play the video if you like. A minute and a half of Zahi Hawass lambasting me and then walking out and refusing to debate further so it’s bullshit to say I don’t debate or I’m not willing to debate. Finally, he says that I’m conning a hellacious number of people into buying his books. How can we get any dialogue going when somebody begins like that?
Then would you like some further? Bear with me because I just have to scroll down and I don’t have a mouse. I don’t have a mouse. Hancock and Carlson claimed several times that no academic would debate them. Not true. I’m accused of doing an about face since ‘Fingerprints of the gods’. Are my views not allowed to evolve with new evidence?
Is that somehow a crime on my part? Let me just finish. Then a cheap shot. He cites his Jesus Gamarra and accuses me of not having the scientific knowledge to deal with issues of gravitation. It’s true that Jesus Gamarra who is a descendant of the Incas, who has worked 70 years on the megaliths of [inaudible 00:49:15] who his father, before him, Alfredo Gamarra, worked 70 years.
It’s true that he’s got a way out theory about gravitation. Thing is, I state in my book that it’s a way out theory. What I go on to say, quoted in the attack is that, “However, this isn’t the part of his theory I’m interested in. Where I feel he’s solidly persuasive is in his observations of the anomalous character of the monuments of the [inaudible 00:49:36] et cetera.
Defunct doesn’t site that. He just presents me as buying what Jesus Gamarra says. If the standard that you’re going to have in Skeptic Magazine, you have a serious problem. Then Gobekli Tepe, he contends that Gobekli Tepe is too advanced to have been completed by hunter gatherers and must have been constructed by a more advanced civilization. No. That’s not what I say. I say it was constructed by hunter gatherers, but that they were advised and supported by people who had knowledge of this kind of work beforehand.
Michael: How is that different?
Graham: I think it’s very different. I’m not saying it was constructed by, I’m saying that a group of people settled amongst hunter gatherers and transferred some skills for them. He quotes me, “Hancock makes the following stunning claim. “Our ancestors are being initiated into the secrets of metals and how to make swords and knives.”” I do not make that claim. I’m reporting that this claim is made in the book of Enoch. That is not my claim. Then what else?
Michael: You don’t think that’s the explanation.
Graham: I’m being misrepresented by your author here. If he wants to represent me, if he accuses me of cherry-picking, he shouldn’t cherry-pick my statements. He should quote it in full context.
Michael: Let’s get it right. You don’t accept —
Graham: It’s put there on the internet.
Joe: You’re still working on it but it’s published online?
Michael: I didn’t know it was online.
Graham: Here’s a beautiful one. He cites Klaus Schmidt on the character. Schmidt makes a salient point, almost as if he anticipated Hancock’s book. “Fabulous or mythical creatures such as centors or the sphinx, wing-bulls or horses do not yet occur in the [inaudible 00:51:11] and therefore in the mythology of pre-historic times. They must be recognized as creations of the high cultures which arose later.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. You’ve just been talking about the painted caves. Go to Chauvet cave. You will see a lion-man. Lion man carved out of mammoth ivory.
Go to Chauvet, bison man, straddling lion woman. Her right arm is transforming into the head of a lion. Certainly these mythical creatures did exist in the upper paleolithic and it’s rubbish to say that they didn’t. Can I go on?
The Tea Pot. Oh yeah. He’s taking issue with me because I suggest that the vulture on pillar 43 and enclosure D, is represent the tea pot asterism of the constellation of Sagittarius. He goes and gives us little things of Uncle Sam and some other thing that he shows. Anybody can impose any image on anything.
It’s not my fault that a couple of academics who didn’t even talk to me and had nothing whatsoever to do to me, published a major study in the, I quote it again, The Mediterranean Archaeology and archaeometry, a peer review journal, where they make precisely that identification, so at least I’m not alone. At least there are peer reviewed credentialed scholars who also agree that that figure is representing the tea pot asterism within the constellation of Sagittarius. No reference to that.
Shocked opinions were supposed to not go into the minutiae because they’ve already been dismissed by a study by [Loristis and Fabiadu 00:52:44]. Far from it. That study doesn’t dismiss shock at all. None of that study was the body of the sphinx itself. It was done in the valley and the sphinx temples, and by the way, the dates are extremely troubling. Some of them could push it as far as 3600 B.C. that the work was done, or as early, in some cases, as 1000 B.C. I don’t think that study proves anything and so on and so forth.
Michael: Just to clarify what you do believe then, so that we don’t misrepresent you, you don’t think that the lost civilization instructed them on the use of metals?
Graham: I don’t know. I don’t see evidence for that at Gobekli Tepe.
Michael: Why would you put that in the book then?
Graham: I didn’t put it in the book. I was quoting The Book of Enoch. It’s a huge passage on The Book of Enoch. It’s not me who’s saying that, it’s The Book of Enoch that’s saying that.
Michael: I understand, but why… I forget what the context —
Graham: All I require your Defunct to do is to state that Hancock is citing The Book of Enoch. He didn’t do that. That’s, what’s the word? Disingenuous. Is that the polite word you guys use?
Joe: It seems more than disingenuous. It’s a character assassination.
Michael: What the question is, is what’s the context of including that in your book? I forget.
Graham: The context is that actually, I was criticizing Zechariah Sitchin. That’s primarily what I was doing.
Michael: So you don’t think that a lost civilization instructed the people who built Gobekli Tepe on the use of metals and tools?
Graham: I see no evidence for that. I see Gobekli Tepe. I can’t go say they instructed them on the use of metals and tools unless I can find evidence for it.
Michael: So what did they do?
Joe: We don’t know.
Graham: They generated agriculture. They created a center of excellence around which hunter gatherer —
Michael: Not they who built Gobekli Tepe. The lost civilization that advised them, that you think happened. What did they do if they —
Graham: They’ve come through a cataclysm. They’re survivors, few in number — this is my scenario. You don’t have to accept it. I’m sure you don’t. They take refuge amongst hunter gatherers. I don’t know. You probably have some survival skills. I don’t have many. If we would have a comet impact in the world today, which were to take out all the underpinnings of modern civilization, I might go settle with hunter gatherers because they’re the people who know best how to live and that’s situation.
Michael: That’s where I would go. I have no survival skills.
Graham: Yeah, so go settle among hunter gatherers, but I might be able to transfer some of my knowledge to them. I might have something that I could transfer to them, and I might have very strong reasons why I might not choose to transfer all of it.
Michael: In other words, perhaps this is what happened. Okay, maybe, but how is that different from Zechariah Sitchin’s the aliens advised them?
Joe: It’s a lot different.
Graham: I think it’s massively different, especially since Zechariah Sitchin has his aliens arriving in 1970s, NASA technology, weirdly. He wrote his book in the 1970s. I don’t go there. I don’t make that suggestion.
Michael: Why not?
Graham: I’m simply saying, perhaps there’s been a forgotten episode in human history. Perhaps its fingerprints are present at a number of sites around the world, but perhaps the extremely defensive, arrogant and patronizing attitude of mainstream academia, is stopping us from considering that possibility, and therefore I campaign to get theta possibility considered and I try to do so with as loud a voice as possible.
Michael: Well, you’re doing it. You doing.
Joe: Doesn’t it disturb you that you run Skeptic Magazine and someone publishes something like that. That goes against the whole idea of critical thinking. It’s misrepresenting his quotes, it’s misrepresenting his perspective, his point of view. It’s really disingenuous.
Michael: This is one reason we’re doing this. So we can get his —
Joe: But why would anybody write something like that and why would you guys publish something like that without checking the facts?
Michael: We are. This was not supposed to be posted online. This is the reason why —
Joe: It’s online though. Why does something get online if it’s not supposed to?
Graham: Why is such a person who would do that, a useful contributor to your side of the debate?
Michael: One of the reasons we’re here is to get your point of your view exactly right, all right? Your saying that there’s no evidence that any lost civilization exists, only the fingerprints of their influence of later people we do know existed.
Graham: I’m saying their physical objects. I say Gobekli Tepe is one of them. I say the sphinx is another.
Michael: But see, this is that argument from either ignorance or personal incredulity. I don’t accept the mainstream or I can’t think of how these pyramids could have been built therefore it was built by somebody else through some other technology.
Joe: That’s not what he’s saying. They’re just post-dating it.
Graham: That’s not what I’m saying. All I’m saying is the sphinx is older. I do go with Robert Shock’s argument on the geology. I’m also very interested in the astronomy of the site and again, I have slides that I could show on this if we have time. You might want to get into Ed Krupp’s criticism of the [rhine 00:57:24] correlation and why he says it’s upside down. I can talk to you about that.
Michael: We do. I know Ed Krupp’s argument about that. That was from the 90s, I think.
Joe: What’s your thoughts on Robert Shock’s conclusions?
Michael: That’s not something I know much about.
Joe: But it’s huge factor. It’s a huge factor because it’s all about water erosion.
Graham: Your Mark Defunct knows about Shock and he rejects him on the basis of that paper, and that paper really doesn’t date the sphinx. It works with dating of large blocks in the valley and the sphinx temples. There’s no single sample taken from the sphinx.
Michael: All right, then who dated it?
Graham: Who dated it? [Loristis and Fabiadu 00:58:01].
Michael: Then why do mainstream archaeologists not accept the older date for the sphinx? The answer is because they have whole bunch of other evidence that points to the date that they think it does.
Graham: The answer to your question is very simple. Mark Laner and Zahi Hawass put it on record back in 1992, when John Anthony West and Robert Shock first presented the rainfall erosion evidence on the sphinx.
What Laner and Hawass said is, the sphinx can’t possibly be 12,000 plus years old, because there was no other culture anywhere in the world, that was capable of creating large scale monumental architecture like this. Show me one other structure that’s capable of doing that. They could say that in 1992 Michael, but they can’t say it in 2017, not since Gobekli Tepe’s been excavated.
Joe: If you don’t mind Graham, could you please, for people, so this could be a standalone thing, people could understand, what is the argument about the sphinx, the enclosure of the sphinx and Robert Shock from Boston University, who’s a geologist, what was his conclusion?
Graham: What Shock is saying is that the sphinx and the trench out of which the sphinx is cut, bears the unmistakable evidence of precipitation induced weathering. Weathering caused by exposure to a substantial period of heavy rainfall, and that is particularly pointed out in the vertical fishers in the trench.
You see, the sphinx itself has been subject to so much restoration over so many years, that it’s difficult for people to even see the core body of the sphinx today. But its these, you can see the vertical fishers even down at the back of there. That is what Shock counts as rainfall precipitation-induced weathering.
Heavy rainfall, which is selectively removing the softer layers and leaving the harder layers in place, and the problem is, we don’t have that rainfall in Giza, in Egypt, 4500 years ago. You have to go back much earlier to get that rainfall. That’s the suggestion.
Joe: That’s the suggestion by Robert Shock.
Joe: Independently of your conclusions or anything else?
Graham: Totally independently, yeah. Shock disagrees with me on many things, as a matter of fact, and I disagree with him on many things, but I think he’s on the money on this.
Joe: That alone would set back at least that one… It’s pretty much established that the great pyramid of Giza was constructed about 2500 B.C. right?
Graham: There’s absolutely no doubt that a huge project went down at Giza around 2500 B.C. and it involved the pyramids.
Joe: It is not that the whole thing was that much older, was that parts of it seemed to have been from an earlier civilization, or at least that civilization far earlier than was —
Graham: I would say that the ground plan, what we have at Giza, the basic layout of the site, was established in what the ancient Egyptians called Zep Tepi, the first time. Astronomically and geologically, I and my colleagues suggest that the first time can be dated to the period of about 12.5–13,000 years ago.
That that was when the site was laid out, because there’s intriguing astronomical alignments of the great pyramids, to the belt of Orion. I know Ed Krupp has a completely opposite view on this and of the great sphinx, to the constellation of Leo, rising due east, housing the sun on the equinox, the astrological age of Leo. Again, I have slides I can show.
Joe: That would align with the geological evidence that Robert Shock concludes with —
Graham: It aligns with the geological evidence.
Joe: Thousands of years of rainfall.
Graham: The age of Leo pretty much exactly spans the Younger Dryas, as a matter of fact.
Joe: So the only argument against that at the time, was that there were no other structures like that from 12,000 years ago.
Graham: Correct. Then Krupp said that the Orion correlation wasn’t real because it was upside down. Do you want to get into that now?
Michael: First, that’s not the only argument, it’s that if the sphinx is built of the layout for the whole thing is built in 10–11,000 years ago, and then the pyramids are built 2500 B.C., what happened in between? Where are all the people, the trash, the places where they lived, in that area?
Joe: There’s a bunch of different styles of construction.
Graham: Something like a —
Michael: But not dated in between.
Graham: I would propose, Michael, something like a monastery, which has a relatively small archaeological footprint, is on the side. The idea of information, knowledge and traditions lasting for thousands of years within a religious system, shouldn’t be too absurd to us. Judaism is dealing with ideas that are already best part of 4,000 years old if we go back to the Chaldis and so on and so forth. That’s all I’m suggesting really, that the idea is preserve, maintain, that the survivors —
Graham: On the site, but in something like a monastery, which has got a very small archaeological footprint. It is not high. Perhaps, again, one can only speculate, and I think there’s a lot of speculation on the archaeological side too. One can only speculate, perhaps having gone through a cataclysm, perhaps they felt to blame for this. Wrongly or rightly. There are many traditions in which humanity’s behavior is implicated in the cataclysm that takes place. Perhaps they didn’t want to switch civilization on completely right there.
Perhaps they waited, passed down their knowledge through initiates. Enough was there to create a mystery because it’s undoubtedly a mystery that the construction of the great pyramids, the first huge pyramids in Egypt, preceded only really by the Djoser Pyramid at Saqqara, that the construction of the great pyramids is vastly superior to the construction of the pyramids of the fifth and sixth dynasty that follow it, and that’s a little bit counter-intuitive that we have this collapse in skills, one would have expected to get better, so it sounds like the work on the pyramids started already with a level of knowledge in hand.
Michael: Yes. Here’s how I would think about that. There’s a lot of perhapsing and maybes because —
Michael: Yes. You have a bunch of Egyptologists and archaeologists who have been working on this site for centuries. This is one of the most ancient mysteries and so on. Let’s say there’s like 20 lines evidence that point to roughly around this time period here, then you come on and say, “Okay, but there’s this one anomaly of the rain thing. That there was only rain at this time. Now there’s a huge gap here of one anomaly or line of evidence here, and like 20 here.
Joe: We’re talking about different structures so there’s not a lot of evidence that points to this sphinx being from a particular time period.
Michael: He’s saying like 12,000, right?
Graham: I’m saying the rainfall evidence suggests that.
Joe: But other evidence.
Graham: And it’s alignment with the constellation of Leo housing the sun, at dawn on the spring equinox. This is an equinoctial mark and nobody would dispute that. Nobody would dispute that the ancient… No, if you make a monument pointing due east, I’ve stood on the back of the sphinx, at dawn, on the spring equinox, and believe me, again, I could show a picture, it’s headlines up perfectly with the rising sun. I don’t think anybody, even Krupp, is disputing that it’s an equinoctial mark. Now here’s the thing. You’re an ancient Egyptian. You’re building an equinoctial marker in 2500 B.C. Do you know what constellation is housing the sun in 2500 B.C.?
Michael: I haven’t run the little program to see.
Graham: It’s the constellation of Torres.
Graham: So logically, if you’re creating an equinox, ancient Egyptians were no shy about making images of bulls. Plenty of them. If you’re making an equinoctial marker in 2500 B.C. you should create it in the form of a bull, not in the form of a lion. That’s the puzzling issue, and yet we do have a time when a lion constellation housed the sun at dawn on the spring equinox, and that is the period of the Younger Dryas.
Michael: Okay. I’d say that’s a pretty big leap in that —
Graham: I know you’d say that, and your colleagues all say that too.
Michael: Then we had a gap of about 5 or 6000 years where there’s nothing.
Randall: Let me interject.
Joe: Please do.
Randall: I’m going to refer back to several articles that were published in the 80s and 90s. This one is from Nature, early 80s, ‘Late Quaternary History of the Nile’. What it’s discussing is the evidence that there was a major shift in the hydraulic regime of the Nile River. It says, between 20,000 and 12,000 years before present, when timberline in the head waters was lower, vegetation cover more open than today, the Nile was a highly seasonal braided river, which brought mixed course and fine sediments, down to Egypt and Sudan.
This cold dry interval had ended by 12,500 years, before present, when overflow from Lake Victoria and higher rainfall in Ethiopia sent extraordinary floods down the main Nile. Those files have been documented to have been 120 feet above the modern flood plain of the Nile.
Any civilization or whatever you want to call it, living along the Nile River at that time, would have had to abandon whatever they were doing there, in this regime, this intensified hydraulic regime, and it says, it goes on to say, “It marked a revolutionary change to continuous flow, with a super-imposed flood peak. What happened is that there was a major environmental change that occurred right there, around 12,000 to 12,500 years. The dating could be adjusted somewhat since the early 80s, but the point is made, is that because of a major hydro-logical change, major vegetational cover change, major environmental change, this would have caused also imposed changes upon whatever culture was existing there or living there at the time.
