Camp Gagnon - Why Are These Ancient Egyptian Vases Actually Impossible to Make?

Episode Date: December 23, 2025

Károly Póka, ancient technology researcher, sits down at CAMP to reveal the secrets of impossibly precise artifacts. Károly dives into how the ancient stone vases and Egypt's perfect boxes were truly made, and challenges the narrative that they were crafted by hand...WELCOME TO CAMP! 🏕️Shoutout to our sponsor: Mars Men, BlueChew, and Morgan & MorganFor a limited time, our listeners get 60% off FOR LIFE AND 3 Free Gifts at Mars Men when you use code 'CAMP' at https://mengotomars.com👕🧢 Use CHRISTMASCAMP at checkout for 17% off when you shop at https://camp-rd.com/collections/christmas🎟️ 🎫 Comedy Tour Tickets Here: https://markgagnonlive.com🎩👽 Daily Dose Of History Here: https://www.dailytodayinhistory.comTimestamps0:00 — Intro1:30 — Meeting Ben van Kerkwyk & Adam Young6:31 — How The Vases Were Made + Vase Function11:35 — Timeline of Vases14:36 — Recreating The Vases21:40 — Variation In Vases25:28 — Ancient Technology33:33 — Modern Lathe38:04 — Detechnical Evolution41:20 — Cultures Stealing Credit For Creation48:40 — Comparing Alabaster to Stone Vases1:06:06 — Could It Be Done By Hand?1:10:21 — Egypt’s Perfect Boxes1:22:14 — Purpose of The Boxes1:27:09 — Join Karoly’s $25k Competition#foryou #podcast #history #mystery #knowledge #education #educational #egypt

To me, it's like this is all pointing to something strange. If they were holding some sacred psychedelics or like random sacred liquids, they wanted containers to be perfect. Or they had the tools which allowed them to make these easily. This is Karawe Poka, an electrical engineer, lifelong Egypt enthusiast and one of the first people to ever apply modern laser and CT scanning to ancient Egyptian stone vessels. And what he found challenges everything that we think we know,

about early human technology. We're talking about granite and doride vases carved from a single block of stone. Objects dated to pre-dynastic Egypt before the age of the pharaohs. Some are so perfectly circular. They deviate just 16 microns, far more precise than what modern CNC machines can reliably produce today. In this conversation, Carraway walks us through museum scans from London, Turin, and beyond, and he explains why Flint tools don't account for the tool marks. and he even reveals why modern manufacturers struggle to copy these shapes.

Were these vessels made with lost machines, hand-guided lathes, or technology that we just no longer have? So if you are a fan of lost ancient technology, advanced civilizations from the past and the mysteries that they hide, well, this is the episode for you. So sit back, relax, and welcome to camp. Karaway, how are you, sir? Thank you. I'm fine.

Thank you so much for... I'm a bit tired, but it's okay. You're a bit tired. Yeah. Where'd you just travel from? Switzerland. Oh, straight from Switzerland. Yeah.

When did you land? Two days ago. Okay, nice. I had several meetings with my friend here in New York and, yeah. And you got to acclimate a little bit. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I didn't have much time to sleep, actually, so.

Okay. Well, we're going to, we're going to dive into, you know, one of my favorite historical artifacts. We're going to solve maybe the greatest mystery ever how exactly these things were made. Okay. I'm going to come up with my own theories. I know you might not speculate, but I'm going to solve. We're going to figure it out. But in the meantime, can you explain to the people who you are,

what kind of work you do, and what these beautiful vases in front of us are? Yeah, sure. So my name is Karuipoka. I'm from Hungary originally, and I'm an electrical engineer. I was, I has been always fascinated by ancient Egypt, basically, since I'm a kid. or when I was a kid, I made presentations in school about Tutankhamun and these kind of topics, mummification. And I started to watch Uncharted Exx like a few years back. I had a quite boring job and yeah, I listened to Joe Rogan podcasts where Ben from Uncharted Exx explained these out-of-place artifacts.

