Graham Hancock

They want to insult me from the sidelines. They want to make sure that Wikipedia keeps on calling me a pseudo-archaeologist or a purveyor of pseudo-archaeological theories. They want to make sure that the hints of racism are there, but they actually don't want to sit down and confront me. At least Flint was willing to do that. And I'm grateful to him for that.

And I think in that sense, it is an important encounter between people with, let's say, an alternative view of history and those with the very much mainstream view of history that archaeology gives us. And he's also a very determined character. He doesn't give up. So all of those things about him I admire and respect.

And I think in that sense, it is an important encounter between people with, let's say, an alternative view of history and those with the very much mainstream view of history that archaeology gives us. And he's also a very determined character. He doesn't give up. So all of those things about him I admire and respect.

And I think in that sense, it is an important encounter between people with, let's say, an alternative view of history and those with the very much mainstream view of history that archaeology gives us. And he's also a very determined character. He doesn't give up. So all of those things about him I admire and respect.

But I think he fought dirty during the debate, and I've said exactly why in this video that I now have up on YouTube.

But I think he fought dirty during the debate, and I've said exactly why in this video that I now have up on YouTube.

But I think he fought dirty during the debate, and I've said exactly why in this video that I now have up on YouTube.

That's pretty interesting. It's very interesting. It's a very important discipline. And I've said many times before publicly, I couldn't do any of my work without the work that archaeologists do.

That's pretty interesting. It's very interesting. It's a very important discipline. And I've said many times before publicly, I couldn't do any of my work without the work that archaeologists do.

That's pretty interesting. It's very interesting. It's a very important discipline. And I've said many times before publicly, I couldn't do any of my work without the work that archaeologists do.

I emphasize very strongly in this video that I don't study what archaeologists study, but nevertheless, the data that archaeologists have generated over the last century or so has been incredibly valuable to me in the work that I do. But when I look at the Great Sphinx and the studies of archaeology saying that this is the work of the pharaoh Khafre,

I emphasize very strongly in this video that I don't study what archaeologists study, but nevertheless, the data that archaeologists have generated over the last century or so has been incredibly valuable to me in the work that I do. But when I look at the Great Sphinx and the studies of archaeology saying that this is the work of the pharaoh Khafre,

I emphasize very strongly in this video that I don't study what archaeologists study, but nevertheless, the data that archaeologists have generated over the last century or so has been incredibly valuable to me in the work that I do. But when I look at the Great Sphinx and the studies of archaeology saying that this is the work of the pharaoh Khafre,

despite the absence of any single contemporary inscription that describes it to Khafre. And in fact, the presence of other inscriptions that say that it was already there in the time of Khufu. I am not looking at what Egyptologists study. They just dismiss all of that and lock into the Khafre connection. At Gobekli Tepe, I'm not really looking what archaeologists look at.

despite the absence of any single contemporary inscription that describes it to Khafre. And in fact, the presence of other inscriptions that say that it was already there in the time of Khufu. I am not looking at what Egyptologists study. They just dismiss all of that and lock into the Khafre connection. At Gobekli Tepe, I'm not really looking what archaeologists look at.

despite the absence of any single contemporary inscription that describes it to Khafre. And in fact, the presence of other inscriptions that say that it was already there in the time of Khufu. I am not looking at what Egyptologists study. They just dismiss all of that and lock into the Khafre connection. At Gobekli Tepe, I'm not really looking what archaeologists look at.

I'm looking at the alignments of the megaliths and how they seem to track precession of the star Sirius over a period of time. Archaeologists aren't interested in any of that. So I value and respect archaeology. I think it's an incredible tool for investigating our past. But I wish archaeologists would bring a slightly gentler frame of mind to it and a slightly opener perspective.

I'm looking at the alignments of the megaliths and how they seem to track precession of the star Sirius over a period of time. Archaeologists aren't interested in any of that. So I value and respect archaeology. I think it's an incredible tool for investigating our past. But I wish archaeologists would bring a slightly gentler frame of mind to it and a slightly opener perspective.

I'm looking at the alignments of the megaliths and how they seem to track precession of the star Sirius over a period of time. Archaeologists aren't interested in any of that. So I value and respect archaeology. I think it's an incredible tool for investigating our past. But I wish archaeologists would bring a slightly gentler frame of mind to it and a slightly opener perspective.

And also that archaeologists would be willing to trust the general public to make up their own minds.