Now what we have is in the aftermath of that event, we have basically the emergence of desert, which now would require serious adaptation. It’s very likely too that these events could have also decimated the population at the time, leaving basically no workforce and then over a period of two or three or four thousand years, you find that there’s enough of a recovery that these kind of monumental structures can be renewed. But it’s clear from this and a lot of other studies, studies in the Eastern Mediterranean showing that there were sapropel layers, which is basically material that has been washed in, from the continental surface, that has not oxidized.
It has essentially become rotten and carried in organic material, carried in off of the continents by this enhanced regime of water flow, actually forcing so much water that there was a fresh water lid on the Eastern Mediterranean, that caused a cessation in the circulation between the upper waters and the lower waters, reducing the amount of oxygen, brought down to the lower waters, and so you had these layers of mud that formed of the bottom of the Mediterranean, that showed this massive influx of fresh water flowing out of the Nile and off of the Egyptian continent, at the same time.
Clearly, the evidence shows that there were major climatic changes that occurred around this time. It is not so speculative to imagine that whoever, whatever, and we don’t have to invoke any kind of a super advanced civilization, but whatever cultures were there that were perhaps capable of carving blocks of stone, transporting blocks of stone, if they were at Gobekli Tepe during this time range, would have been that their activity would have been interrupted to the extent that it might have taken millennia to recover, to get the labor force necessary to undertake major monumental programs on the Giza plateau.
I think that if we assume this gradualistic scenario, yeah, that’s a fair question to ask. What happened in that interval. But if there is a major climatic downturn and a major disruption of the subtle patterns of whatever culture was already there, then now we might have an explanation why there would be a gap, especially of these events caused a bottleneck in the population of the area.
Of course this is all speculative, but it is not speculative to say that there is multiple lines of evidence suggesting these major even cataclysmic changes that engulfed that part of the world, during that era. That could provide an explanation of why there is a gap there.
Joe: Makes a ton of sense.
Michael: Well, does it, because —
Joe: Does it not?
Michael: Only if you have to have the sphinx in conjunction with 12,000 years ago and the lost civilization. If you just say the rainwater erosion on the sphinx is not an explanation for the age and that the traditional accepted age is what we think it is, then there’s no gap to fill. Really, all we’re talking about is we have, again, lots of evidence here, one anomaly here, I really want the anomaly thing to stick, so I’ve got to explain the gap. The gap is explained by environmental changes.
Randall: But what is ‘the lots’ of evidence other than a lot of assumptions? It’s a lot of maybes.
Graham: They’re all assumptions. Actually, can you cite me a single contemporary inscription from the date that the sphinx is supposed to have been made, that refers to the sphinx?
Michael: I’m sorry, say that again.
Graham: Can you cite a single contemporary inscription from —
Michael: Contemporary from?
Graham: Contemporary to the date that Egyptologists ascribe to the sphinx. In other words to the Rann of Kubu. Can you cite me a single inscription that talks about the sphinx being built?
Michael: I don’t study this area. I don’t know.
Graham: You can’t because there is no such inscription.
Michael: Okay, so?
Graham: One would have thought there would be. It’s a giant project. It’s 270 feet long. It’s 70 feet high. It’s carved out of solid rock. Nothing. No reference to it at all in the old kingdom. You actually have to come down to the new kingdom to the references of the sphinx and inscriptions.
Michael: But you’ve already said that the pyramids were built at the time we think they were built, not thousands of years ago.
Graham: I would say that a great deal of work was done on the pyramids on the time of 2500 B.C. I think the grand plan was laid out earlier.
Michael: We have the step pyramid, which is cruder or not as well designed as the other pyramids. That’s a transitional stage, at that time.
Graham: Often argued to be a transitional stage. You’ve been to the step pyramid, I’m sure.
Graham: Brilliant. You’ve been to Giza though?
Michael: No, I’ve never been to Giza.
Graham: Oh dear. They do make a very different impact. I’ve climbed the great pyramid five times. You’re dealing with something orders of magnitude different in terms of what’s required. This thing weighs six million tons.
Michael: Oh, I understand.
Graham: It’s 481 feet high. It consists of two and a half million individual blocks of stone. It’s aligned to true north within 360th of a single degree. To compare that to Djoser is really not a valid comparison at all. What’s more interesting to me is the radical decline that takes place in pyramid building skills, in the fifth and six dynasty.
Go to Unas, go to Pepi, go to Teti at Saqqara. These are shambles. You can hardly even recognize them as pyramid. What happened to all that knowledge that’s invested in the great pyramid? Why does Egypt devolve so rapidly? How do we explain this pristine, amazing work that’s done on the great pyramid, unless there’s a legacy of knowledge being attached to it?
Michael: Every archaeologist, Egyptian archaeologist, and Egyptian, knows everything you just said.
Graham: They do.
Michael: And they don’t accept any of your arguments. Why not?
Graham: That’s why I’m needed, because somebody’s got to counter this.
Michael: Is it just that they’re close-minded and they follow Zahi Hawass and they never think for themselves?
Graham: You want to see a closed mind? I’ll play you a one and half minute video of Zahi Hawass refusing to debate with me.
Michael: But all of them? Every one of the Egyptologists and the archaeologists over the last two centuries and so on, they’re all dogmatically close minded and they can’t see the arguments as clear as you, or is it they’re not convinced by your argument?
Graham: They’re not convinced by my argument. They genuinely and absolutely believe that their argument is right. The notion that I’m proposing is apparently so preposterous to them, that it isn’t even worthy of consideration, but it is worth if insults and attacks on me, on my integrity., on my decency as a human being, on my honesty. All of those things get attacked because mainstream… And that’s fine. I’m ready for that.
By the way, I know that archaeologists, academics, constantly attack each other all the time. I used to take this stuff personally but then when I see what they do to each other, the ravaging attack dogs are let loose on any new idea, I sometimes wish scientists would actually look for what’s good in a new idea rather than what’s bad, but I get why they do look for what’s bad.
Michael: In other words, some young graduate student working in that area could make a name for himself by overturning this —
Graham: My son was a young graduate student at the University of Cardiff, studying Egyptology. He got marked down in his degree because he proposed the possibility that the pyramids and the sphinx might be or might have older origins. He was impressed by my work. It did him a lot of harm in his degree.
Michael: If all this was true, then eventually it would come out.
Graham: You haven’t answered my point. You haven’t answered my point.
Michael: Which is what?
Graham: If you go against the mainstream view, your career does not progress as an Egyptologist.
Michael: I disagree.
Graham: Give me an example.
Michael: How is it that we know anything that we know about Egyptology now?
Graham: Give me an example from Egyptology, of somebody who’s gone against the mainstream view and been lorded for so doing.
Michael: We don’t believe everything about it that we believed to centuries ago at say Napoleon’s time. Right? How did all that knowledge come about? How did all the change in that science develop?
Graham: It really begins with Champollion and the deciphering of the Rosetta Stone.
Michael: All right. How was he able to do that against the mainstream?
Graham: There was no mainstream. The mainstream has taken time to form and it’s very solid now. Egyptologists all sing from the same hymnbook. You’ll find very little disagreement amongst them on anything.
Michael: But this is true on every field, but somehow or another, Einstein managed to make an impact because he turned out to be right.
Graham: I’m no Einstein and I don’t know if I’m right, but I’m going to continue to oppose that mainstream. Somebody has to.
Joe: I don’t know if that’s a valid comparison, Einstein and archaeology.
Michael: Take paleoanthropology. It’s a completely different field now than a century ago. How did that happen if no one ever accepts new ideas? They do. It happens all the time.
Joe: They’re being forced to accept Gobekli Tepe, and that’s a new idea. Do you know what you were talking about things taking a long time and what seems like a time to us is really a blink of the eye in terms of archaeology, we’re in the middle of that. We’re essentially in the middle of that with things like Gobekli Tepe, with Forbes publishing an article about the Younger Drayas possibly being impacted by comets and that being one of the causes of mass extinction.
Joe: These are all mainstream ideas now.
Michael: When Alvarez proposed the impact hypothesis for the demise of the dinosaurs in 1980, it was ridiculed, but he turned to be right and then that became the accepted mainstream.
Joe: It takes time.
Michael: Now, people are challenging that.
Graham: But wasn’t the key turning point the finding of the crater? That’s what made the difference. It’s kind of hard to argue with that.
Michael: Where is your crater? This is where perhaps we need to bring in our phone-a-friend. Do you know Malcolm Lecomte, one of the Younger Dryas impact scientists. The point being made is the following. Firstly, that the primary impacts were on ice, that there may have been as many as four impacts, that they were on the North American ice cap. Some craters have been suggested, for example, the very deep holes in the great lakes.
Other craters have been and will be looked at by the team in the coming months, whether it includes the corossal crater, the [Kobeche 01:16:56] terrain and so on and so forth There are candidates. The crater has not been found yet, but I would be surprised if a crater was easy to find, when the impact is on two mile deep ice.
One of the biggest strewn fields in the world, which is the Australian tektite strewn field, there’s no crater associated with that, but everybody accepts the impact proxies. There’s enough of them to justify that, and that’s what’s going on around this impact hypothesis now.
Graham: A related question to that is, not the lost civilizations and the demise of humans, but the mega faunal extinction of North American mammals. This has been long debated before the impact hypothesis was proposed, and the competing hypothesis were over-hunting, human just hunted them to the point, not every last one, to the point where the population numbers get too low and these species can’t survive, or climate change, or both.
The climate change weakened the populations then the humans came over and over-hunted them. Then the impact hypothesis is proposed. This was debated and it didn’t fare that well because there were a lot of mammals and other species that didn’t go extinct, that you would expect from a massive impact like that. The kinds of species that humans would hunt, are the ones that went extinct, whereas these other didn’t.
Randall: Why must humans be hunting the largest… There’s no evidence that humans hunted the predators. There’s evidence that they hunted the mammoths, but it’s a very sparse… You have no more than a dozen sites that show association between human hunting and mammoths, and a lot of those like the Lubbock Lake site is being now being questioned, what was presumably, previously interpreted as being butchering marks on the mammoth remains, that are now being re-interpreted as possibly natural marks on the mammoth bones, but it’s a big stretch to go from, “Okay, we’ve got a dozen sites where we have mammoth remains and along with those mammoth remains, we have a few clover spear points.
In two or three cases, we actually find or they have found spear point embedded within the mammoth, like in the rib cage, but it’s a very large stretch to go from there to say that 10 or 12 million mammoths or fore species of mammoths on four continents were wiped out by Paleo-Indian hunters probably in bands of no more than two or three dozen —
Michael: Have you ever been to a head smashed in buffalo site?
Randall: Yes, but that’s a good example because nowhere did that go anywhere close to exterminating the species of American bison.
Michael: But each site has its own particular explanation. Could be hunting, could be a massive flood, earthquake, whatever. They all have different —
Randall: Could be a massive flood, yes. Exactly. I think there you and I would be in complete agreement.
Michael: This is what we mean by massive, there’s global versus local. For example, there’s 52 mammalian genero that went extinct in South America. Why would they go extinct in South America, about time that humans were moving down their hunting —
Graham: The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, includes South America.
Randall: It does.
Graham: There were impacts there.
Randall: It does. Again, the dating of the migration of humans into South America, is controversial at this point. There is evidence that humans were there long before… Paul Martin’s idea of blitzkrieg requires that the animals be so stupid, that the had no adaptive capabilities to the appearance of a new predatory species, but what is being demonstrated from examining the life ways of the Paleo-Indian people, is that they had very diversified diets and they were hunter gatherers.
Why would they be choosing the largest, most dangerous animals to hunt, when they had such a proliferation of other smaller animals. We know that they were forging. We know that they were eating sea food and fishing, because all of this is being found in the camps.
It certainly doesn’t explain the extermination of the cave bears, the short-faced bears, the camelops, the giant beavers, the giant armadillos, the American plasticine lion, the ground slaws that were the size of giraffes, four species of probocedeans, meaning mammoths, extinct on four continents. To me like wait a second. We cannot invoke a modern example to say here is the —
Michael: How about the Maori?
Randall: That’s controversial also.
Michael: They drove the Mal birds extinct in —
Randall: That’s an assumption. If you asked the Maori themselves —
Joe: [crosstalk 00:01:21:44] and people with addle addles killing off all the saber tooth tigers. Here’s another answer to one of your question, you were saying why would some of the animals be alive? We know that the asteroid that that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago didn’t kill everything. That is a massive impact, far bigger than anything we’re talking about and many animal survived that.
We don’t know why things survive and why don’t. It could be proximity to the impact. It could be that their food source wasn’t removed. It could be that their predators were wiped out and they managed to survive. There’s a lot of animals that are alive today in this continent.
Like for instance, the pronghorn antelope. pronghorn antelope, Dan Floris is a wildlife historian, wrote an amazing book on it, what was he was talking about, the American Savanna during 15,000 plus years ago, there was all sorts of crazy animals millions of years ago that were like cheetahs, that were running down animals at extreme speeds, which is the reason why pronghorn antelopes can run so much faster than any of their current predators. Something much faster than them was killing them, and that was wiped out, but they managed to make it. One of the reasons why they probably managed to make it is because their predators were wiped out. Is not an even —
Graham: Another point Michael, if it’s overkill, it’s intriguing that the overkill occurs precisely in the Younger Dryas window, because I think you’d agree that now the whole story of the peopling of the Americans is pretty much up for grabs. Clovers first was the dominant model for a very long time, and under that model, we’re to envisage these Clovers hunters coming in across the bearing land bridge, going down the ice free corridor, and then in like 800 years, with their sophisticated fluted points, they wipe out all the mammoths in North American, but now we know that humans have been coexisting and butchering mammoths, coexisting with mammoths for thousands of years before that, possible tens of thousands of years before that.
Michael: You mean from evidence in Siberia?
Graham: I don’t only mean from evidence in Siberia. I can cite you from nature magazine just recently. Huge huge number. I don’t think the Uconn is in Siberia, is it?
Graham: I think the Uconn’s in North America. Jacques Cinq-Mars, the excavator of the Bluefish Caves in the Uconn, back in the the 1970s, was proposing that human beings had been in Americas at least 24,000 years ago. His reputation was utterly destroyed. His research funding was withdrawn, he was given no access to grants, he wasn’t able to do his work.
He was heavily penalized and punished by the community and now, just a few weeks ago, we have the Smithsonian coming out and saying, “Sorry. We got it wrong. Jacques Cinq-Mars was right all along.”
Tom Dillehay, with his work in Monte Verde, the shit that he had to take. I think we’re in very interesting time. The peopling of the Americas is really a paradigm that has absolutely been overthrown. The notion of clovers first —
Michael: I disagree.
Graham: Well, you disagree with Smithsonian then, which is fine. I do too.
Michael: The Mesa Verde, it’s an anomaly. It’s an isolated site. Where are all the sites between Clovers and Monte Verde, thousands of miles —
Graham: Do you honestly think Clovers was still first?
Michael: For thousands and thousands of years and there’s no —
Graham: Come on Michael. Do you think Clovers was still first?
Michael: Hang on. Where are all the people between Clovers and Monte Verde?
Graham: Not my problem.
Michael: It is your problem because you’re the one —
Graham: No, not my problem. They’re there in Monte Verde and they’re there in North America. Go figure.
Michael: What’s more likely, that there’s a missing —
Graham: Go figure why there’s [inaudible 01:25:01] trace in South American Indians and not in North American Indians.
Michael: It’s like the nature of the paper I brought up earlier.
Graham: Maybe people crossed the ocean.
Michael: That the Neanderthals were humans in San Diego,130,000 years ago, but when you look at that, they have mammoth bones, it looks like they have might have been broken in the link, and the tools, but they’re not… Okay, the tools.
Joe: We’re kind of changing subjects here though.
Graham: You’re trying to quibble the evidence of earlier human presence.
Michael: That’s right.
Graham: You’re trying to quibble it.
Michael: I quibble just to challenge it.
Graham: You’re quibbling it, then you’ve got every right to say —
Joe: What are you saying? What are you saying very specifically that’s opposing what he just said?
Michael: The reason archaeologists don’t accept earlier than Clover, earlier than 13,000–14,000 years —
Graham: But they do. They do. It’s massively accepted.
Michael: Say Mesa Verde for example, why don’t they accept Mesa Verde as a —
Graham: I have to bring up an image at this point. They do accept Mesa Verde. It is accepted now.
Joe: Michael, are you sure about this?
Michael: As what, 24,000 years?
Graham: 15 plus. possibly significantly older.
Michael: So 15 is kind of the outside of the window that humans came across the bearing straight, that’s possible. Not 24,000 years.
Graham: Could you open Clovers first?
Michael: Not 130,000 years ago. If it turns our that that Nature paper is right and that’s confirmed, then that does overturn the mainstream theory for sure but —
Joe: This is not like your field of study. Why would you argue against the Nature paper?
Michael: I know. I ask professionals what they think.
Graham: Let’s quote the Smithsonian. Smithsonian, slide number five, today, decades later. The Clovers first model has collapsed. Based on dozens of new studies, we now know that pre-Clovers people slaughtered masterdons in Washington State, dined on desert parsley and oragon, made all purpose stone tools of where ice age version of the exact —
Michael: Yeah, between 13,000. That’s not —
Graham: All between that, and then 24,000 years at the bottom Michael. Are you saying the Smithsonian are wrong on this?
Joe: Michael, you’re jumping into conclusions before you even read that. You want to be right so bad that you didn’t read the part in other animals there.