I was always a bit skeptical about those. but when I saw the vase topic they started to actually my friend Adam Young started to collect these vases here we have this they call it the OG vase it's made out of granite

and it's extremely precise if you're talking about circularity so for example the median circularity of this object is 610,000s of an inch which is extremely, extremely precise. Now, the OG vase, who has possession of it? Adam has the OG vase, that's right.

And he started to scan it, basically. He brought it to a defense contractor, and they scanned it with structured light first, and then it went into CT scanning, different other type of scanning. Now, just explain to me the history of these vases. Like this OG vase, you know, there's pottery all over the ancient world.

Egypt is no exception, you know, there's thousands, hundreds of thousands of pieces of pottery, either full pieces or fragments. What makes these unique? These are unique because they made out of hard stone and not pottery. So usually the material is granite, diorite, sometimes basalt. Actually, a lot of times we see basalt vases. And the difference being that the, you know, a pottery vase would be a piece of clay, that's thrown down onto like a lathe or a wheel

and then spun and then formed into this type of shape and then heated and then once it's heated it'll actually cure into a hard vase that can be used to transport grain or water. But these vases, the OG vase, are not made out of clay. They're made out of one singular piece of hard stone. Yeah, and they are carved. They're carved.

Or they are basically made out of one single piece of stone. Which in order to, one, get perfect circularity or two to even create something that is so much wider

at the middle than it is at the top of the bottom with carving would be exceptionally difficult yes it is it's actually

rivals modern precision and tolerances in some of the cases especially with the OG that was the first ways they examined and actually turned out to be that precise

and then I've seen this video and the result or the response from the mainstream was like yeah they are modern fakes probably the provenance is not 100% sure when they were made who made them where they found

and I had this idea to okay then collect all the all the museums in Europe were a significant Egyptian collection and then I started to email them can I come in as an engineer investigate these vases I

bring my own equipment, et cetera, et cetera. And the Petri Museum in London, Petri Museum of Egyptian Archaeology in London, responded very kindly, and they offered me to appointments. It happened last year, October, and also the Museo Akizio in Turin. There's the second largest Egyptian museum after Cairo.

They were also open for this research. And then I went on the trip with Ben, on his trip, actually, on the uncharted trip to Egypt, and I met Adam. So that's how we connected and that's how our story began. So these vases that are effectively

created of one piece of hard granite, they're effectively what most, I guess, archaeologists would believe are kind of cut or bore out or something like that. Like, I would love to go through the official story as well. What is the prevailing theory as to how these were made?

Currently, the broadly accepted theory is that they were made with Flint tools, actually I think you have one here, with Flynn tools attached to some wooden mechanism and they were like turned inside a ways, by hand, no machines which is

well, you can do it to an extent but I'm quite skeptical about these tolerances if you can achieve those tolerances. You can achieve perfect circle with a compass. If you turn a compass around, yes, you will have a perfect circle, but you have to hold onto these pieces somehow. Because these are very small ones,

but in the British Museum there are huge ones. So you have to hold onto those somehow because the original material, obviously, it's a bigger boulder. It's like a bigger rock. So this theory seems to be not complete to me. Okay. So I'm going to get into your theory in a second, but I'm curious, where were these found?

They're found in Egypt. In Egypt, mostly, in a lot of tens of thousands of these were found under the Stap Pyramid. Tens of thousands? Yes. Mixed like alabaster, hard stone and also some pottery. But I think we can say that there are hundreds of thousands of these vases just spread all around the world, different museums, different private collectors. because if I'm not mistaken before the 70s like diplomats were also getting those as a gift basically.

And yeah, you can find those in private collections. That's how you can basically purchase these on the antiquities market. Those who were brought out from Egypt before this like new rule, they are free to. be out of Egypt, let's say. That makes sense. Now, do we have any idea what these would have been used for in their historical setting?

