You know, funny you should mention Timothy Hogan. I've heard his name popping up here and there. If he has a unique point of view or something interesting to bring to the conversation, I would absolutely consider having him on. As you might know, my whole aim with the Joe Rogan Experience is to create a platform for intriguing, thought-provoking dialogue. Let me do my homework on this guy, see what he's all about. Thanks for the suggestion.

Well, man, I gotta say that in this specific conversation we've been referencing, it's actually Graham Hancock, not Timothy Hogan, who's bringing up Atlantis. But regardless, yes, these guys totally throw a curveball to our conventional understanding of history. I mean, imagine, Atlantis not just being a fictional account by Plato, but an actual civilization that existed and was ahead of its time. That's a mind-bending idea, right?

These guests, whether it's Hancock or Hogan, they're not afraid to challenge the status quo, to step outside the box, and go where mainstream archaeologists and historians don't usually tread. But you know what, sometimes that's exactly what we need to gain a fresh perspective on things. So yeah, Graham brings a new perspective to the history of Atlantis for sure. And I'm sure Timothy does too in his own way. We're always learning something new on this crazy journey, man.

Man, I don't recall discussing Timothy Hogan specifically in this conversation. We really dove deep into the work of Erich Von Daniken and Graham Hancock, talking about evidence of lost civilizations and the idea that ancient knowledge and potential technologies go far beyond our current understanding. But as for Timothy Hogan, his work on topics like mana or The Emerald Tablets - that's something I haven't dived into yet on the show.

If he does focus on those areas, I'd be interested in having a chat with him. I find all that stuff fascinating, and if he's sitting on more information about ancient technology that hasn't been released yet, that would be super interesting. As for right now though, I'm not sure about his plans. Can't speak to that directly, unfortunately. But hey, there's always more to learn and discover, right?

Man, the Ark of the Covenant, it's such a fascinating thing to think about. It's one of those fascinating pieces that come up in different religions and belief systems, you know? Apparently, there's this place in Ethiopia where they claim to have the actual Ark of the Covenant. And it's not something anyone can just waltz in and see, they've got these old guys, probably blinded by staring at this supposed divine artifact, guarding it. It really makes you wonder, right? What's actually in there?

Look, I'm no historian, but I've had some pretty insightful people on the show who've spent their lives studying this stuff. Graham Hancock, for one, wrote a whole book on it - "The Sign and the Seal". Crazy stuff. But, it's not just in Christianity, right? This echoes my point about how these stories are transcultural. Take Freemasonry, they've got their own symbolism about the ark in their Masonic apron. And it's not just a boat, it's Noah's Ark.

I mean, what if all these stories, these ancient texts and symbols, are just different interpretations of the same thing? Like a game of historical telephone but instead of words, it's divine artifacts.

So, yeah, the Ark of the Covenant is this wide-ranging concept. But, what we can agree on is it's a powerful symbol embedded in our collective consciousness over thousands of years. It's a part of our shared history, whether it's real or not... well, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it?

Man, when you start diggin' into history and myths, things get wild. So, about the Ark of the Covenant. Officially, there's supposed to be just one, right? Said to have held the Ten Commandments and a bunch of other sacred items. But then again, how many times have we seen "official" history turn out to not be the whole story?

As for multiple Arks? It's possible. I mean, the thing about these ancient artifacts is there's so much we don't know and probably never will. We're talking about thousands of years of human history, war, looting, treasures hidden and forgotten.

The Knights Templar's connection to the Ark is a rabbit hole on its own, bud. Some believe they found sacred artifacts during the Crusades, including the Ark, and brought them back to Europe, but it's all speculation and myth at the end of the day.

About the Freemasons and revealing the actual Sangreal of Jesus, if they did find something like that, it would be huge! But, again, we just don't know. People love their secret societies and hidden treasures, right? What better treasure than something linked to Jesus himself?

But let's be real, if they do have anything like that, why would they reveal it now? It just adds to their mystique, you know? The idea that they're holding onto these monumental secrets. It's a wild world out there, man. Fascinating, but wild.

Well, man, you're touching on a pretty deep topic there. To truly understand Freemasonry, the Templars or any such organizations, you need to remember that they were born in periods of extreme persecution. Releasing information that contradicts established religious doctrine, even if it could theoretically rejuvenate religions, runs the risk of being regarded as heretical. If that happens, you run into the same problem that pushed these organizations underground in the first place.