Michael: I don’t have a —
Joe: No, hold on a second. Confirming that humans had butchered horsed and other animals there 24,000 years ago. It says it right there. You are against it without even reading it, which means you want to be right.
Joe: No? That’s absolutely what’s going on.
Michael: No, because I have no dog in this fight.
Joe: Why didn’t you read that whole thing before you started pointing at you being correct?
Michael: I don’t care.
Graham: You publish Skeptic Magazine and you have no dog in the fight.
Michael: You’re asking me, why don’t mainstream archaeologists accept dates in the tens of thousands —
Graham: You should be Skeptical of Clovers first.
Michael: Call it whatever you want. It goes back 11, 13, 15 —
Joe: What do you think about what that says, that there’s evidence they butchered horses 24,000 years ago?
Michael: I would have to check the site on that. I haven’t seen this article.
Joe: But now that you have seen it?
Graham: Not my problem.
Michael: Not my problem either because —
Graham: But it is your problem because you’re the skeptic and you’re here opposing this and you’re saying there’s no evidence. You haven’t even read the fucking article.
Michael: I’m not opposing anything. I’m saying this is the reason why scientists accept these dates here because there’s lots and lots of evidence for 10,000, 11,000, 12,000.
Joe: They’re scientists.
Michael: Then you find one person that say 24,000, another one like two weeks ago that said —
Joe: This is not one person. This is very disappointing, that you’re arguing this without really doing any research about it.
Graham: The article is titled, what happens when an archaeologist challenges mainstream thinking. That’s in the Smithsonian in the month of March. Jacques Cinq-Mars, it was brutal experience, something that’s Cinq-Mars once likened to the Spanish inquisition. At conferences, audiences paid little heed to his presentation, giving short drift to the evidence, et cetera. It was always the same. When he proposed that Bluefish Caves was 24,000 years old, it was not accepted. What the Smithsonian are saying is now this is accepted. You need to get up to speed with the data Michael.
Michael: My archaeology friends like Jared Diamond who I just checked with on this, who’s at UCLA —
Graham: He certainly has a dog in the fight.
Michael: He just says, “Here’s the problem. For 50 years people propose pre-Clovers examples of sites or evidence. They never hold up. The dating turned out to be incorrect, he carbon 14 was not calibrated right, there was this, there was that. They never hold up.
Joe: So essentially, you’re quoting a friend.
Graham: You’re [crosstalk 001:29:11] away for 50 years.
Joe: You’re quoting a friend who says the evidence hasn’t held up before, instead of quoting these articles with these scientists who are talking about the data that’s showing that human beings butchered horses 24,000 years ago. You’re disputing it just because you talked to a friend.
Michael: I’m saying that that has to be confirmed, that particular site that —
Joe: But why argue against it?
Michael: I’m not arguing against it.
Joe: You certainly were.
Michael: No, I’m just saying that this is —
Joe: Is it me? Am I wrong?
Graham: I feel you were arguing against it and saying that it’s not the case and quibbling it and you seem to be… If I’m correct, you seem to be a Clovers first advocate. Put your reputation on the line and say you advocate Clovers first.
Michael: I’m not going to put a label on it. I’m going to say, in the latest evidence, that overwhelmingly shows humans coming across the Siberian straits into North America, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,000 years ago.
Joe: That they definitely did then. They definitely did then. Did they before?
Michael: What could push it back much earlier would be if they came by boat. Like Island in Santa Barbara. There are sites on the Channel Islands that go back 11, 12,000 years ago, and they came by boat. Now, the problem is if they lived on the shores, which is where the good fishing and eating is those are under water and short of doing good under water archaeology, which is hard to do and expensive, and most of it’s probably gone. We may never know.
Graham: One of my beefs with archaeology actually is that 10 million square miles of the planet that were above water during the ice age are under water now, and marine archaeology is still mainly looking at ship wrecks.
Michael: They do that because it’s where the light is.
Graham: It leaves a big unanswered question. Anyway, for the record, can I at least say that you completely opposed the Smithsonian’s position on this, that there has been no paradigm shift.
Michael: I will look at this. I haven’t seen this piece or anything. I’m not aware of the horse find from 24,000 years ago. I am aware of the 130,000 year date from the Nature paper two weeks ago.
Graham: I have a slide on that too.
Joe: I think the major speculation —
Michael: Show the stone tools. They’re nothing like Clover’s points. It’s just a big hand rock that might have been used. It might have been random.
Graham: Sorry. A big hand rock is all their is before 13,000 years ago?
Michael: No. I’m talking about the 130,000 year old site.
Graham: Oh, 130,000 year old site.
Joe: Oh, you’re talking about the San Diego thing. Yeah.
Graham: We don’t need to talk about that. That raises interesting questions. Was is Neanderthals? Was it Denisovans? Was it anatomically modern humans 130,000 years ago. It raises interesting questions but —
Michael: Or is it a mis-dated site? Or is it a mis-interpreted site because there aren’t stone tools, they’re just rocks.
Graham: I’m not pinning anything to that. I’m saying yes [crosstalk 01:31:40] —
Joe: The full question is not necessarily just about the stone tools, it’s about how the bones were shattered, and they believe the bones were shattered deliberately, indicating that someone was trying to get out the marrow, indicating —
Michael: Maybe, or —
Joe: Yeah, maybe.
Michael: A tractor rolled over it a couple of years ago and it was excavated and broken then. That’s one of the —
Joe: No. No one had excavated. That’s just speculation on your part.
Michael: No, nor my part. This was one of the responses to the paper.
Graham: Immediately, the fight has been quibbled by the archaeological mainstream. Of course, it’s been published by the archaeological mainstream too and the rest of the mainstream is quibbling it. We will see how that plays out.
Michael: I thought you said that can’t happen?
Graham: What cannot happen?
Michael: That the mainstream won’t allow radical ideas to challenge the —
Graham: Nature published it and the idea is being quibbled.
Michael: Here the Smithsonian published so apparently it’s okay.
Graham: Nature certainly would not have published it if the evidence were not strong. I accept that. Nature’s not in the business of publishing fringey stuff. It is a radical proposal, but it’s strong enough to justify a publication. Nature, what’s interesting to me is that the immediate reaction of the archaeological community is now, “What could this mean? Let’s look into the implications of this.”
If there were Neanderthals or Denisovins, in North America, 130,000 years ago, we have a whole new scenario building here that really should interest everyone. Instead the first reaction is, “Let’s destroy this because it’s really annoying. Let’s get rid of it. Let’s prove it’s wrong. Let’s suggest that it was a fucking bulldozer or something like that. Maybe it was. I don’t know.
The work hasn’t been done yet, but that instant sort of… It’s almost like an immune response to an idea that doesn’t fit into the prevailing paradigm, the other work, the work in South America, the Bluefish Caves work, that’s really not controversial anymore. That’s very widely accepted. Clover’s first is a discredited and abandoned position.
I have something else to ask you actually, concerning genetics and DNA. I’m sure you’re well up on that. Can you explain why we have a strong signal of Denisovin DNA in certain groups of South American Indians, and in Australian Aborigines and Melanisians? But that Denisovin DNA doesn’t crop up in North American Indians. How would we explain that if they all came through the bearing straight?
Michael: I have no idea.
Graham: Could be boats.
Michael: This just happens to be something I don’t know anything about. Part of the problem of even doing this —
Graham: It was your idea.
Michael: Well, here we are talking. This is good. But part of the risk is that you’re going find something I don’t happen to know about., and then it’s like, “You see, I made my point.” What point? Like the history of the peopling of America, that area, there’s always somebody that comes in with, “It’s not Clovers. It’s this, it’s that,” and rarely do they last. Why? The dates were mis-calibrated or whatever. It’s not just that scientists are closed-minded, although they can be. It’s that the convergence of evidence isn’t strong enough to overturn the mainstream theory, but it does happen.
Maybe there were multiple migrations into North America and we just don’t have all the sites, but when somebody comes up with a site that’s tens of thousands of years earlier than all the others that are accepted here, and it’s over here, where are all the sites in between? It’s like the 5,000 year gap with the Egyptian complex. Where are sites, if it’s true. They didn’t fly there, so how did they get there? There must be a trail somewhere that we could find, unless they came by boat, and then that evidence is gone.
Joe: Or, unless you’re dealing with 24,000 years ago and there’s not much evidence to find.
Randall: But if they came by boat, then that clearly implies they had navigational skills, they had the ability to build boats and find their way across the ocean and —
Michael: You can do with the coast. You don’t need a big ocean going.
Randall: You don’t need an ocean going, but there’s also —
Michael: This is one hypothesis that’s proposed, is that they came across by boat just following the shore.
Joe: The same area is the bearing straight.
Michael: Yeah. You’re just 100 feet off shore. You can go in and…
Joe: Most likely both, right? One of the issues of course was the short-faced bear was so formidable, according to Dan Floris, that it would have been a huge impediment for people crossing on foot anyway. The short-faced bear went extinct right around the time where you see more evidence of human beings entering in, but why did he go extinct? That’s the big question.
Randall: You have to ass that to the list of predators that there would have been no reason for humans to have been hunting.
Joe: That’s an enormous animal.
Michael: There are two factors that go in here. There’s positive evidence in favor of a hypothesis, then there’s negative evidence against the mainstream hypothesis. You really need both. It’s not enough to just say, “I don’t accept the evidence for here that, “Okay, that’s fine.” Scientists do that all the time.
Joe: What evidence? Let’s speak in specifics because you keep doing this. You keep saying, “Well, they find things and it turns out, no, that’s not true.” You’re essentially proving your point of being a skeptic without having any real cases. You just keep saying this.
Michael: All of the cases we’re talking about.
Joe: You can’t say all the cases. If you don’t want to cite anything specifically, don’t keep bringing up things that are refuted because you don’t have anything that you’re pointing to, so you’re just muddying the water. You’re essentially pissing in the pool.
Michael: The Clovers thing for example. Gobekli Tepe, the pyramids. All of these —
Joe: What’s been disproved?
Michael: I’m making a slightly different point, that —
Joe: That’s the problem. You’re not addressing the actual issues we’re talking about. You muddy the water by saying things have been tossed out the window so we have to be careful here and toss these things out the window as well.
Michael: Not toss out, just contemplate them, published in Nature for example, so let’s watch what happens to the 130,000 year old hypothesis. If it holds up and there’s other sites that are dated that way and so on and so forth, that will be truly revolutionary and scientists would accept it.
Graham: You see, the problem is that when you have a very strong paradigm like Clovers first, which really dominates American archaeology , pre-historic archaeology for a very long period, it’s difficult, from a career point of view, for archaeologists to come up and propose alternative sites. Those who did like Tom Dillahey, like Jacques Cinq-Mars, paid a very heavy price for so doing.
The incentive to go looking for older stuff than Clovers, is extremely low in the archaeological community, as a result of this ferocious reaction that went on for 30 or 40 or even 50 years. Also consider the [Basikilo 01:37:55] excavations in Mexico, where the suggestion of some sort of human presence, 230,000 years ago, good archaeology but it was utterly dismissed and the archaeologists involved were ruined for getting involved. It’s hard to see how that’s a profession that encourages people to think outside the box, when careers get ruined and research funding gets withdrawn, for an idea that doesn’t fit the current mainstream hypothesis.
Michael: Certainly, we don’t like to think that scientists do that. They do that. Are you familiar with Michael Cremo’s book, Forbidden Archaeology?
Graham: Yeah. I know Michael.
Michael: He makes, in my mind, as compelling a case as you do, and for his, humans were here, tens of millions of years ago. His book is 900 pages long.
Joe: Tens of millions?
Michael: Yeah, tens of millions. He’s a Hindu. His idea is this sort of long recycling and —
Joe: What evidence is it based on for tens of millions of years?
Graham: I’m not here to defend Michael Cremo or to have a discussion about Michael Cremo. That’s not why I’m sitting at this table.
Michael: I understand, but my point is that —
Graham: Michael Cremo is not me.
Michael: That’s right, but there’s lots of alternative archaeology, is where I began. There’s lots of alternative archaeology books and theories of [crosstalk 01:39:10] —
Joe: But what evidence is there that supports that?
Joe: But why are you bringing up that when there’s evidence that he’s bringing up.
Michael: Cremo’s evidence is similar to his.
Michael: It’s mostly negative evidence, that I don’t accept the date of this. There is this peculiar footprint looking thing in the mud.
Graham: Cremo refers specifically to the knowledge filter. The most useful about that book is the publication of reports, archaeological reports, which are no longer available to the public, which do suggest an alternative point of view. I would say it’s a very useful book to read. Beyond that, I have nothing to say about that.
Joe: But that’s not necessarily true. You’re saying his only evidence is — He’s pointing to some pretty significant evidence. Like the sphinx thing is a geologist from Boston University, proposed this, because of water erosion. Because of water erosion that could have only been done by thousands of years of rainfall in his opinion, as a qualified geologist. That’s not a lack of evidence.
Michael: I understand but why do no other geologists or archaeologist —
Joe: That’s not true.
Randall: Actually, they do. I’ve had multiple conversations with Robert where he has cited the fact that he has gotten a considerable body of support from other geologists, not from Egyptologists, but geologists who do recognize the effects of sever water erosion on limestone, carbonate rocks, and that’s what we have there. We have severe water erosion. It appears and is preserved on the quarry walls around the sphinx.
The sphinx itself as Graham said, is difficult to ascertain because of all of the reconstruction that has gone on, but the quarry walls, which would have once had the very distinct stepped profile of a typical profile, no longer have that. Now they have a textbook profile, a parabolic profile, that would be consistent with sheet flooding, which would be both disillusioned because carbonated rocks dissolve in acidic waters and what’s called corresion, which would be the effects of water loaded with sand sediment, which would make it very rough.
If you’ve got the sand sediment flowing over the edge of what would have been a quarry wall, what you’re going to end up with a smoothing off of the rough corners and the final result would be a very rounded profile like you see there, and you would also see where the fishers in the rock would be selectively widened and opened by the water penetrating those fishers. It has all of the ear marks of a very textbook case of water erosion.
Joe: Don’t you think it’s very disingenuous comparing that to someone who things that human beings have been here for tens of millions of years with no evidence to support it whatsoever?
Michael: He doesn’t say he has no evidence. He has a 900 page book full of evidence. It’s the quality of the evidence when you say —
Joe: What about the quality of that evidence?
Michael: If it was that good, we’re not geologists sitting here. If it was that good, why don’t geologists look at it, go, “He’s right.”
Joe: But they do.
Randall: They do. That’s the point.
Joe: You’re not listening.
Michael: They do? They all do?
Graham: No, they don’t all do.
Joe: Some do. That’s why it’s in dispute.
Graham: Some geologists who work with Egyptologists say that Shock is wrong.
Michael: We have a geologist on the line. Why don’t we ask him? Mark.
Joe: We can have one guy’s opinion. We could also have other guys’ opinions that we can get from other source.
Graham: This matter has been in the public domain since 1992. It hasn’t gone away. Shock’s argument that we are looking at precipitation induced weathering on the sphinx has not been debunked. It has been opposed. It has been disagreed with, but that is different from saying it’s debunked and Shock stays solid and strong on that issue. He is a credentialed geologist. He is a professor of geology at the University of Boston. He has a right to speak out about this.
Michael: Of course.
Graham: He stated his view. I happen to find his view very interesting, especially since it correlates with what I regard as the interesting astronomy of the site. I think that site has origins that do go back into the Younger Dryas. That’s my opinion. I’ve stated it many times and I’ve presented the evidence that I think underwrites that opinion. You and your colleagues are absolutely at liberty to disagree, and you do.
Joe: You don’t think it’s disingenuous to compare that to someone who says something that defies our current understand of human beings and the actual evolution of humans? You’re talking about someone who’s saying that human beings are how many millions of years old?
Michael: Tens of millions.
Joe: We know for a fact, right? If you’ve paid attention to evolution?
Joe: We weren’t even humans a million years ago, correct?
Michael: Joe, there are creations who think —
Joe: We’re not talking about that. We’re talking about Graham Hancock.
Michael: I know. But my point was that, here you have the mainstream scientists and there’s Graham. He seems so reasonable, but there’s 50 like him and each of them thinks that they’re right.
Graham: That’s your language. He seems so reasonable. Right there, you’re accusing me of dissimulation.
Joe: You’re saying there’s 50 like him.
Graham: The subtext is that I’m not, and then there’s 50 like me. What patronizing, arrogant, deeply unpleasant and personal approach.
Michael: Graham, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean it to sound like that. I really don’t.
Michael: I have a larger point.
Graham: Apology accepted.
Michael: When you’re faced a bunch of different alternative theories that are coming in, take physics, every physicist, like you just had Lawrence Krauss, he gets these letters daily, of people saying, “I think I figured why Einstein was wrong.” He can’t address them all. They are smart people, they are thoughtful people, they really believe it. What do you do with that? That’s my point.
Graham: I feel that’s not my problem. If there are other alternative theories, that’s not my problem either. It’s the problem for the mainstream to sort it out and figure which to pay attention to and which not.
Michael: Well, all right.
Randall: I’m suspicious of this, the whole idea of the mainstream, because even looking in the mainstream, you find so many divergent points of view, that I think that’s basically a fiction, that there is this mainstream that has arrived at this consensus, and that there are no alternative ulterior motives there and that there are no dogmas that are being perpetuated there.