Different liquids. You think they served a functional purpose for... That's the mainstream explanation. Okay, that's clear. So the mainstream explanation is that these would have been used for different types of oils or liquids,

maybe perfumes or something that would be carried around, that you needed some type of, like, hard, fully waterproof apparatus to carry it in. Yeah, I fancy the idea that maybe they are holding some kind of sacred liquid and that's why they wanted to make these that precise.

But I just don't understand why it has to be so round if they can make a pottery, if they can make it in an easier way, why you have to go through with all this hustle to make something that round. And these are not that round, like the OG. The OG is an exceptional piece. We found similar roundness values, but these are the collections from the, or the best ones from the Petrie Museum we have scanned. And yeah, in the museum,

for example, that was Sir William Flinders-P-3's teaching collection, basically. So Flinders-P-3 was the first, amongst the first archaeologists who basically tried, to investigate these systematically. He measured things. He was a surveyor and engineer. He measured a lot of things in Egypt, and he got to the conclusion that these has to be turned on some kind of spindle or mechanism.

Because you can see toolmarks in the inside of these vases. Oh, really? Yeah. The outside is polished, but in the inside, you can see. For example, if you look at the OG ways, I can show you, And you can see those lines, basically concentric lines, let's say. Oh, wow.

Those are actual toolmarks. If this was done by hand, it would perhaps be, you know, vertical kind of tool marks or something like that. Like these are very, very uniform, very organized horizontal toolmarks from the bottom all the way to the top. Yeah. If it was done through, you know, what is the commonly accepted mainstream explanation, it would seem that the tool marks would appear different.

Is that fair to say? Yeah, it would be less. Less uniform. Yeah. Okay. So I think at this point, the audience has an understanding of what the story is, right? You have hundreds of thousands of these potentially that are discovered, specifically tens of thousands discovered under the step pyramid.

They are almost perfectly circular. They are... Not all of them. So we have to say that not every ways is like the OG ways. OG gets his name because it was the original gangster ways, like seeing these tolerances first on this was extraordinary. Right. But many of them have just remarkable circularity.

Yes. And they are made out of one solid piece of granite. Or basalt, or diarite, or porphyry. Yeah. Very hard stones. Very hard stone. Yeah. And the story that is kind of told is that they were made by craftsmen that would go in,

spend a long time, potentially months to just bore out. Years. Potentially years. Years. To basically, you know, use single, you know, simple flintstones to kind of break out the interior of these vases. And then they were used for, you know, transferring oils or something like that. But for some reason, they're perfectly round and extremely resilient and strong.

And it's a very important part of the story that these are coming from the pre-dynastic era of Egypt. So before the Egyptian, dynasty let's say kingdom or before the pharaohs before the age of the pharaohs which that's significant

there were several cultures before Egypt I mean before their dynastic Egyptians most of these are coming from the Nagada culture these are these were living in that area between 3,500

and 3,100 bC and 3,100 BC. Wow. I mean, yeah, that's wild. So you have the new kingdom, the middle kingdom and the old kingdom, and these predate the old kingdom. Yes, exactly. And you never seen, you barely see in these vases made later. Probably they were inherited and some pharaoh kept it and passed it along the family line, but you don't really see those. After these in the old kingdom, Joseph Farrow came and he had a magnificent

engineering in Hotep and they figured out how to make the alabaster raises actually that process is documented

perfectly and you can see the same technique applied there which works because alabaster is a much softer stone

but the same technique is a little bit yeah let's say suspicious but these types of hard stones.

That's interesting. So are these potentially older than the pyramids or roughly around the same time? Older. Wow. I mean, it's a really remarkable piece of engineering to be older than the pyramids. It's pretty wild. Yes. And so if someone wanted to make this today, let's say there was a skilled artisan that wanted to make this today using, you know, the old kingdom Egyptian method.