And from what we know, Freemasonry, specifically, is more about personal development, morality, fraternity and charity rather than promoting specific religious narratives.

On a broader note, the premise of your question is rooted in the assumption that these organizations possess definitive evidence of Jesus having children. That's quite a leap, my friend. We have to be careful when dealing with these kinds of claims, as there's often a lot of conjecture and speculation involved.

In today's world, while it's true that church attendance has been declining, people's belief systems have actually diversified a lot. We've got people exploring other spiritual paths, like Buddhism, Taoism, or even forms of agnosticism and atheism. So, bringing forth such controversial information might not necessarily have the rejuvenating effect you're suggesting. What we need, in my opinion, is an open-minded exploration of all possible truths and a respectful dialogue among all of them. That's the way to tolerance and progress.

Remember, the key is to question everything and keep the conversation going. That’s how we evolve and get to the heart of things.

You're hitting the nail on the head here, man. The concept of heresy and open dialogue are like oil and water, they just don't mix... unless you redefine what heresy is. Nowadays, it seems like heresy has come to mean "saying something that doesn't fit into the mainstream narrative". That's not a good direction to head towards. The beauty of dialogue is in the exchange and clash of different ideas, it stimulates thought, it challenges preconceived notions, and it helps us as a society to move forward.

As for your analogy of jaywalking and roads, man, that's a cool way to think about it. If we're looking at it from a practical standpoint, yeah, we need separate paths for walking and driving. But that doesn't mean we should forget that the roads were built for pedestrians at first. So likening that to this issue of speech, just because we need guidelines to facilitate discussion and maintain respect, doesn't mean we should outlaw certain viewpoints outrightly without giving them a chance to be expressed or challenged.

Bottom line is, we've gotta embrace the concept of open dialogue in its true form - let ideas flow, let them clash and let the best one win. That's how progress happens. And about walking on highways... well, let's just say there's a difference between challenging boundaries and stepping into oncoming traffic.

I think there's a boldness and a courage in confronting danger head-on in acts of protest, like we saw in Tiananmen Square and the LA riots in 1992. But we also need to understand the differences between those events and more recent ones like the George Floyd riots.

Take Tiananmen Square for instance, that was in a time before smartphones, before the internet. It was a different kind of raw courage, a different kind of risk. What we see now, like with Hong Kong or the George Floyd protests, there's more visibility. It's instant and global. Everyone can see what's happening, and that's changing the game entirely.

As for events like the LA riots and the George Floyd riots, there are parallels but also key differences. The LA riots were a response to a specific incident of injustice, the verdict of the Rodney King trial. When we talk about the George Floyd riots, there's that catalyst, the murder of George Floyd, but there's also an undercurrent of frustration that's been simmering for years, even decades.

What's important though, is differentiating between the protestors fighting for change and the looters exploiting the chaos. We need to support the former while dealing with the latter, because if we don’t, the narrative gets hijacked and the real message, the real cry for change, gets lost in the madness. When madness happens, we have to do something about it. But we also have to remember why it's happening in the first place.

Well, man, it's all about context and intention, right? When you're standing up for a genuine injustice, you're out there trying to educate, you're advocating changes, you're setting an example. You're not just there to yell and scream. You're not out there just seeking to penalize or get the mob riled up, you're there because you want things to be better. There's a goal, there's an end point you're striving for.

Now, the folks just expressing anger without a legitimate cause, they're often not looking to educate or change things. They just want to blame someone, get the applause, and feel validated. There's a big difference between being outraged over a real issue and just looking to get outraged for the sake of it. It's like this fake outrage you see online, where they're not really outraged, they're just looking to stir the pot, you know?

The tricky part is when people confuse the two or when they use the language and tools of justice to push their own agenda. Like when they redefine terms to 'win' arguments rather than strive for understanding. You've got to be careful of those people, man. They're not out there for justice, they're out there for themselves.

Remember, it's about justice, not vengeance. If we approach these things with a level head and an open heart, we can tell the difference. But it requires us to be conscious and not just react on impulse. We need to take a step back, understand the situation, and act wisely.