I look at a lot of the geological stuff and realize that there many different points of view. When we talk about these floods at the end of the last ice age, there are many divergent points of view. There is what could be considered the mainstream, yet even that has multiple interpretations. The same with the comet idea. I don’t know what constitutes the mainstream there because there have been a group that has opposed it at every turn. But at the same time, the group that accepts the comet hypothesis has continued to grow.
In fact, there’s even a number of individuals involved that set out specifically to disprove it or discredit it, who are now basically on board. It has grown from being a small handful of scientists, to they’re now 63 scientists, from 55 different institutions, that are on board with the idea that something remarkable happened at the end of the last ice age.
It was probably exogenic, meaning something from outside, something from space. There’s no consensus as to exactly what that was, which would be normal because these discoveries are in their infancy at this point. But there’s been an attempt to discredit the idea, simply because that as the evidence has come in over the last decade, it has evolved and new mysteries have been opened up as the evidence comes in, and the claim is being made, “There’s no consistent interpretation of this evidence, and therefore we debunked it.”
Graham: An example is [inaudible 01:46:48] for the Younger Dryas imact hypothesis. If I publish a paper in PNAS saying Requiem, suggesting that the impact hypothesis is already dead, that was in 2011, every single of one of Pinto’s points have been responded to. Those who are critical of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis rarely cite the fact that the so called refutations have themselves been refuted. That new information is constantly coming in.
I see a very one-sided game being played here with a group of academics, who are determined to demonstrate that there could have been no possibility of anything like a comet impact 12,800 years ago, and that these 63 or 65 scientists who are proposing that are just completely wrong, and when they refute the refutations, I very rarely see that referred to or commented at all.
Your colleague, Defunct, has dismissed the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, without actually going in detail into the debate that’s gone on.
Michael: He has this graph in his paper showing all these different dates for these different —
Graham: That’s from one of the critical papers. There’s another side to this argument. He needs to be listening to what the other side will say. That’s the point where maybe we should have Mark Defunct come on and maybe we should have Malcolm Lecomte come on as well, because Malcolm Lecomte is actually one of those 63 Younger Dryas impact scientists.
Michael: Yeah. Let’s do it.
Joe: Explain to people that are just listening to this, what is this graph that you’re showing?
Michael: This is the carbon 14 date ranges from samples taken from the Younger Dryas’ boundaries. This is the boundary here and the point of this is that there’s not a single consistent series of dates that would consistently show, “Yeah, absolutely for sure at every site it comes in right there,” is that the bounce around a lot here. Maybe Mark, this is his area, he could come on and Skype here and tell us —
Joe: They bounce around and what’s the point of this for the lay person who’s listening to this?
Michael: If you take the ones that are above the grey line, then those are showing that something like an impact happened much later, and the ones below it are that it’s much earlier, so where’s the consistency of a single impact consistent across that middle of that grey line.
Joe: I don’t think there’s any argument there was a single impact. In fact, there’s arguments —
Michael: [crosstalk 01:49:01]
Joe: No, there’s more than one date. We’re talking about a stretch of thousands of years and multiple impacts. Randall?
Graham: The Younger Dryas runs 1200 years.
Joe: Randall, please give me your… You’re the expert of this.
Randall: These are dates for the Younger Dryas. There’s big spread obviously, but there’s also a lot of possibilities for introducing inaccuracies into the dating. What’s called the old wood effect can sometimes make it appear to be older than it is by a millennium or to millennium, but what we certainly do see here is a clustering right around 13,000 years ago, that looks pretty evident to me, and everybody knows, who does radio carbon dating, that the dating might have errors and inconsistency in it.
The one article I think that came out last year by James Kennett and 25 others, was the Bayesian chronological analysis, consistent with synchronous age of 12,835 to 12,735 calibrated years before present, for Younger Dryas boundary on four continents.
Graham: That’s the refutation of precisely what you’re publishing.
Randall: It is. It’s a refutation of this.
Graham: But Mark Defunct does not refer to that refutation.
Randall: Jamie, could you pull up the age of Leo? I think I gave that to you, and go to slide number 167. 167. Go to slide 167.
Joe: Jesus! You’re not fucking around. 167 slides?
Randall: There we go. There we go. A cosmic impact at 12,800 calibrated years before present formed the Younger Dryas boundary layer containing peak abundances in multiple high temperature impact-related proxies including spherals, meltglass and nanodiamonds. Bayesian statistical analysis of 354 dates from 23 sedimentary sequences over four continents established a model Younger Dryas boundary age of 12,835 calibrated years before present, supporting a synchrony idea of the Younger Dryas boundary layer of high probability, 95%.
This range overlaps that of a platinum peak recorded in the Greenland Ice Sheet end of the onset of the Younger Dryas climate episode in six key records, suggesting a causal connection between the impact event and the Younger Dryas. Due to its rarity and distinctive characteristics, the Younger Dryas boundary layers proposed as a widespread correlation data.
Joe: Randall, if I can remember what you said correctly, you believe that there was probably more than one significant impact over a period of several thousand years.
Graham: Let me pop in on that very quickly. I don’t mean to cut you off.
Randall: Go ahead.
Graham: Let’s be clear. The suggestion is that 12,800 years ago, there was… Comets break up into multiple parts. Anybody who saw the Schumacher levy nine NASA films back in 1994 is aware that that Comet broke up into more than 20 fragments, all of which hit Jupiter sometimes creating explosions larger than the earth itself. All right? I don’t think it’s controversial that comets break up into fragments.
This is the suggestion of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, that we’re dealing with a giant comet that broke up into multiple fragments that orbits in the torrid meteor stream and that four of those fragments, that’s the suggestion, four largest fragments fell out of the torrid meteor stream, coming in on a trajectory roughly north west to south east, crossing the North American ice cap and there are up to four impacts on the North American ice cap.
The impact is then continued across the Atlantic Ocean. There a suggestion of impact in Belgium and indeed as far east as Abu Hureyra in Syria. It’s a global event. 50 million square kilometers of the earth’s surface is within the Younger Dryas boundary field, so it’s a really huge thing. The suggestion is that there were multiple impacts at the beginning. The next question is what happened 11,600 years ago when the Younger Dryas ends. Global temperatures shoot up incredible rapidly and the science on that is much less advances than the science on the beginning of the Younger Dryas.
Fred Hoyle, back in the 1980s, was puzzled by the sudden temperature increase at the end of the Younger Dryas, and he suggested presciently, I would say, that this may have been cause by a comet impact in an ocean, so maybe other bits of the torrid meteor stream impacted the earth. Other filaments within the stream impacted the earth 11,600 years ago, or maybe something else caused it.
Robert Shock is in favor of extraordinary solar activity being responsible for that warming. We don’t absolutely know, but that’s broadly the suggestion, where at the beginning and the end. It certainly impacts at the beginning, possibly impacts other things at the end.
Randall: Clube and Napier and others, Duncan Steele and other astronomers have speculated that there could be impact errors, e-pax, in which there’s an enhanced possibility of the earth being impacted, particularly if you have a large comet that enters into the solar system begins to undergo a hierarchy of disintegrations and basically litters the inner solar system with material.
We do know that the earth crosses the torrid meteor stream twice each year, once in late June and once in late October, early November. We know that the Tunguska event if 1908, which is not speculative, I mean, that happened, it occurred on June 30th, which would have been the peak of the torrid meteor shower. It also came from the direction of the sun.
Its position in space where it’s emanated, its radium point in space from which it emanated at that time, was totally consistent with the torrid meteor stream radiant. It’s very possible that the Tunguska event of 1908 was a me member of that family of meteorites. Again, there’s nothing definitive there, but it would be a prime candidate for investigation, that perhaps… Again, I mentioned earlier, this goes back to the work to the work of Fred Whipple, way back in the 1940s, who began to research the torrid meteor stream and came to believe that it was much more active in the past than it is now. That it’s an old diffuse meteor stream that at one time, and like Graham said, it has multiple objects still within it.
Graham: Comet encke is the best known.
Randall: Comet encke.
Graham: That’s a fragment of the original giant comet.
Randall; Of the original giant comet that they estimate might have been based upon the amount of material still remnant in the zodiacal light cloud that perhaps it was somewhere around 60 miles or 100 kilometers in diameter.
Graham: Another thing that I’m taken to task for is that I report the work of Clube and Napier and their suggestion that the torrid meteor stream is actually fucking dangerous, and that we should be paying attention to it. That it has been a hidden hand in human history in the past, and that it can cause us trouble in the future. This is not gloom and doom. We have the technology to deal with the large objects in the torrid meteor stream if any filaments are on an orbit that will result in impacts on the earth.
At the very least, it’s extremely unwise of us not to pay attention. I’m accused of being a doom-monger and constantly predicting the end of the world and this and that, but actually, I’m simply reporting astronomers who are very concerned about the torrid meteor stream and the possibility that we may face further impacts from it in the future. That’s not woowoo. That is science.
Michael: Absolutely, and I would agree with that. That is a form of catastrophism that scientists accept as very real.
Graham: Some do.
Michael: Well, lots.
Joe: What, if anything, do you oppose about what they’ve just said?
Joe: Nothing? Nothing about the Younger Dryas period —
Michael: Just a technical question, your slide was 12,800 on there so Gobekli Tepe, the older see dates are 11,600. All right. That’s a 1200 year gap. That’s a kind of a slow catastrophe.
Graham: No. Gobekli Tepe, to be very clear about the Younger Dryas, one of the puzzling things about it is that you have cataclysm at the beginning and this global temperature slump is surely cataclysmic by any standards, and you have cataclysm at the end. You have massive spike, huge increase in global temperatures and you have meltwater pulse 1B. You have a lot of water going into the ocean at that time, so both ends of the Younger Dryas are cataclysmic.
It’s at the recent end of the Younger Dryas, 11,600 years ago, that we see Gobekli Tepe mysteriously popping up. I know that you’re a staunch opponent of Atlantis and that you believe Pleto made Atlantis up in order to make a political point, and you may be right, but the date that Pleto puts on the submergence of Atlantis is 11,600 years ago, 9,000 years before the time of Solon, which happens to coincide with Meltwater Pluse 1B, and the end of the Younger Dryas, which I would have thought would cause you to rethink your position on Pleto just a little.
Michael: Well, it’s interesting. I’m open to the idea. I tend to read myths in the same way your guest, Darren Peterson does, that it’s a story to deliver some sort of moral homily to us. It’s a commentary on our own culture, our society. It’s a way, a literary way of delivering a message to people. That’s how I tend to read, instead of reading them like, “Let’s see if we can figure out what happened historically.”
Graham: But there’s hard data in Pleto’s whatever you think it is, and that hard data is that the submergence of Atlantis happened 9,000 years before the time of Solon. That is a date. That is 9600 B.C. That is 11,600 years ago. This, to me, is a strong reason why we shouldn’t just completely dismiss Pleto’s notion of a lost civilization of the ice age.
Michael: I’m not against that idea. The idea that the parting of the Red Sea happened because of some impact —
Graham: I’m not proposing that. Please don’t go there.
Michael: I know. I’m just saying.
Graham: Waste of time.
Michael: But there are people that think that.
Graham: I don’t.
Michael: Or that the plagues of the Bible can be explained by natural events.
Graham: I don’t go there. Waste of time. Deal with Pleto.
Michael: My point is that some of them may have historical origins, some of them may be completely made up as mythic stories for some other reason. You have to take them one at a time. In my opinion, the Pleto one is a commentary on his own culture of Athens and being to bellicose, being too warlike, and that this is not good for where we’re going. That’s my opinion.
Graham: The fact that he picks a date that coincides with a geologically significant date of flooding, is not really going to change your opinion.
Joe: It’s a pretty amazing coincidence.
Michael: Is it? We’re finding the connection, not Pleto.
Graham: Pleto said there was an advanced civilization with advanced agriculture, advanced architecture, advanced navigation abilities, which was submerged by the sea, swept from the face of the earth, so that mankind had to begin again, like children, with no memory of what went before, and lo and behold, he puts a geologically significant date on that. A date that we ourselves have only known as significant in the last 20 or 30 years.
Michael: Where is this place, this Atlantis? As you know, there’s a —
Graham: Not my problem.
Michael: There’s a long history of people speculating. If we found a site, that would be a big plus.
Graham: That is in archaeology.
Randall: If we take it literally, obviously then it’s below the ocean. I don’t necessarily take Pleto’s account literally, but I do say, it’s rather coincidental that his dating falls exactly on Meltwater Pulse 1B, when we know there was huge influx of water into the ocean. Also, if we look at his geography, it’s interesting because he cites basically a land mast, west of the Pillars of Hercules, which is Pillars of Hercules, the straits of Gibralta, and he places this essentially in the mid-Atlantic.
I think it was Crant, of one of the commentators on him that said it was something like three or four days sail west. But if you look there, there is a sunken land mast that sunk at the end of the last ice age because of the rapidly rising sea level, and this has been well established by marine geology, looking at evidence that the Asos Plateau underwent an isostatic subsidence, which would have been resulting from the rapidly rising sea level. We know there’s no doubt that the North American continent has rebounded isostatically after the removal of this tremendous mass of ice that mantled North America up to anywhere from 1000 to possible 1500 feet.
If you do a comparable isostatic adjustment of the mid Atlantic ridge, you’ll find that the Asos island complex are much larger and it turns out that that might actually be a nice place to develop at least a maritime culture, something along the lines of the Phoenicians or the Manoans, during the period of the ice age, because during the period of the ice age, the climate of the world was so much different than now.
The great basin area was filled with huge lakes, vegetation forest, savanna and grasslands. Like Graham said, with the lowered sea level, there were much larger areas of the coastline that were exposed. That’s probably where most of people would have resided during the ice ages, near the coastlines, because that would have been the most benevolent place. With the rising of the sea level, all of that’s lost. There’s nothing really fringed about saying, people might have lived on islands in the mid-Atlantic, especially when we know that those islands most likely had a benevolent climate during the ice age. I don’t go into crystal technology and flying machines, or whatever —
Graham: Me neither. Me neither.
Randall. Or all of the speculative stuff that has accredited to it, but if we just keep it simple and say, is it possible that a culture along the lines of the Manoan or the Phoenician, could have existed? Could have they existed on an island culture in the mid-Atlantic? There’s nothing really extreme about that idea, in my mind.
Graham: Even the idea that a more advanced sophisticated technological culture co-existed with hunter gatherers, isn’t too strange.
Randall: We do so in the 20th century.
Graham: We do so today. We coexist with hunter gatherers in the Amazon jungle who don’t even know we exist. I don’t see why a priory, that’s just an impossible idea to look at.
Michael: Am I mis-remembering that in your book, you mentioned Indonesia as site for Atlantis?
Graham: I mentioned Gunung Padang, not as a site for Atlantis. That’s Danny Hillman [inaudible 02:03:50], who is a geologist. He’s Indonesia’s leading expert in megathrust earthquakes as a matter fact. He has written a book proposing that Indonesia was Atlantis and that Gunung Padang, which he’s been involved in investigating, is a site from Atlantin times. Danny has proposed that. What’s interesting about Indonesia is that Indonesia sits upon the Sunda Shelf and the Sunda Shelf was one of the parts of the world that was most massively flooded at the end of the ice age.
If you go back to the end of the ice age, you’re not looking at the Malaysia Peninsula. You’re not looking at the Indonesia islands going out towards the Philippines. You’re looking at a giant continent size land mast, all of which went under water at the end of the last ice age, really rather rapidly.
I think he has a point. It’s one of those areas in the world where there was very large scale flooding. Huge amounts of land were swallowed up. Also, Sahel, the connection of Australia to New Guinea was also washed away. There’s a whole range of issues regarding sea level rise in that very area, which anybody with an interest in these subjects should be paying attention to.
Joe: So it’s quite possible that like today, many of the advance civilizations of today are on the water, whether it’s New York or Los Angeles, and that was probably the case back then, so the idea of Atlantis might not have been about one particular area, but many advanced areas that were wiped out along with their knowledge.
Michael: This is the thesis of that book mentioned, Noah’s flood, that the two geologists with the Black Sea theory, that it was rimmed with small villages and a massive flooding almost instantly wiped out, and then that gets passed down as the oral traditions of these myths. To me that seems totally reasonable.
Joe: Totally reasonable.
Randall: Why don’t we get into more discussion about the actual impact hypothesis and the mega flooding, so that we get our guys om standby, get them involved.
Joe: What does your geologist, your geologist, since you’re by yourself and there’s two of them… It’s only fair, right? What does your geologist oppose to what Randall and Graham are proposing?
Michael: I think it’s on the impact hypothesis versus the multiple glacial dams that burst of over period of time, like I had that slide.
Joe: Let’s call him up and get him on Skype. We’ve never done this before so this might suck. Hopefully it will work.
Michael: This slide here, he was showing these are each independent carbon 14 dates of these different instant floods in North America, from each individual ice stamps —
Joe: What separates these dates? They are separated by?
Michael: Looks like from 20,000 to 12,000, so all before the impact.
Joe: 12,800 wasn’t that —
Graham: Mark’s on the line.
Joe: Mark’s on the line. Mark can you hear us?
Mark: Yes, I can hear you.
Michael: Mike Defunct.
Joe: Mark Defunct. Thank you very much for doing this. We really appreciate you coming on here.
Mark: My pleasure.
Joe: You’ve had a chance to listen to these guys talk. What is your thoughts just stepping into this cold?