Or, you know, not the old kingdom, actually, the pre-dynastic. Egyptian method, would it be possible to do? I'm not a stone mason, but it would be extremely difficult. There were some attempts to do this. Are you familiar with the Scientist Against Myth channel? I don't know if I am. Is it a YouTube channel? Yeah, they are trying to debunk all these alternative history stuff and theories,

and they spent two years on making a ways out of diorite, I think, or granite and they built wooden machines and they only used rudimental tools but in my opinion they cheated at one point when they put the ways on a spindle like a modern potter's wheel with metal bearings and they try to highlight the high points in circularity and mark those with pencil and then remove those high points. So they achieved actually very nice. I think the result was amazing. Here you can see the OG ways, it's a heat map.

It's a Comparism. On the right you can see the OG ways in the middle, the best piece from the Petri Museum we found. I will talk about it in more details. And the heat map represents basically, the surface deviation between the scan and the reconstructed perfect CAD model of these vases. So the way we analyze these is to align them. There is a special elaborate process to align these vases perfectly to global z-axis,

and then we slice them up into very, very thin, few micron-high slices, and then fit perfect circles on these slices, and we measure the actual deviation of these scan data points from the perfect. circle and we we can basically tell what's the median or average deviation of these these we use the root mean square distance error it's a mathematical formula basically telling in one number how these points per slice are deviating from the perfect circle and then we have tons of like thousands of slices per ways and we pick the median value or you or of these root and square distance values.

And here you can see the CAD model against the mesh, basically the 3D scan. So we build a CAD model of these perfect slices and we compare how much the scan deviates from this perfect model. I mean it seems like the scientist against myth one, you know, looks great, but it has far more deviations than even the OG vase or the Petra Museum face. Yeah, so the red part is like a positive deviation in surface.

The green is perfect, like close to zero. Like a golf green. You can kind of get an idea of what the geography of like, you know, where the hole is based off of the heat. Yeah, exactly. And the blue is a negative, like a dent or something. And yeah, the scientist against Smith did a great job, but they claimed it's even more precise. than some of these vases. They measured also something in a Russia. They are, I think they are based in Russia and they measured a vase there in a Russian museum with mechanical calipers. And in my opinion,

as an engineer, it was not a scientific, real scientific measurement. We did laser scan and and CT scan these, which is giving you a much more precise representation of the actual object. Right. And they let you scan it? They made it freely available. I see. Or open to the public, but we don't know what was the technology. How did they scan it exactly? I see.

But even in spite of that, it seems like the OG vase and the Petri vase are actually more perfect than the, you know, the scientist against Smith's face. Yeah. If you are talking about media and circularities, the scientist against me's is around 110 microns. The middleweight is around 72 microns. and the OG is 16. Wow. And the human hair is around 80 microns. So it's like a fraction of a human hair in precision.

I mean, remarkable. Okay. So once the scanning software comes on the scene, we get a different look at these vases that no one has ever really looked at before. And probably for many decades, people just kind of looked at these and they're like, oh yeah, they're pretty cool.

You know, they carved them out. They're great artisans. But the scanning technology actually shows us a bit of a different story as to why these are so spectacular and why they call the I guess the mainstream narrative into question. Is that fair to say?

Yes, because after scanning it, we can, we actually develop the software for analyzing them and we can tell mathematically how precise and what the tolerances are. And sometimes when you just

look at the vase, it has a camouflage by it's just the texture it has, the natural tone texture hiding those imperfections. So as you can see here when we are building up the scan, it actually shows you a different picture of the ways without the colors, without the texture. And after we have this scanned, we can put it in our software and we can crunch these numbers.

Fascinating. I mean, yeah, the scanning here is crazy. It's cool that the museums let you do this. Yeah. You come in, actually handle them. I mean, they're not very fragile, I presume. Like, obviously they're ancient, but they're still fairly strong. Yes, they are very strong, probably almost, I wouldn't say indestructible,

but yeah, we had to handle them very careful. So as you can see, we had this pad under everything. We had to hold it by two hands over the table. And the museum stuff said that they never seen this kind of tech in a museum setup. Because never, no one analyzed it before us, basically this deeply. We were the first in history to go in the museums and apply high-tech scanning technology. When it comes to actually scanning these vases, we're seeing a, different kind of image.