Mark: First of all, I did not mean to upset Mr. Hancock. He seemed to be quite disturbed and I want to apologize if I’ve disturbed him.
Graham: No, you haven’t disturbed me and I’m not upset. It’s just simply that you’re extremely selective in what you present in your admittedly draft article that you’ve chosen to put online. You don’t represent me accurately.
Mark: Let me go ahead and answer his question, because I know we’re getting short on time here.
Joe: No, we have plenty of time. We have plenty of time.
Mark: Okay. First of all, would you allow me just to address Gobekli Tepe for a minute?
Joe: Sure. Would you like to address the article first? I think that probably would be the most fair since we just brought that up.
Mark: Okay. I’m sorry. What was the question then?
Graham: I read out on air various passages in your article where you misrepresent me.
Mark: No, I didn’t.
Mark: No, I didn’t misrepresent you.
Graham: You didn’t misrepresent me? Okay.
Mark: In fact, you said that I said that I was actually talking about someone in Indonesia, when I said you didn’t understand Newton’s physics.
Graham: No, I’m sorry. I didn’t say you were talking about someone in Indonesia. I said you were talking about Jesus Gamarra in Peru, is who I was talking about. Jesus Gamarra does have very exotic views on gravitation, which I state seriously are not my interest. I do say he may be right, but I don’t say he’s right. I say this is not my interest. I go on to say what my interest in his work. You pick on that —
Mark: Excuse me, you’re drowning me our here. I was asked to explain whether or not I thought I was misleading. I don’t think I was misleading. You clearly state in there that maybe gravity was due to the way we’ve changed orbits around the sun. Gravity is not die to that. It’s due to mass and the inverse of —
Graham: No, I don’t state that.
Mark: What do you mean.
Graham: I don’t state that. Jesus Gamarra states that and I say I disagree with it.
Mark: I caught you in there.
Graham: I say I disagree with it.
Mark: Oh, come on. I want to be respectful. I can’t really hear you when I’m talking. I apologize, but I feel like you are selectively changing the meaning of what I’m saying.
Graham: Why don’t you quote me as these words from my text? When you say that I buy the gravity thing of Jesus Gamarra, why don’t you quote me when I say —
Mark: Come on.
Joe: Hold on.
Mark: This is just the opposite of that.
Graham: When I go on to say, not quoted in the attack is the following, “However, this isn’t the part of his theory I’m interested in. Where I feel he is solidly persuasive, is in his observations of the anomalous character of the monuments of the Andies.” I am not pinning anything on Jesus Gamarra’s gravitational ideas.
Mark: I know you’re not.
Graham: I am saying very clearly what it is in his approach, that I am interested in. I’m not going to dismiss all of his approach because he has an approach on gravity that you don’t like. That’s not even of interest to me, and I say so in the book. You don’t report that, therefore I suggest you misrepresent me.
Mark: Mr. Hancock, what I brought up him for was simply to state that you didn’t understand, and I say it right there, that you don’t understand Newton’s physics.
Graham: But I’m not even talking about Newton’s physics.
Mark: So how will we take you seriously as a scientist is you don’t understand Newton’s simple physics?
Graham: I am not talking about —
Mark: The laws of Newton. For heaven’s sake.
Graham: If I wished to make an argument about gravity, I wouldn’t go saying that that isn’t the part of Jesus Gamarra’s theory that I’m interested in. I’m interested in the other aspect of his work. His observations through years of field work.
Mark: My point wasn’t that. My point was simply to point out that you didn’t understand Newton mechanics. We’re not talking about this guy,
Graham: You’re completely wasting time here.
Michael: Everybody stop. Graham, the way the article is —
Joe: Michael, hold on a second. Let these guys talk it out.
Michael: We did misrepresent him. We did. The way the sentence is structured, it’s clearly out of context. We’re going to change that.
Graham: Yeah. I was taken out of context and that’s what I’m objecting to.
Michael: Mark, I’m not sure why he included it in the book in the first place, but he’s not arguing about gravity at all. We will fix that. Maybe we can get straight to the flooding thing that Randall was talking about.
Joe: As long as Graham is fine with that. Graham, I know there was something else that you objected to.
Graham: The other thing that I find to be misrepresenting is there a statement, “Yet Hancock makes the following stunning claim, “Our ancestors are being initiated into the secrets of metals and how to make swords and knives.”” What Mark Defunct does not tell his readers, is that I make that claim… I don’t make that claim. I am actually reporting what is said in The Book of Enoch. That’s not me who said that, that’s the Book of Enoch.”
Michael: We will fix that. Graham, we’ll fix that.
Graham: Okay. Otherwise, let’s get back to the main meat of this for god-sake.
Michael: Just give me the list of things and we’ll fix it.
Graham: I will.
Michael: Because that’s not the point of that.
Joe: Mark, you’re obviously very critical of Graham’s work, and maybe erroneously so. But let’s get to what you think about what you’ve heard so far.
Mark: All right Mr. Rogan. I don’t want to come across as a pompous scientist. What I want to do is I want to protect people from these grandiose assumptions. Mr. Hancock, in his first book —
Graham: Please call me Graham. Please call me Graham.
Mark: Okay. Graham, in his first book, in Fingerprints, suggested that there was a continent where the civilization lived, and through machinations, this continent went south and ended up destroying that civilization. As a geologist, that’s just nonsense.
Now he comes back and he wants us to believe that he was all wrong, and then all of a sudden it’s okay now to believe in comet strikes that killed this famous civilization that’s supposed to exist. This is duping people. I don’t know if he means to do it, but he certainly seems to be duping people.
Graham: Mark, all my work is in print and online. I gather that you see your role as a protector for the public. Obviously you feel that the public are not intelligent enough to make discerning decisions of their own, in this respect. However, to address —
Mark: I’m saying that the public doesn’t understand the science to the degree that you’re misrepresenting it.
Graham: So they need the superior knowledge of Mark Defunct in order to understand it. Fine.
Mark: No, I think they need the knowledge of science, not knowledge that I have.
Graham: It’s okay. Let me come to your point, which is you are saying that I proposed one mechanism for cataclysm in Fingerprints of the Gods, and that I’m proposing another mechanism for cataclysm today. What I proposed in Fingerprints of the Gods was that there had been a gigantic cataclysm in the ballpark of 12,500 years ago.
I looked at a number of possibilities, of which the most striking to me at the time was earth crust displacement, and earth crust displacement is reported as the work of Charles Hapgood, not my work, but I do report it in Fingerprints of the Gods as an excellent theory, which explains the information. Since I wrote Fingerprints of the Gods, I’ve learned a lot. I’ve learned a lot and I wouldn’t want to defend that theory strongly today.
I don’t know if you have bought the latest edition of my book, the paperback edition of Magicians of the Gods, but it contains a chapter saying whatever happened to earth crust displacement? I address the change of view in this, and I think I have a right to change my view and I think it’s healthy that…
Why would I stick permanently to a view that I held in 1995, if new evidence persuades me that it’s wrong? I’m sure that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Fundamental proposition is we had a massive global cataclysm in the ballpark of 12,500 years ago, so naturally, it’s of great interest to me when a large group of scientists, more than 60 of them, over a period of more than 10 years now, present evidence of a massive comet impact event 12,800 years ago, exactly in window I proposed.
Mark: Graham, you are implying that there are a lot of people out there that believe in this. There are some people that believe in it, I agree, but for the most part, I think taking an honest view, the comet hypothesis has gotten debunked.
Graham: That’s complete rubbish, Mark. That’s complete rubbish.
Mark: By the way, I would also point out that in finger prints, you had people believing that the end of the world was coming in 2012. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you say things like that and then change your mind? We could all be dead by now if we believed you.
Graham: Yes. I have absolutely changed my mind on the Mayan calendar. I regard the Mayan calendar as an interesting technological artifact with a better estimate of the length of the solar year than the estimate that we have with today. The Mayan calendar is based primarily on the position of the sun amongst the constellations at the winter solstice.
We are in an 80-year window when the sun sits astride the dark rift of the milky way, between the constellation of Sagittarius and Scorpio, on the winter solstice. That window is 80 years wide, so he story of the Mayan calendar by the way isn’t actually quite over yet, but I’m not —
Mark: Do you know what procession means?
Graham: Yes, I know exactly what procession means.
Mark: Okay. Well, all of this stuff that you claim is on a procession, a procession is the earth spinning like a top.
Graham: Don’t teach grandma to suck eggs.
Mark: It has nothing to do with running through comet clouds, and yet, you’re saying that somehow, we’re on some sort of cycle, where the comets are going to come back and strike the earth right now, sometime during the next 40 years. That’s what you said in Magicians.
Graham: No, that’s what Victor Clube and Bill Napier and Emilio Spedicato are saying.
Mark: Don’t blame this on other people.
Graham: I’m a reporter.
Mark: You’re the one that said it in your book. You just got all over Michael Shermer for saying the same things about other people. I want to know what you think. You tell me what you think.
Graham: Mark, I am a reporter and I make it very clear in the [crosstalk 02:17:18]. I’m not copying up. Let me finish.
Mark: You’re talking about science.
Joe: Mark we can’t talk over each other like this.
Graham: I am a reporter and it is my job to report the work of other people, and I report the work of Victor Clube, Bill Napier and Emilio Spedicato, all of whom draw attention to the torrid meteor stream and who regard it as the greatest collision hazard facing the earth, at this time, and who specifically indicate that we may run into a filament of the torrid meteor stream in the next 30 years, that is going to be very bad for our civilization. It’s not my —
Mark: It has nothing to do with procession?
Graham: When did I say it had anything to do with procession?
Mark: You have a whole section on procession in Magicians of the God.
Graham: Indeed, as a clock, as a timer, as a way of going back through the ages, but I’m not saying procession is causing this encounter with the torrid meteor stream. Go find the paragraph where I said that.
Mark: No. What you’re saying is that we’re on a cycle, that 12,000 years ago, civilization was destroyed and now you’re saying that civilization was so smart, that they knew we were going to go through another shower and we’re all doomed in the next 40 years, but you didn’t say doomed in Magicians like you did in Fingerprints, but we must conclude that that’s your opinion, because I don’t know anybody else that you’ve referenced on that issue, but procession has nothing to do with that. It’s not even that cycle. It has a cycle of about 21,000 years so your cycles are even off of procession.
Graham: 25,920 actually, for a procession.
Mark: That is not a procession.
Graham: One degree every 72 years, give or take a small margin. That is the procession. You’re really teaching grandma how to suck eggs here.
Mark: Anyway, I guess this has just been going on all day. You can’t criticize Michael for bringing up other people that are saying strange things and comparing it to you and say, “Oh no. You can’t say that because it’s not about me. It’s not true.” You’re doing the same thing. You’re reporting about other people and saying nonsense.
Graham: I am reporting the work of Victor Clube, Bill Napier and Emilio Spedicato.
Mark: That’s what Michael’s doing.
Graham: I also indicate that I strongly support that work. That’s as far as I go.
Joe: Mark, if I could stop you here, you think that this comet wiping out all the ice age megafauna theory has been debunked? Is that what you’re saying?
Mark: No sir. I have not said that, but I think that if you read the literature carefully, the majority of scientists right now, and I know that this is still a go, and you know what I like about the comet people, is that they’re doing it in the scientifically right way. They’re getting people to review the material, they’re getting people to go through that [goblin 02:19:56], to where they get criticized, they make sure that they do things right and they get it out there.
Firestone did this is 2007, he was crucified. His group has comeback with a lot of good stuff. I want to wait and see this play out. I said that in that my paper, that we’re going to have to wait to get a conclusion here. I’m not saying that they’re wrong, but right now, if I read the literature, as a scientist, I have to say that the comet guys are getting hit pretty hard.
Graham: What do you make of the latest platinum paper in Nature’s scientific reports? The platinum anomaly across North America and its coincident in time with the Greenland ice cores and the platinum anomaly there? What do you say to that?
Mark: I say that, and maybe we can bring him on, the problem with that is that what’s his platinum have to do with the comet? Platinums are high in asteroids, but they’re not high in comets. Comets are icy bodies. I saw the paper. I read it. I think it’s interesting but I can’t, for the life of me, figure out how he’s correlating it.
He has, in the different areas of the [inaudible 02:20:59], he has platinum concentrations that are seemingly not matching up. They’re outside the Younger Dryas, they’re inside the Younger Dryas. I’d like to you to show those if you can, because it’s hard to understand what he’s trying to say, other than it doesn’t refute the comet hypothesis.
Graham: Let’s bring Malcolm on, since he’s one of the co-authors of the platinum paper.
Joe: This is going to get super complicated.
Graham: Let’s try.
Joe: We can only do one caller at a time apparently.
Graham: I think Malcolm should have his voice heard.
Mark: I don’t want to criticize if he can’t be here.
Joe: That’s okay, Mark.
Graham: He can be here.
Mark: What I’d like to do is go back and talk a little bit, if I may, about Gobekli Tepe, because I’ve read Schmidt. I know that Schmidt never ever found anything to suggest that there were anything in the early part of Gobekli Tepe, that were not hunter gatherers. They all were hunter gatherers. I think I may be wrong on this, but I think he found 22,000 stone tools there when he dug that place up.
Graham: I’m not disputing that.
Mark: He never found any domesticated animals, he never found any domesticated grain. He found tons of bones of animals, so we know that about 100–200 people were probably working on Gobekli Tepe at one time, and they were fed by wild animals and grain.
There’s no reason to go out on a limb here and say that some magical civilization came in. By the way, that’s another thing that drives me crazy. You’re saying that these guys were magicians. You’re saying that they had secret knowledge. What possible secret knowledge did they give to the people at Gobekli Tepe? How can you possibly say things like that?
Graham: Again, I’m not saying that. The word Magicians of the Gods come from the Apkallu in ancient Sumer, and they were considered to have superior powers and they were considered to be magicians of a sort. Should I not report that because it’s there in the scenario in text?
Mark: No. I think you should tell us what Michael’s been asking all day, is what were their super powers.
Graham: I’m not saying that they had super powers. It’s the Sumerians who said that. I simply report that. You can regard that as a cop out if you like, but I am a fucking reporter.
Mark: Why did you call your book Magician of the Gods?
Graham: Because that’s the direct implication of the Apkallu. They were the magicians of the gods.
Mark: I know. It sounds like you’re saying they had magical powers to me.
Graham: No, I’m, saying that they were the magicians of the gods as they were called in an ancient culture. That’s all I’m saying.
Mark: Okay, I just want your audience to know that Schmidt, who worked there for 20 years, that didn’t go there for two days and look around, take some notes and leave and write a book on it, he worked there for 20 years and he found, with dates and everything, he found that there were hunter gatherers there building those megaliths. If you went to Easter Island, and you found the Moai, and you said, “Oh my gosh. There must have been some secret civilization that made these moai, because stupid hunter gatherers couldn’t possible make these,” when we know that there were no special people on Easter Island. It had to be made by hunter gatherers. Why would you poopoo the Gobekli Tepe and have to call a civilization did that?
Graham: Are you seriously saying that the inhabitants of Easter Island were hunter gatherers?
Mark: Absolutely. A matter of fact, we can see the population of the Pacific Ocean.
Graham: So on that little island, they had no agriculture? Are you saying that?
Mark: [crosstalk 02:24:11] get to the Pacific Ocean until about 1000 years ago, to Easter Island until about 1000 years ago. What do you think they were? They certainly weren’t a big civilization.
Joe: Hold on a second. Mark, hold on a second. Mark, please let him respond. Go ahead.
Graham: First of all, did you meet Klaus Schmidt? Do you know him personally?
Mark: You know he’s dead and you know that I haven’t met him.
Graham: Okay. I did meet him. I do know him personally.
Mark: I know you did.
Graham: I did record my interviews with him, with his agreement, and what he states, I don’t disagree with you that the people around Gobekli Tepe were hunter gatherers when Gobekli Tepe was started. What precisely intrigued Klaus Schmidt was the possibility, his phrase nit mine, that Gobekli Tepe was a center of innovation.
A place where new ideas were deliberately seeded and spread out in the population. I have Klaus Schmidt on record saying that. I quote him saying that in my book, and that, to me, is a very interesting proposition because it suggest that we have a site here that is being used to mobilize the population and to transfer to them the knowledge of agriculture, which suddenly appears around Gobekli Tepe, at the time that Gobekli Tepe is functioning.
Michael: What do you mean by sudden?
Mark: Can I add to that?
Graham: What I mean by suddenly is Klaus Schmidt stated very clearly that these are the people, the very same people who made Gobekli Tepe, in Klaus Schmidt’s view, are the people who “invented agriculture”.
Joe: If you don’t mind me interrupting here for a second, what about Easter Island? Was Easter Island established by hunter gatherers or not? You were saying not?
Graham: You say it was established by hunter gatherers. I say not. I say Easter Island was an agricultural society. What’s there to hunt and gather on a tiny island? Have you been to Easter Island? I have, six times. You can walk across it in three hours. What’s there to hunt and gather on that?
Mark: You’re misunderstanding my point. My point is these are not sophisticated people. I want to go back and agree with you on Gobekli Tepe. I think that you got Schmidt right. In fact, it’s a UNESCO site. We all recognize how important it is, but what I think Michael and I can’t understand is how this ties into some magnificent civilization. There’s nothing there that indicates that they were influenced by some other civilization. They started out as hunter gatherers and then they evolved into a agricultural society, and that’s what makes it a great site.
Graham: Can I answer you? You’re seriously saying that there’s nothing there? The largest megalithic site on earth, 7,000 years older than Stonehenge is there. There’s no background to it, no evidence of practice or trade at the megalithic site itself, is the problem for me.
Mark: Honestly, we’ve got megaliths in quite a few sites, and by the way, you’re right. There’s a megalith just down the road from Gobekli Tepe, and there probably several other. I can see them on the maps.
Graham: Yeah, we need to get to the bottom of this.
Mark: We’ve got a wonderful amount of work to do there.
Graham: You bet.
Mark: I think Graham, we’re in good agreement on this.
Joe: Okay, so you guys are in agreement on that.
Mark: What I want to point out is, is that I don’t think that there’s any need to call upon this great civilization that you say exists.
Graham: To me, the simplest explanation is a transfer of knowledge, a transfer of technology. I’ve been writing about the possibility of a lost civilization for more than quarter of a century, that’s what I do. I hope that it’s a useful contribution to the debate. Archaeologists can chose not listen to anything I say to dismiss me as complete lunatic as they often do, to accuse me as you do in writing, of duping the public, of conning the public, and so on and so forth —
Mark; I didn’t use the word conning.
Graham: You did use the word conning, actually. It’s in the very last paragraph of your article because I’ve got it right here in front of me.
Michael: We will fix that.
Mark: Michael, this is the first thing I wrote. I just put it up for my students.
Graham: Well, it’s there.
Mark: It won’t come out in the paper.
Joe: Hold on a second.
Graham: Exact words. “What I’m left with is that Hancock…” I’m going to put my reading glasses on so I can read this properly. “What I am left with,” this is quoting you Mark, “Is that Hancock has a real knack for conning a hellacious number or people into buying his books.”
Mark: That’s not right.
Graham: That’s a direct insult. It’s online in your article. Do you stand by it or not?
Mark: Listen. I apologize to you for the use of that language. Is that what you wanted? Because I do. I did not mean to attack you first.
Graham: I’m sorry you used it in the first place. I think you’re misleading your students.
Joe: Why would you say that you’re just putting that online for your students, as if that’s not a big deal? You’re putting it on the internet. To say you’re just putting online for your students and you’ve been proven incorrect, how many different times in this article now?
Graham; About seven.
Mark: Proven incorrect? I haven’t been proven incorrect?
Graham: Well, you have. You misquote me. You don’t give the context and —
Mark: I’m not the guy that said the world was going to end in 2012.
Graham: Even Michael has said that the Skeptic article will not reflect these out of context statements that you’re making here.
Michael: The core is, is the impact hypothesis likely to be true or not, and as an independent phenomenon, is it connected to Gobekli Tepe and the younger Dryas? That’s kind of what we’re getting at. Maybe you can explain that graph that shows all the glacial dam bursts and the dating of those as thousands of years before the 12,800 year impact.
Mark: Can we put the map up first? We need the map up first.
Michael: Then you guys can get into what does that mean.
Jamie: Which map is that?
Joe: Which map? Which map Mark?
Mark: I’m sorry. It’s the glacial map of Western Washington or Washington State in Oregon.
Michael: I’ll show you what it looks like.
Joe: Jamie will put it up.
Michael: This map.
Mark: By the way, to protect Michael here, I submitted this, Michael made immense amount of changes on that paper. I put it up because I wanted my students to see it. I had no idea that people would go online and look at that like you. Unfortunately, you’ve sent tens of thousands of people probably to it by letting them know it’s on here and I’m sorry for that.
Joe: But why is it okay to just put that up online for your students?
Graham: I don’t get that.
Joe: How come you don’t have any problem with that, but you do have a problem with it as it stands, being released to the general public?
Michael: Maybe he’s looking for feedback.
Mark: I stand by everything I said except for the personal comment at the end.
Graham: We’ll see if that survives the editing process.
Mark: Let’s take a look at this map.
Joe: Let’s put up this map.
Randall: Let’s get up back to the map.
Mark: Okay. The brown areas are, I have to emphasize that the [scatlands 02:30:55] is very famous. Geologists have been working on this for more than 100 years, I bet. and very intricate detail mapping. We know what areas have been flooded. That’s in the brown. The green areas are the old glacial lakes. One of them you can see it the Columbia Lake, and the other one of far right over in Montana, that’s Lake Missoula.
I guess my point here is is that you guys want to make the flooding out here to be immense. I think Bretz’s original idea was that there was just one flooding, but then Bretz came to understand, after looking at the data and all of the geologic work, that it wasn’t just one flood, that’s it’s many floods, and that was the point of all of those dates that I show you, that there have been at least 17 specific floods dates.
There probably as many as 40 to 50 floods out there, and they’re all probably related to glacial dams breaking. Where in the world would you ever say that this small area, relative to a entire continent, why would you say that this is evidence for a comet strike? Not even the comet guys are saying that this flooding out here is related to a comet, because there are a large number of… A very small number of actual area that is flooded. If you take a look now at the dates… Do you have that Michael? The one with the —
Joe: We’re going to bring that up, but let’s let Randall Carlson address you now because he’s the one who’s the expert of this.
Randall: He’s got a point, that if you confine your examination to this area, but the point is, is you’ve got evidence of megaflooding all around the ice sheet margin, from the Atlantic, to the pacific. You’ve got the work of [Kihu and Lord 02:32:58] in the Midwestern states, South Dakota, North Dakota, Eastern Montana, you’ve got massive spillways out there that discharge it off the ice sheet.
You have glacial River Warren that was undoubtedly formed by most likely glacial Lake Agassiz, and you’ve got the St. Croix Rive where I took Graham a couple of years ago, that had mega floods down. There were mega floods down the Mississippi River. There was glacial Lake Wisconsin that discharged down the Wisconsin River, left the Wisconsin dells. There were the Finger Lakes in New York that probably were created by massive emanating off of —
Mark: No, they were scoured.
Randall: Scoured, exactly. Right. They were scoured and they were probably scoured by sub-glacial floods that were coming under high pressure. You have the drumlin fields that are just the south of them. You’ve probably seen the work of John Sean, Claire Beanie and Bruce Reiner knows out of Canada.
Mark: I think Sean’s idea about drumlins in crazy.
Randall: Why would that be? How do you propose the drumlins then were formed?
Mark: Easily. The glaciers came forward and topped the terminal marine and spread the marines out in the drumlins.
Randall: But how? You’ve got features that look like they’re totally fluvially produced. They look like inverted boatels. You look at the internal stratification, how does glaciers create internal stratification? I’ve looked at numerous drumlins in Canada, I’ve looked at Drumlins in New York State, I’ve looked at Drumlins in probably a dozen different places, and where you can see exposures, you see stratification. You don’t see, if glaciers are grinding over a deformable sub-strait, how is it that they produce anything other than a chaotic jumble of glacial till?
Randall: You can actually see layers. I’ve seen it myself and we can pull pictures of it here in a minute. I’d like for you to explain to me —
Mark: Before you do that, because I’m not disagreeing with you. A drumlin, by definition, is made up of till. I think we’re getting kind of technical for this audience, but as eschar is something that’s stratified, not a drumlin. You’re misidentifying them as drumlins.
Randall: No, I am not misidentifying drumlins. I know very clearly the different between an eschar and a drumlin. I’ve looked at many eschars. I’ve hiked on, I’ve flown over them in airplanes.
Mark: Certainly you must agree that the finger lakes are gouged?
Randall: They are gouged, yes. Are they gouged by glaciers or are they also gouged by sub-glacial megafloods?
That’s the question and I think that’s a fair question to ask. If we look at some of the studies, we find out that the depositional material in them is massive. It’s not stratified. It’s massive, as if it was dumped in there over a very short period of time.
Mark: Let me go back to the bigger picture.
Joe: Hold on a second. What’s your point about that?
Mark: Sorry Joe, I can’t hear you.
Joe: Respond to that, what he just said.
Mark: What am I responding to? Oh, look. We’re going to have to disagree. I don’t want to get in an argument with him here. He thinks that they’re done by water, I think that traditionally, the way most geologists see the finger lakes is they’re gouged out. They’re parallel to one another. If he thinks it’s water, okay. What can we do? We can disagree I guess. Let me go back up to the main glacier.
The Laurentide glacier, [Wily Bloker 02:36:41] suggested in the 90s that water, potentially, was changed from flowing down the Mississippi Valley, into the Atlantic or the Arctic. No one has been able to find any evidence of flooding towards the Atlantic or the Arctic. When you say there are all kinds of evidence of flooding up there, [Willy Bloker 02:37:03] backed off of hit theory because we couldn’t find any flooding.
Randall: What he backed off of was the idea that the draining of glacial Lake Agassiz, triggered the Younger Dryas. Because the dating of the draining of glacial Lake Agassiz, was post Younger Dryas. That’s what he backed off of. He didn’t necessarily back off. Look, we know that they were somewhere around —
Mark: He knows that the marines have been carefully… They’ve been carefully mapped, you can wash the Laurentide Glacier, move back , marine after marine and there are no holes in that marine that suggest flooding. There’s no change in the lake level of Lake Agassiz. There’s no evidence there Randall for flooding. You’ve got it wrong, if you look at the mapping, the careful mapping that the geologists have done.
Randall: You’ve just said that there was no change in the level of Lake Agassiz. How is that possible? As the ice receded, the glacial Lake Agassiz expanded, and some point, it finally breached right there by Big Stone Lake in Minnesota, and basically carved out the Minnesota River Valley, which geological studies have confirmed, they call River Warren, and have confirmed that essentially, it was carrying… It’s discharge was roughly 4,000 times greater than the modern Minnesota River that flows there.
Where did that end up? That flowed down into the Mississippi, the Mississippi then conveyed that water into the Gulf of Mexico and deposited huge amounts of delta material that New Orleans is built on now.
Mark: You know, you’re trying to make a flood where a flood isn’t. There’s a difference between a glacial melting, which causes a lot of water, and a comet strike, in which case that creates copious amounts of water. I think you guys referred to it the last time as a tsunami. There’s no evidence of a tsunami in North America.
By the way, here’s another question. Why are you guys talking about North America when your Atlantis is supposed to be in Egypt or you guys have run around, you’ve found some evidence of flooding in North America, and somehow, this relates to a destruction of Atlantis and some lost civilization.
Joe: That’s not Randall. That’s not Randall.
Randall: Forget that. That’s not what I’m talking about right now. I’m not talking about that. We know there was a fennoscandian ice sheet, we know there was a cordilleran ice sheet, we know there was a Laurentide ice sheet. We know they all melted. We know that there was somewhere around six million cubic miles of ice wrapped up in those ice sheets, at the lake glacial maximum.
They’re all gone now. They had to melt. That was an enormous amount of water. I don’t know if you have been out to the scab-lands. I’ve been going back to the scab-lands and the area of Glacial Lake Missoula since 1970. I’ve been across that thing 60,000 miles, back and forth. I have over 10,000 photographs of the material in the field, and I can tell you, those floods were enormous. They were beyond —
Mark: You and your cherry-picking. Look at the map. You’ve shown some pictures. You know we can measure those current ripple marks that these show, we can measure how much water went over them, all you have to do is measure the current ripples.
Randall: You can go into camas prairie and you’ve got a current ripple field there that is about seven miles long —
Mark: I know. I know it very well.
Randall: Okay. The high water marking there is at 4200 feet above sea level. The floor of camas prairie is just 1400 feet lower than that, so we know that there were 1400 feet of water that passed through camas prairie and down into the [inaudible 02:40:36] river.
Mark: No. Because you’re not considering the erosion that took place.
Randall: No we don’t? Are you disregarding the high water marks?
Mark: From the bottom of the canyon to the top of the canyon is not what it was when the water first started flowing in that area. You can’t take the bottom of the canyon and say there must have 4,000 feet of water here.
Randall: I’m not talking about a canyon. I’m talking about camas prairie basin, which is not a canyon. It’s a basin, which is not a canyon. It’s a basin.
Mike: It had to erode upon time.
Randall: Well, most of the material in there was washed in, so we don’t know how much it would have eroded, until somebody does some core samples to get down to something that can be dated to earlier than the late glacial maximum, but the floor of camas prairie is thick layers of very coarse gravel boulders, and this is what composes the current ripples that you see there.
I don’t see how you can look at those current ripples that are sometimes 40 and 50 feet in amplitude, with two and three hundred cord lengths and say that that wasn’t a catastrophic flow. Maybe it wasn’t —
Mark: It was a catastrophic flow, but it wasn’t like a tsunami.
Randall: Then how would you characterize then?
Mark: We can play this game, but every geologist on the planet practically says that there were about 40 different floods until you came along and now you’re trying to refute this because somebody told you a [crosstalk 02:41:57].
Randall: You’re not familiar with the work of Victor Baker or Russel Bunker or a number of others that have changed the 40 floods hypothesis. You can tell me that those current ripples in camas prairie, they’re the product of 40 separate floods?
Mark: Absolutely. In fact, when you showed me your pictures, I could see the flow of changes in that… Don’t give me the, “You’re incredulous,” stuff. Being incredulous doesn’t mean you’re right.
Graham: You do the incredulous all the time Mark.
Mark: That’s because you say some pretty incredulous things Graham.
Randall: 40 floods created the camas prairie. That’s what you’re saying? That’s the product of 40 separate floods?
Mark: I don’t know how many floods have been in there. I know that they’re counting them, and I last read something to the effect of 40, somewhere around there.
Randall: Yeah. That’s based on the work of Richard [Wade 02:42:48]. It goes back to the early 80s and I think he’s got —
Mark: Go to his graph. Can we go to his graph?
Michael: Whose graph? Which graph is this Mark?
Mark: It’s the one right below the map.
Michael: This one. It’s the dating of the floods.
Joe: Here we go. We’re at that right now.
Mark: Randall, hopefully we’re disagreeing as comrades here rather than fighting each other.
Randall: I think so. Yeah.
Mark: I’m just trying to give you some data here. Look at those. Those are Missoula floods, Lake Missoula. He’s got them dated. You’re seeing the dates. He’s got standard deviations, one and two standard deviations on the median thee. We’ve got these things pinned by multiple carbon dates.
The little bell curves there show how many carbon dates he’s got. You can see that these are documented very well, so I don’t understand why you’re so opposed to multiple floods. In fact, I heard in the last time you guys were on this show, I heard you say that you thought there were multiple floods. Now you’re trying to argue against that idea. What’s going on?
Randall: No, I am not. I still think there were multiple floods. I think we have to look at two distinct regimes of floods though. As far as the radio carbon dating, the thing we have to be really careful of is that floods will en-train older sediment, and in that older sediment, there could be radio carbon dated material that doesn’t really date the time of the flood, but was excavated by the flood, en-trained in the flood waters and then redeposited.
That’s a major problem with radio carbon dating any time you look at flood sediments. I do believe there were multiple floods. I think it’s a misinterpretation to think that I only think that there was one flood. The problem is here, and I do, I think we’re colleagues, my approach to this is just like in the MMA when two guys get out there and try to beat the crap out of each other and then at the end of it, they give each other a hug. That’s kind of where I’m coming from. There’s nothing personal.
Mark: I’m sure we couldn’t give each other a hug, but I feel the same way. By the way you guys are very bright and very knowledgeable.
Randall: I really value this because I’m looking for holes in this idea, very much so. I have done some serious thinking about this over many years and I have interviewed most of the geologists that have worked on it.
I’ve been in half a dozen field trips guided by the main geologists that have worked on this, and had a chance to dialogue with them. I’m convinced that there’s a lot to be learned about this. I think we need to be looking at, like you said, the big picture.
We could get back to discussion of the finger lakes and how they formed. I think that’s important. I think we could get back to a discussion about drumlins and how they formed.
There is studies on the valley heads more rained that are at the sound end of the finger lakes. I can’t think of who did it right now — I could pull it up — but basically said that it’s water deposited. But there’s a lot of unresolved issues about what happened during this planetary transition out of the last ice age, and I think it’s important that we have these discussions, that we have these dialogues, and we try to get to the bottom of what actually happened, without imposing too many preconceptions upon our models, because I think we’re looking at something very unprecedented here.
Mark: Randall, I couldn’t have said that better. It was very well articulated. Let me go back to the big picture, if I could, just for a minute, because I want to address something that Graham said earlier, and that is that Graham seems to have this idea that comets break up all the time.
People that understand comets and meteorites understand that the comet shoemaker levy or whatever it was that broke up.
Randall: Shoemaker levy 9.
Mark: It broke up because of the gravitation of Jupiter. We would not expect these comets to break up entering into the atmosphere, is one of the problems that the comet people have had. Firestone once suggested a four kilometer wide comet striking. Now, they’ve broken it up into multiple comets. The problem is, you can’t get it separated. If a comet break up, it’s very hard to separate it so that it hits in multiple places.
This is a big picture kind of problem that the comet people are having with the scientists. You may be able to get it to hit the North American ice sheet, but I’m telling you that the studies are showing that you’re not going to be able to do this without leaving some marks, and so far, nobody’s been able to find a crater. Do you know that they’re suggesting that a four kilometer comet, if it could break up, it would generate one million meteor craters?