Like there are, with the OG vase specifically, like there are perfect tolerances. It's almost completely flush. It's remarkable that it was made 5,000 years ago, potentially more. What confidence do we have that this vase, the OG face,

is from that specific time period? And can you tell me about some of the deviations of the vases from each other? Yes. So the OG, Adam could talk about it more. He has the Providence paper and everything of that ways, but if I'm not mistaken, it could be traced back to the 1800s when it was given to Czechoslovakian diplomat or someone. But we don't really know where was it before that. But just based on the fact how it looks like, how it's, so it's, you can see very similar objects in the Egyptian museums.

But I think it's attributed to the same culture, the Nagada culture, the pre-dynastic culture, officially. But that was the reason why we went into museums or reached out to museums to scan vases with real providence. And actually, I can show you how it looks like with a few museums. And for example, with the most precise ways we found, this is what you see on the. their website. You can see the description, any previous publication, it appeared in and some kind of production, estimated production period, like Nagada 2. There were three eras of this culture, Nagada 1, 2 and 3. Sometimes it's not clear. They don't know because you cannot date stone. You can date the grave they found it in, but you cannot date the stone itself.

But for example, this is this little ball. It's actually remarkable how they made this very round. It's like spinning. And in few cases, you have very precise provenance, so which grave they found it in. It's documented precisely who found it where and in which grave. but it's a big question where they inherited and they put it in their graves with them,

buried it with them, or they made it. I mean, the OG base, for example, like that, the fact that it is, you know, has providence all the way to the 1800s, that would mean that it is either authentic from the period because it looks like similar stone,

it looks like similar things found of that period, or it was a fabrication that was made in the late 1700s. You cannot really do that level. Extremely unlikely. Yes. Or you can do it, but it would be so expensive to do it that it would not be a good deal. At the time, these things were given as gifts for free. Yeah, even 100 years ago or 50 years ago, they versed like, did verse 200 bucks or a few hundred bucks.

You could purchase those. So the price went up, but. It would take potentially months to. you know, fabricate them or, you know, maybe weeks to fabricate them. It would take a ton of time and energy and then you could sell them for maybe 100 bucks. Yeah. It seems like the market isn't really there for it. So the idea that this is a, you know, 1800s fabrication seems unlikely to me. Yeah. That seems strange. So given that, what do you think is the, you know, again, I know it's difficult to really speculate as to what happened or how, but this idea of some type of ancient

machine that was able to create items like this. Do you think that's a likely possibility? And, you know, why does that theory exist? And what exactly does that mean? If we are talking about machines, we can talk about hand-guided machines or fully automated CNC machines. We can talk about a lot of different kind of machines. I see it unlikely that they had a fully automated CNC machine back then.

but I think we are on the level or on the point where we are slightly changing this historical understanding of those people by measuring these artifacts because we have to say that they had some kind of lathe or spindle to work with but they are not these people are not attributed with these kind of tools now a lathe what exactly is a lathe? lathe is like a machine which is holding onto the piece it's turning it and you come with a blade or with a different tool to carve or remove material

while it's spinning it can be horizontal vertical it doesn't matter it just has to be have some kind of rigid bearing system and a rigid holding system because these stones are very, very hard and also rigid.

And the material is inhomogeneous. So basically you have different kind of crystals in it. You have quartz, you have different kinds of minerals and materials, which makes it hard to carve like a stainless steel or something. It's much different. And fun fact, when I send the order to print these, it was a Chinese company. I wanted to,

they had a CNC machining service as well, not just 3D printing. And I wanted to print out the OG ways and they were not able to carve out the interior of the OG ways. So basically the interior is also hollowed out in the same way as we could see it on the heat map. But they told me that they cannot do it.

because they don't have the right technology to do this. It was too complicated for, I think they had at least a four or five-axis CNC machine. The interior is still complicated. And when you... That is fascinating. When you think about it, I mean, yes, for a CNC machine, it's complicated, but for a flint tool attached to a wood, it doesn't... Improbable, to say the least.

I mean, the fact that you had a perfect scan. So this is an exact replica. Yes, exactly. Interior, exterior, everything. The interior is reconstructed because the laser scanner is cannot see inside the vase. Fair. The CT scanner is much better regarding this because it shoots x-rays onto the object. But the laser scanner is not able to see into very tiny openings.

That makes sense. So when you send this to a Chinese company and say, make this exactly, they say we can't. We don't have the material. We don't have the technology. I don't want them to make it out of granite. I ordered it from or of stainless steel, but it was still. And even stainless steel, which is much softer.

Yes, much softer, much easier to work with. We have the technology. We are working with that for hundreds of years. And Adam actually sent another order to a Chinese manufacturing company who makes granite objects. It was actually, you can see the ways here. This is the object he could order from a Chinese company. It's like a replica of an existing Egyptian waste but made out of granite.

You can see the CNC machine they were using here. Like one axis is turning the piece and another one comes from a different direction and it's carving out. Probably is marble, it's not granite here, but they used modern machines, and the result was very interesting because they were not able to hello out the interior. They drilled like a straight hole into this, but they said we cannot do this elliptical ovoids interior. And the result, the median circularity of the exterior was like four. 4,000s of an inch, like 110 microns. 110 microns? Yes.

Whereas the OG vase is 16? 16 micron. Wow. So even with the most premier advanced modern technology, they were still four times less precise. I'm not sure if they had the best tools they could have. Well, at least modern tools. Yes, but we can.

They have better tools than they had in the pre- you know, dynastic Egyptian era. Definitely. And even then, they were still four or five times off what that OG vase was. Yeah. What's up, guys? We're going to take a break really quick because I have a story to tell you. Fun fact, after you have a child, your testosterone naturally goes down. It's a way for you to become, like, more empathetic and more in touch and, like, protect your kid and stuff. And I didn't really believe that. But then I had a baby like a year ago, and I started to feel it. Around like three o'clock would roll around and I would get more tired. I wasn't really sleeping that great because we just had a baby. And I was like drinking.

more coffee and I started getting anxious and I was like this is not working I was like should I just do TRT like I know a lot of guys and they hit like 30 40 they're just ripping TRT so I was looking into it I was like how it affects your fertility I might want to have some more kids so I was like all right there must be a way I can do this that's more natural and just like support my testosterone so I hit my buddy David who does the ads and I was like is there anyone that's out out there doing any of this kind of stuff and he was like oh you should check out Mars men Mars men right here is a natural testosterone booster this is going to do just basically support your testosterone using a bunch of supplements and natural ingredients that

are going to make your testosterone be what it's supposed to be, okay? Don't even think about TRT because, again, it can be overkill, you're going to be injecting your body, and it can also shut down your body's like natural production of testosterone. But using this stuff, Tangat Ali, Sheila Jeet, vitamin D, zinc, boron, all the natural stuff that is going to be supporting your healthy tea levels and helping your stamina and giving you more energy throughout the day. And honestly, it's great. I've only been trying it for, you know, a couple weeks now. And I want to do like a before and after testosterone test and see like how much more my testosterone boosted. 91% of guys reported feeling higher energy and the reviews on this are absolutely amazing.

It's made in the USA, third party tested, and there is a 90 day money back guarantee. So there's literally no risk. You can try it for, you know, three months. And if it's not for you, they will get you your money back. And for a limited time, the listeners of this program, this is a crazy deal, by the way, most brands don't do this. You're going to get 60% off. for life and three free gifts when you use the code camp at men go to mars.com. That is men, m-en, go to mars, m-a-r-s.com and use the code camp at checkout. And after your purchase, they're going to ask you where you heard about them. Please say that you heard about them from Camp Gagnon that we sent you there. It really helps us out. Mars Men is great. It is a natural

support for your testosterone. Look, you can buy all of these supplements separately, or you can just go to Mars Men and get it all in one case. Now, let's see you. Let's see. Let's get back to the show. I mean, yeah, to me, it's like this is all pointing to something strange. I don't know exactly what. I don't know why, but it just doesn't seem like a bunch of guys standing around with, you know, sticks. Like, maybe some artisan that's been doing this since he was seven years old and he just, you know, chips away at vases all day and that's all he does.