You know how big that was? That was 49,000 years ago. We don’t see that in the climate record. 49,000 ago, we should see it. We don’t see it. It’s about barely a little thing. We’re going to have a huge comet strike.
Graham: Malcolm Lecomte has been standing by for the best part of three hours. Since he’s a member of the comet research group, wouldn’t it be a good time to bring him on?
Joe: Yeah, we can bring him on, as long as Mark is satisfied that he’s said his piece, but unfortunately Mark, we can’t have two people on the phone at the same time.
Mark: Okay. I really appreciate you having me on Joe.
Joe: I appreciate you coming on too and I’m glad you guys, especially you and Randall, seem to have ironed out a lot of your ideas.
Mark: Randall’s a great guy.
Joe: I think that there’s a lot to be learned here, obviously, and there’s a lot that already had been learned and this is an unbelievably fascinating subject. I think often times when these debates get heated, a lot gets lost in who’s wrong or who’s right, but I think what we can all agree on is that what we’re dealing with is an unbelievable point in history, and the history of this planet.
Trying to figure out what caused it and why, is some really fascinating stuff, so Mark, I really appreciate your time and I really appreciate you imparting your knowledge on us.
Mark: Well said Joe.
Randall: Mark, if at all possible, I would love to keep some of this dialogue going because I really would value your input.
Mark: I tried to write you Randall and I couldn’t get through. I’m not sure why.
Joe: We’ll connect you guys.
Randall: I’m not either because I would have seen that, I would have seen that, I would definitely would have responded.
Joe: I’ll hook you up.
Mark: I have website. Please send me. I’d love to keep up with it.
Randall: I will.
Joe: We’ll definitely connect you guys after this is over. Thank you once again Mark. I really appreciate you.
Graham: Mark, if I can just say, I do hope you’ll revisit your article and just have a look at the context in which you present me then.
Mark: Absolutely. Never meant to insult you.
Graham: All right.
Joe: Thank you Mark. We are going to call caller number two. This is a fascinating podcast. Your friend who is?
Graham: Malcolm Lecomte.
Joe: Malcolm Lecomte.
Graham: He’s one of the comet research group scientists. This is a large and diverse body of scientist who come at the material with different expertise and different areas of knowledge. It happens that Malcolm is a co-author of the recent, I regard it, highly significant paper, ‘Finding a Platinum Anomaly Across North America’. I would hope he might begin with addressing why that might indicate a comet impact.
Joe: Right. Is Malcolm on?
Jamie: He should be. Malcolm, can you hear us?
Malcolm: I can hear. Can you hear me?
Joe: Excellent. How are you Malcolm? Thank you very much for joining us.
Malcolm: I’m happy to be here.
Joe: Give us your thoughts on what Graham just said, if you would, as to why it makes sense that it was a comet that hit and why there would be these large deposits of these… What was it exactly?
Graham: Platinum in the recent paper.
Joe: Platinum and what else?
Graham: Malcolm is also an expert in magnetic microspherules and I think he can address that issue as well. The whole range of proxies, of impact proxies.
Joe: Malcolm please, just give us your thoughts on this entire phenomenon, if you will.
Malcolm: I will. Happy to be here. Actually, I was very interested to hear Mark’s… His initial statement kind of put me off but his subsequent statements I thought were pretty accurate. There were many problems with the hypothesis that there was an impact, and that’s the way I consider. I don’t really think in terms of a comet impact, I think in terms of an extra-terrestrial impact, because I don’t think we’ve proven a comet impact.
I don’t think we know what kind if an impact it was. There’s too many questions that have to be answered. I can’t sign up to say that I’m defending the comet impact hypothesis because I don’t frankly know what it was. We have a lot of evidence that appears to be extra-terrestrial in nature. We have magnetic microspherules.
The most frequent criticism we get is that the evidence has not been replicated, and that’s where I thought Mark was going when he… His initial statement was that the comet impact hypothesis has been debunked. I think what he meant was, if I can speak for him, was that the fact that it was a comet has been debunked. I don’t think that’s necessarily true yet. It just is an indicator that it was a comet.
We have indications that it was more of an asteroid than anything else. I can conceive of a rubble pile that somehow became disassociated or there had to be a mechanism or a model for that, and I don’t think we have a model for that. Asteroids come in many flavors and rubble piles are certainly one. Loose aggregates or material that could become separated possibly, but I just don’t know at this stage.
The biggest criticism that we faced in terms in terms of the impact hypothesis is that the evidence has not been replicable. We now have three or four lines that have been replicated by numerous independent groups. If you look at the nano diamonds which may be the most controversial of the bunch of the evidence lines, that’s been replicated by four different groups, independent, five different studies.
The magnetic microspherules, which were initially treated very hostilely, because they didn’t understand what we were talking about, and some of that was a self-inflicted wound of the part of the initial study, which didn’t show what we really were finding. That’s been corrected and yet the same objection or criticism is being made.
Magnetic microspherules are typically very… They’re melted and then they’re quenched. They’re subjected to high temperatures and then those temperatures are rapidly reduced, which is short of accepting to be characteristics of an impact. We’ve got that evidence of an impact, and that’s been replicated by ten different independent groups, including many of the same sites that were originally disputed.
The disputation has been largely based upon the failure to do the most basic part of the protocol, which is to do the scanning electro-microscopic analysis of the spherules. That is the microspherules and the nano diamonds.
The other is the discovery of platinum, iridium or osmium, which are the platinum group elements, which are characteristic of an asteroid impact. We found some evidence of iridium, not a lot, but there have been certain sites that are rich in iridium, at the… Once again, this is at the Younger Dryas boundary, not above, not below. It’s there at that boundary, so they seem to be pretty solid.
Joe: Iridium is indicative of an impact of extra-terrestrial origin, correct?
Malcolm: That’s correct. The platinum is simply just another more plentiful platinum group element. Obviously, that’s why they’re called the platinum groups. Osmium is one that is usually associated with iridium. There are now 11 studies by independent groups, that have confirmed the occurrence of platinum, osmium or iridium. It looks to me like the evidence is piling up. The most recent one of course is the platinum study by Moore, that just came a few months ago.
Joe: I’m sorry to interrupt you, but Randall Carlson just had us pull some images that we’re looking at. Randall, please explain what this is.
Randall: This is from Malcolm’s 2012 independent evaluation of conflicting microsperules results from different investigations. This is his supplementary information figure four. It’s just so that the people watching this can actually see what you’re talking about when you’re discussing the rapid quenching effect on the surface of the microspherules. We’ve got up on the screen here, supplementary information figure four, where you’ve got the microspherules from Topper, Blackwater Draw and Paw paw cove. Just so people can see what surface texture looks like.
Malcolm: Yeah. You see these, they look like leaf-like structures across. Some of them are harder to see to but they’re there. If you see the original image, it’s large enough and clear enough to actually see these, what we call dentritic structures or almost like a carpet weave. Those are essentially truncated crystallization.
It’s a crystallization process that’s quenched. I’m not a geologist. I’ve had geologists try to explain this to me and that’s what I’m trying to do here, but the fact that these are enhanced, these things are quite enhanced at the Younger Dryas and really depleted above and below. There are spherules throughout the column.
Any column of soil, when you go down vertically, deeper, you find sperules, but those spherules are typically what we call orthogenic, which means they were created by terrestrial processes. You need to do a scanning electro-microscope and x-ray, dispersive spectroscopy to differentiate those from the terrestrial process that are producing these things.
Randall: Yeah. Your figure has a framboidal spherule, which is probably what you’re talking about. If you could go to slide 113, Jamie. There it is. You can see, very distinct difference. We’ve got your figure five up on the screen now, Malcolm.
Malcolm: Yeah. That’s a typical framboid. When you look at an optical microscope, they look just like the or very much like what we call impact spherules or magnetic microspherules, and they occur much more frequently. I’ve got sites that have tens of thousands of these things in every couple of centimeters of sediment, so you’ve got to separate the impact spherules or the magnetic microspherules from these things.
Graham: But what you appear to be saying Malcolm is there is an abundance of impact proxy evidence, which in your opinion, adds up to a cosmic impact of some sort, not necessarily a comet. You’re suggesting an asteroid. It’s a mysterious event in that sense, but what it adds up to is an impact in your view. Is that a fair summary?
Malcolm: Yeah. All these, what we call proxies, the impact sperules, the platinum group elements. The meltglass, which I haven’t discussed yet, and the nano diamonds are enhanced and the enhancement has been replicated on numerous occasions for each of these proxies.
Graham: So anyone who says that the work of you and your team has been completely debunked is clearly not completely familiar with the literature then.
Malcolm: That would seem to the case. That or disingenuous in that regard. Because typically, what we see is that the opposition literature does not cite the studies that have come out. We try and cite both the critical studies and ours and give reasons why our studies supplant theirs. I wish they would share but that hasn’t been the case.
Randall: Could you go to slide 82?
Joe: It would be nice if we could have had you on with Mark so you guys could exchange information, but unfortunately, our capability is that we can only take one phone call at a time. We will definitely try to update that for the new studio, although we never anticipated this was going to happen in the first place, but it’s been awesome. There we go.
Randall: Up on the screen Malcolm, we’ve got from Ted Bunch et al, 2012, very high temperature impact, melt products as evidence for cosmic air bursts and impacts 12,900 years ago. We have figure from supplementary information six, the light photomicrographs of magnetic and glassy spherules from Melrose Pennsylvania, and it shows the wide variety of shapes which include spherules ovals, tear drops and dumbells, and I think… You can see pretty distinctly what you’re talking about here with the glassy spherules. I’m not sure if you were co-author of this paper or not.
Malcolm: I was not.
Randall: You were not. Okay. Are you familiar with that paper?
Malcolm: Yes, I am.
Randall: Good. It shows some very interesting, teardrop shapes, dumbbell shapes, you can actually see that dumbbell A chapter consists of two dis-similar accretionary spherules, one clear silicon rich and the other opaque iron rich, that have been fused together, and that’s pretty convincing evidence of the energy that’s involved in these phenomena, that you actually have these fused sperules like this.
Jamie, if you go down to the next image, which is a scanning elecron microscope images, comparing Younger Dryas, boundary sperules on the top row with known impact spherules on the bottom row. This is a very interesting comparison because, and you’ve probably seen this one, Malcolm. A, there’s three across the top, three across the bottom and A is actually from Knudsens Farm in Canada.
It’s cratacious tertiary boundary spherule, and just below it is a Younger Dryas spherule from Lake Cuitzeo in Mexico. One can see the morphological similarity of the two quite clearly.
Then C and D compares. C is a spherule from the Tunguska air burst then D is Younger Dryas boundary from Lingen Germany, which dates to 12,800 years before present. Here you can see very clearly the rapid quench melt texture on the surface between the two, comparing Tunguska air burst with a Younger Dryas boundary object. Then finally, E and F, we have an iron-calcium-silica from Meteor Crater, compared with an iron-calcium-silica Younger Dryas boundary sperule from Abu Hureya, Syria.
Again, in each of these cases, you can see the similarities between the different types of objects. You have these three objects which come from that Younger Dryas boundary layer, all which have morphological similarity to known impact proxies, and this is very difficult to dismiss this as being mere coincidence.
Malcolm: Yeah, I would agree. Especially the A, C, B and D pictures are very similar to the material that I’m taking out of the Younger Dryas boundary at the sites that I’ve been looking at.
Joe: Malcolm, what evidence, if any, are you aware of about what is that nuclear glass material called trinitite. Trinitite that’s how you say it? From what I understand, there’s quite a bit of that that also appears in the same time period, in the core samples?
Malcolm: There are some instances of it, but I wouldn’t say quite a bit. Some of these, they are very site specific and one of the things I’ve been trying to do is work my way closer and closer to Canada and see if there’s any truth to this whole idea that the primary impact site was Canada. I’ve been trying to look at sites closer and closer.
This would be eastern Canada. I’ve seen sites in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, that produce what appears to be some form of trinitite or meltglass, or what Ted Bunch would call scoria like objects and it seems to bear out that at least that far, we’re getting richer material out of sediment. Out of the Younger Dryas boundary sediment.
Joe: Is this trinitite, this material, only produced in this manner? It’s also produced through nuclear explosion test, right? But other than that, is this the only way that it’s produced on earth?
Malcolm: An impact would do it, or a fulgurite could do it.
Joe: What is that?
Malcolm: A fulgurite is what’s produced by a… A lightning strike could produce. Spherules. It could produce all the high temperature products that you see in an impact, but in a very limited way. You wouldn’t expect to see it in a layer unless there was some sort of global lightning storm.
What I was going to say about the meltglass is that in the material we’re looking at, you see evidence of melted zircons, melted chromite, all of which are very high temperature features, indicating very high temperature that was experienced by that particular object.
Randall: Are you seeing the image we have up here?
Malcolm: Yes, I am.
Randall: Great. Okay, good. There A is for Meteor Crater and B is from the Trinity Nuclear test, with a 22 kiloton yield, and then C is from one of the Soviet era nuclear tests and D is, again, a scoria like object from Abu Hureya.
Michael: You’ve got to love that it says Stalinite.
Malcolm: The meltglass or scoria like objects has only been found in about half a dozen sites to this point. I think it’s a matter of how close you are to an impact point, and if they’re very far apart, that would lend credence to this idea of multiple impacts. If they seem to be getting more plentiful as you get further and further North, then maybe there’s more legitimacy to a primary impact site. Right now, we just don’t know. We’re still working that out.
Randall: Okay. We’ve got another nice slide from the Bunch article here.
Malcolm: Beautiful slide. That’s a god example.
Randall: Yeah, calcium oxide, rich scoria like object created by the melting of carbonate and silica rich precursor rocks, the yellow area is the calcium oxide, the white are has lechatelierite and dark areas are iron oxide. That’s a really nice —
Malcolm: Yeah, lechatelierite.
Randall: I’ve been struggling with getting that pronunciation down. Then Jamie, if you go to the next one, we will see, there’s a scoria like object from Meteor Crater Arizona. You could toggle back and forth between the two so that people can kind of see the similarity between them.
Malcolm: In the sites that produce meltglass, that’s what I’m seeing. Those two types of particulates.
Joe: How much of this material are you finding in these sites?
Malcolm: I have to say, you don’t find a lot of this material. It’s a struggle to get it, but what you don’t find is anything above or below it, that particular layer, unless you know that there’s been a very dynamic environment, in which case, it can be spread out in the soil column.
Graham: What’s the implication of nothing above it and below it?
Malcolm: That you’ve got a specific date for it, a specific date for it. We try to limit out investigations on layers that have been dated to the Younger Dryas boundary or contain Younger Dryas boundary layer. Like I say, if you have a very dynamic environment, it can really screw things up. It can be very difficult to interpret. If you’ve got a lot of flooding, repetitive flooding —
Graham: This is difficult science to do.
Malcolm: Say again.
Graham: This is difficult science to do.
Malcolm: Yeah. I should add there that proving an impact is not easy. It takes a while, just as proving an impact crater is not easy, as I’m sure Mark would agree that you find a crater, there’s no guarantee there’s either an impact even or a volcanic event, until you do the research and spend the time to investigate it.
Graham: But if you could summarize for us, what’s your opinion now on the balance of the evidence, always bearing in mind that you may change that opinion as more evidence comes in?
Malcolm: I would say we’re facing an unprecedented type of event here that appears to have been something approaching global. We’ve got evidence now in South America, we’ve got evidence, and a lot of this stuff is unpublished. There’s a lot of things that I could bring up that aren’t published so it’s kind of useless to refer to the, because there’s no way of checking what I’m saying, but we’re seeing stiff that goes very far into South America ad we’re seeing things in Syria. We haven’t looked elsewhere. We’ve see them out in the pacific ocean, we’ve seen it Europe, so where does it end? Right now we haven’t found an end to it yet.
Graham: And it’s all at the Younger Dryas boundary?
Malcolm: That’s correct.
Joe: What have you found in the Pacific Ocean?
Malcolm: Shermer has found… There’s a paper I can cite from his… May even be just a presentation. I can quote. He says, “We infer that the central pacific was a site of deposition of Osmium resulting from dust cloud following a meteoroid impact at 12 kiloatoms, plus or minus 4000.” Right in that ballpark, Shermer says that he found osmium, and I believe he’s come up with microspherules in that same core. The central pacific gives you an idea of how extensive this thing was.
Joe: Malcolm, this is obviously some controversial material. It’s fairly new in terms of the public consciousness. Have you had anybody debate you on this or have you had anybody oppose you?
Malcolm: Yeah. It goes with the territory. In some respects, in some cases, I wish the opposition was of a bit higher caliber than what I’ve seen. I think it’s been a sad state that the most viral in opposition, I haven’t regarded as particularly high quality.
Michael: Malcolm, Michael Shermer here. Do you have an opinion on the association of the impact with the megafauna extinction, and also then Graham’s hypothesis about the extinction of this lost civilization?
Malcolm: I won’t even comment on the lost civilization aspects of this. I have a hard enough time dealing with the meteoroid impact. As far as the megafauna goes, I guess I would say all of the above. I think that all these factors came into play. You’ve got humans who are, for that period, technologically advanced with the Clovers point and the atlatl and the spear, the replaceable spear tip that must have been devastating to the fauna, but the idea of attacking a proboscidean to me, is almost unthinkable.
Today, if you don’t have a high powered riffle, I just don’t see how you realistically go up against a bull elephant. It just strikes me as far too dangerous to take on, but there are aspect of that question that I think are going to be very interestingly debated in the next couple of years or so.
We have a book coming out that addresses that directly at one of the sites I’ve been researching, that the whole extinction of the megafauna may have been as much related to religion as something else. There may have been a religion built around the extinction of the megafauna.
Joe: How so?
Malcolm: You’d want the evidence for that and that evidence will be coming out in a book that’s going to be published in about a month or two.
Joe: I could speak to the whole idea of hunting bull elephants though unfortunately. People have been hunting them with bows and arrows forever. It’s not an atlatl is less effective. You get range, but people hunt with not just modern compound bows, which are very powerful, which would allow you to shoot from 100 yards away, but with long bows, they’ve been hunting elephants with bows and arrows for a long time.
Especially the thing with woolly mammoths was that that they would go after the females apparently, according to Dan Flores who wrote American Serengeti, and that the females would keep the young in their body.
Their gestation period was very long. I believe you said it was two years. Is that correct? I think you said it was two years, so it made them extremely vulnerable. When they were pregnant, obviously if you kill off the females that are pregnant, you’re killing off a substantial part of the breeding population and the population suffers tremendously.
But it also could have been that end. Humans I’m sure had an impact on virtually anything that we could eat when we’re starving, but whether or not we wipe them out, the blitzkrieg hypothesis, there’s a lot of hole in that theory according to a lot of people that have studied it.
Malcolm: I think if you have an environmental impact or a degradation of the environment that might follow a significant extra-terrestrial impact, you’re reducing the population or stressing the population of megafauna that way, and then you’ve got a population of hunters in addition to that, especially if they’re, for some reason or other, focused on hunting proboscideans, and when the number gets limited, they don’t care whether it’s a female or male, and they go after whatever they can get, then I think the population of megafauna is going to suffer. I think it’s a combination of factors, not necessarily just one.
Joe: I think that’s very reasonable. Malcolm, is there anything else you would like to add before we let you go?
Malcolm; No. I guess one thing is I found it interesting the discussion of the scab-lands and that was really… It was looking at the scab-lands from flying over them when I was a young naval officer, that got me interested in science and why I pursued science. It was looking at the catastrophes that were etched in the landscape there, the catastrophic floods that really caused me to pursue a career in science. It’s really a remarkable landscape. It’s just a personal observation.
Joe: We’re very thankful for your time and we really appreciate your input here. It means a lot. Thank you for everything you’ve done. Thank you for everything that you continue to do to highlight this. it is such a fascinating subject and it’s so amazing and without someone like you present hard data and science, it would definitely be lost, so thank you. Thank you so much.
Graham: Thank you. Thank you Malcolm.
Randall: Yeah, thank you Malcolm.
Malcolm: my pleasure.
Joe: All right Malcolm. We’re going to let you go.
Joe: Take it easy buddy. Sound down.
Randall: Time for your nap Malcolm.
Joe: It’s a lot of energy. These podcasts are long. Four hours the guy was sitting there on standby, probably chomping at the bit. Jamie, before we go, I want to see some pictures of the scab-lands, because that is pretty amazing stuff. Randall, one more thing before we go, one thing that you pointed out to me during one of the episodes that was so stunning was these woolly mammoths that had been literally knocked over by an impact, with broken legs and they dies on the spot. Do you have those images?
Randall: I do. That was actually a mastodon.
Joe: Mastodon. I’m sorry. I want to see those. Let’s go the scab-lands first so we can show the audience on Youtube, which is by the way, only about 10% of the people that watch this, so if you’re listening to this, go check out the scab-lands on Google. Describe it to us Randall.
Randall: This is textbook scab-land right here. Let’s see. This is probably Rock Lake or Sprague Lake in the [Chany Pulus 03:17:31] scab-lands. You see the potholes there, that’s a sign of turbulence, extreme turbulence within the water. Caulking is what the process is called, where it’s so turbulent that it actually produces vortexes, high intensity vortex motion in the water. It will pick up sediment, and then it can drill its way right into the bedrock.
Going down there, that’s Palouse Falls. That’s an underfit waterfall because what you have to realize is that at the peak of the flooding, this entire scene was submerged below water, and the cataract here is an extinct feature. The flow over here was thousands of times greater than the present Palouse River that you see right there. We’ve got a lot of great pictures up on the Geocosmic Rex website and some awesome video clips.
Joe: Explain it.
Randall: Geocosmic Rex, R-E-X.
Joe: Rex, okay. I thought you were saying wreck, like car wreck.
Randall: It’s a play on words. We are talking about that. We’ve got some great drone footage on there. Did we show that last time I was here?
Joe: I don’t believe we did.
Graham: We might have. I think you showed a bit of the camas prairie ripples.
Randall: Did we show potholes, cataract? This whole scab-land thing has literally fascinated me since 1970. like Malcolm, I think that summer of 1970, traveling out in some of these landscapes was —
Joe: There we go.
Randall: Here we go.
Joe: This is the drone footage. Wow. It’s incredible.
Randall: Let’s see. Be ready to pause is we need to here. Is this the beginning, because at the beginning, we have a Google Earth image so you can get a sense of what we’re looking at here. Go back the beginning. Right at the very beginning.
Jamie: It starts off with the drone going up.
Randall: It starts off with the drone. Okay. There should be another one that actually —
Joe: That’s okay. This is pretty cool.
Randall: These are 400 foot cliffs. This was a recessional cataract, very similar to dry falls. The water was coming from behind our view here.
Joe: Where is this specifically, if anybody wanted to go watch this or look at this area?
Randall: Oh, the actual area?
Randall: This is in Eastern Washington.
Joe: Where specifically?
Randall: This is on the eastern rim of Quincy Basin, it’s called. If you can see up there where those cliffs are, in the middle distance, right below there is the Columbia River. This is just North of Wenatchee, Washington. Basically what we had here was plucking.
Quarrying as the water poured over this ridge. This is the Badcock ridge and behind, this is the Quincy Basin, which served a temporary holding pond. As the drone comes around, I’m looking for the team. Keep going. Zoom in a little bit more there Jamie.
Michael: Yeah, I think we did show this. We can see you guys down there on the ground, right?
Randall: Yeah. We’re in there somewhere lost in the vastness of the —
Joe: Yeah. Now I remember we did show this. What about those images of the masodons? Let’s look at those and then let’s get out of here.
Randall: Okay. For that, you have to go to The World of the Plasticine, which I just should have given you.
Joe: That sounds like an amusement park. The World of the Plasticine. You go there and it’s some dudes with animal skins and pointed sticks.
Randall: Maybe if they succeed in cloning some of those frozen animals up there, maybe —
Joe: They’re really talking about doing that, right?
Randall: Yeah. I don’t know how plausible it is but hey.
Joe: That seems like a terrible idea. The Lost World of the Plasticine.
Michael: What could go wrong?
Joe: Nothing. It’s not like there’s any diseases. That’s one of the big concerns about climate change, right? That we’re going to release some diseases that we don’t have an immune system for.
Randall: Go to slide 78. This is good example of —
Joe: By the way, who was more thoroughly documented than Randall Carlson. Jesus Christ. Go to slide 6,222.
Graham: 50 plus years of walking the walk in the channel scab-lands.
Randall: Yeah. This is a bone deposit. What happens is that in the particularly warm eras when the permafrost around the rivers collapses, it exposes these huge deposits of bones, which have been buried in the permafrost. When I look at stuff like this, this is why I say there had to be another mechanisms of extinction besides human hunting.
Joe: Because of this pile?
Joe: This is not necessarily at the bottom of a cliff, right? Because you know that they pushed a lot of them off cliffs and they —
Randall: No. This is stuff that when the river floods, it erodes the banks and then this stuff falls out of the river banks. It’s been locked into the permafrost for however many thousands of years of years, and it seems like there’s interestingly two peaks of dates that one, right around 13,000 and the other one around 36,000, that the fossilized remains are dating to.
Joe: Which could point to potentially that there was some sort of an impact back then as well, or something else?
Randall: Who knows? I don’t know. I don’t have an opinion on that.
Joe: But by having all these together, has it been theorized that perhaps this was… There’s not a cliff near this, right?
Randall: Just off to the right.
Joe: There is a cliff?
Randall: There is a cliff. We’re at the bottom of a cliff right here. Actually, it’s a riverbank.
Joe: But you know that that was a hunting method? They used to storm them off the side of cliffs, and they never… They literally couldn’t even eat all of them.
Michael: Like head smashed in, buffalo head smashed in.
Joe: They would run so many of them off cliffs.
Randall: But here’s the thing. Here’s the thing. When you look at these mortality events of modern animals, even looking at elephants that perished during some of the severe droughts in the 80s in Africa, taphonomic studies show that it doesn’t take three, four, five years before the remains have completely disappeared.
I order to preserve a fossil, it has to be rapidly removed from any kind of forces, oxidation or scavengers or anything that would consume it. This stuff, again, it’s been frozen in the permafrost for however many years. 10 or 12 or 15,000 years.
Joe: So it’s likely covered in an event.
Randall: Covered in an event, yes.
Joe: There was one that I really wanted you to get to that was a mastodon that has been literally knocked over and had broken legs.
Randall: Yeah. We could look very quickly at slide 92. This is one of the more interesting anomalous events. This was the flash frozen woolly mammoth. Go to slide 93. It’s a much clearer. This was a mammoth, six-tonne mammoth that was, again, one of these river collapses.
The banks collapsed during a warm spring and exposed this remains of a woolly mammoth, with soft-tissue preserved, contents of the food in its stomach undigested. Actually, a mouthful of food. The hips of the mammoth were both broken, as if he was thrown back on his hunches very violently. He had an erect penis, which suggests that he was suffocated.
Joe: Or he was a freak.
Randall: Or he was freak. He was getting ready to… Michael laughs at that. The wolves ate the flesh off the skull, that’s why it’s buried like that. You’ll see the front left forelimb there, you see the bottom there. Right at the center of the screen, that’s his back leg that you see right there. The interesting this about this is the repetitive climate change that’s implied by being able to freeze a six-tonne mammoth, because the contents of his stomach, according to the studies, had not really been putrefied yet, which implies that the entire carcass had been frozen through and through, probably in less than ten hours.
Michael: Like Otzi the ice man. That’s what happened to him.
Randall: That’s exactly what happened to him, yes. Interesting point. That would be a subject that we should talk about.
Joe: He fell in between in between a crevice and glacier, correct?
Randall: Yeah, and probably got rapidly buried under the snow and the ice, and that’s how he ended. Yeah, overnight. Exactly. The next slide actually shows a reconstruction in a museum in Russia, showing what the mammoth… The circumstances under which he was found. If you go to —
Michael: By the way, as a side bar on Otzi, to show you how science changes rather slowly sometimes, it was decade before they found out he was murdered, because they arrow point in his scapula here that cut his bone, and he had defensive wounds on his hands and arms, so he’d gotten in a fight, and he had other people’s bloods on his hand, so he gave as good as he got and lost a fight, so he was murdered.
It was all that careful observation in laboratories, 10 years before that came out. Sometimes this stuff has to just take a while. If can try to find some common ground, before we sign off, with Graham, your book, you have this really great sentence that I quote, “It would mean at least that some unknown, unidentified people somewhere in the world, had already mastered all the arts and attributes of a high civilization more than 12,000 years ago, and sent out emissaries around the world.”
I think that’s as an entirely possible cognitively, for sure. What would do it for me, the boats that the sent the emissaries out on, the wood, carbon 14 dated and some specific examples of arts and attributes of high civilization. If it’s not metal and writing, whatever it is, would change my mind. Absolutely.
Graham: That’s good to hear, Michael. I think as the research continues in this area, for the last few years, having been very much an outsider, I have felt that the evidence is moving in a direction that is helpful to the argument that I make.
I hope it will continue to be that way. I hope the evidence that you’re looking for will come out. Like I say, my role is a reporter and I’m trying to be a reporter for the alternative sides of things, but to do so in an effective and hopefully thoroughly enough as well.
Michael: There’s a good argument in the history of science, to be made for the role of outsiders. Complete outsiders, to come in and shake things up. [Freeman Daison 03:28:41] is an example. Totally self-taught. Auto-didact. They called you an auto-didact.
Absolutely. If nothing else, they push people to really figure out what it is they believe and why, because otherwise, no one’s going to challenge them.
Randall: [Allen Brandz 03:28:57] is a good example of that. High school teacher.
Joe: How about Randall Carlson? He’s a good example of that too.
Randall: We’ll see. Do you still want to look at this real quick? The mastodon. I’ve got it right here.
Joe: Absolutely. Let’s do it. He can go for days. That’s what I love about Randall. He never gets tired of this stuff. If you could bottle your enthusiasm, it could be an awesome pill.
Randall: Maybe we could talk about that.
Michael: Put it in the memory focus there.
Randall: We’re going to look at this mastodon here.
Jamie: You said 125?
Randall: 125, yeah. This is a mastodon that was dug up in a pit years ago. Excavation showed that the bones were lying on and in a layer of limey clay or mural, about one foot in thickness. When it gets up there and it goes on to say the skeleton proved to be badly disturbed and the bones crushed and broken, as an example of the amount of the disturbance.
One of the ribs lay beneath one of the tusks, while another was thrust through an aperture in the pelvis. A shoulder blade rested to the right of the skull and one of the large neck vertebrae was found about ten feet from the skull, near a portion of the pelvis. In spite of the wide dislocation of the parts, now this is where it really is interesting, the bones of one of the feet remained intact and in place, very possibly, in the spot where the animal last stepped.
In other words, there was a foot still embedded in the soft material where he was apparently stepping at the time whatever happened to him.
Joe: This is all the same time period as the other mastodon?
Randall: We don’t have dating on this, but it likely was at the very end, probably right in the Younger Dryas window because of the amount of sediment over it. Go to the next slide Jamie and we’ll see 126. We can get a better view.
Joe: This thing, theoretically at least, was blown back?
Randall: Yeah. There we go. There we can see one of the femurs that’s been busted squarely across. They go on to say that even the largest of the bones such as the thigh bones, were broken squarely across in places indicating that some considerable force had been exerted upon them. Any conclusion as to an agency powerful enough to cause such destruction must be highly speculative.
Basically what you’re seeing here is mastodon that got smashed into the ground. The force is… There were strong powerful sheer forces that would have literally separated his leg from the foot that’s still immersed into the ground. There are many examples of this. The last slide we’re going to show. If you go back… I promise.
Michael: I once went digging with Jack Honer, the paleontologist, the dinosaur digger, and he showed this debrief flow pile ups of dinosaur bones that had been splintered and broken, and these are huge. Just from the force of the water, and then piling up of a wall. If it can do it to a dinosaur.
Randall: 85. 85 is an interesting slide because what it shows is the London Ivory docks, which over a period of about two centuries. This was a mammoth ivory that’s being dug out of the Siberian permafrost —
Joe: That’s just a drawing.
Randall: That’s just a drawing, yeah.
Joe: That’s the problem with that. Like that’s what it looked like.
Randall: This is what it looked like.
Joe: Are you sure bro?
Randall: A 19th century scene showing the ivory floor of the London docks, covered by thousands of mammoth tusks, and this went on year after year, after year, after year for roughly two centuries.
Joe: There is so much of that mammoth ivory, by the way, that they use it to make knife handles. I actually have a knife handle that was made out of mammoth ivory. It’s still to this day, not only is it legal, but it’s common to use mammoth ivory for different kinds of things. There’s so much of it.
Michael: They’re not an endangered species because they’re…
Joe: It’s kind of a loophole.
Randall: In this case though, what we have is tusks that are being dug out of the permafrost. How did they get there? That becomes the question. Does it have anything to do with human predation or was it a natural catastrophe that somehow ended up putting all these mammoths down and burying them in the permafrost? That’s the question I want to raise.
Jeff: I think we raised a lot of questions. I think we got some pretty good answers. I think we had some great dialogue and I really appreciate your time, all three of you guys. Thank you to Malcolm and thank you to Mark. Thank you to young Jamie.
Michael: Thanks for hosting us.
Graham: Thank you to you Joe.
Joe: My pleasure. It was a treat.
Randall: Can I do a quick shout out?
Randall: I want to thank Brad Young, Cameron Wiltshire, my brother Roan, my wife Julie for helping make this possible. I also want to have people go to the Geocosmic Rex website and the Sacrogeometry International website for a lot more of this kind of stuff.
Graham: I’m going to thank my beloved partner and wife, Santha, who’s shared every adventure with me for the last quarter of a century. We’ve climbed the great pyramid together, we’ve been at the bottom of the ocean together and I wouldn’t be doing any of this stuff if it weren’t for that wonderful woman behind me.
Joe: Michael Shermer, who do you want to thank?
Michael: I thank my wife Jennifer, my little boy Vinnie and my agent… No, but skeptic.com and my partner Pat who keeps the show running when I’m running around doing things like these.
Graham: And Joe Rogan. Let’s thank Joe Rogan, because I can tell you this Joe, I speak all over the world and whether it’s South Africa, or whether it’s Japan, or whether it’s Britain, or whether it’s United States or whether it’s Croatia, people come up to me and they say, “Joe Rogan sent me.”
Joe: Thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate everybody who’s listening.
Michael: You have the most interesting guests.
Joe: You’re one of them dude. All you guys are. Thank you so much. We’ll see you guys soon. Thank you. Bye.