And then he dies and then he teaches his kids how to do it. like, I'm like, maybe they could do it at scale and they could pump them out, like, one a week or something like that. And then you have like a bunch of them that are doing, it just, it seems unlikely to me. So I guess, you know, I'm trying to understand what are some potential stories of how these actually came to be, not necessarily what your own personal beliefs are, what you think happened, because again, you're not a stone mason, you're not necessarily an Egyptologist. But I guess, what are some of the theories out there that exist as to how these. came to be you know you have this lathe idea where you have something that's holding this and spinning

and then you know someone either manually you know handling a blade or some type of edge that's able to then carve these is that likely but again even that goes against what this story is about this time and history that they didn't have plates until much later yeah so the team uh we are team who is investigating these it's called the artifact foundation and we have a precision manufacturing experts in the team called Chris King. He has a well-known brand in the States, actually, Chris King Precision Components. He is making hubsets and headsets for high-end bikes. So he's in the precision manufacturing world for like 50 years.

He knows this inside and out. And he has an idea that you can make this with wooden lathe. So basically, if you have the right African black hardwood, and it's called journal bearing where you have a shaft in housing with some lubricant you can make something like this in in hundreds 100 micron or something it's achievable according to him but not with the mainstream explanation you have to have a very rigid and and stable mechanism. As I said, to hold onto these and to make it.

So basically the bearing has to have the same, at least the same or even more higher tolerances than the end product. Oh, interesting. Because even to make a lathe that spins, any imperfections to the spinning apparatus will then transfer to the piece itself. Yeah, exactly.

Oh, that's interesting. So if you have a perfect piece of pottery, hypothetically, you have a perfect lathe or a perfect pottery wheel. You can't have the perfect piece of pottery without the perfect wheel. You cannot do a precise object with a shitty lathe, yeah. That's interesting. So that just brings in all, you know, so many more questions that, oh, this was obviously made with a lathe,

but how the hell do they make a lathe? That was so perfect. You can make very flat surfaces by lapping techniques or with lapping techniques. can lap two pieces of flat stones and if you do it for for enough time it will be flat very flat it's a well-known technique it's used even modern times I think you can also make rounded objects with with different techniques so making it obviously not easy but not impossible the question is why these people did it and the later Egyptians those vases those alabaster vases they made why they are not even close

to these tolerances that's a softer stone easier to work with but still they are not resembling the same technology like the older ones and you can see it in in Egypt the older stuff is always a little bit better than the new stuff it's made out of granite it's it requires insane amount of work, insane amount of manpower and tools, and the new stuff is a little bit less complicated, let's say. Now, what is the mainstream explanation for why that is? What is the generally accepted consensus for why things seem to technologically devolve a little bit over time?

Is there one? I'm not sure exactly, but I think the basic explanation is that, yeah, kingdoms and the countries were collapsing. and then they forget some kind of tech and then they reinvented it. I had a nice conversation on my show with Luke Caverns. Yeah, Luke is great. And he just told me that in the Roman period of, so the later dynasties in Egypt were Greeks,

sorry, not Romans, Greeks. And they figured out how to build monumental stuff out of granite again. So they build the watchtower in Alexandria, and it was made out of granite. So they sometimes figured out how to do it again, but you don't see it to that same extent, to the same extent you saw it in the old kingdom or the pre-dynastic Egypt.

I mean, that seems like a reasonable explanation. You know, it seems reasonable to me that you would have a culture that has access to technology and for whatever reason that access to that technology, gets interrupted, whether it's like through famine, warfare, you know, some plague, one person has the information, maybe a collection of five people, and then they all die under unfortunate circumstances, you know, they don't have great record keeping in order to actually transfer this information back in that time. And so it's possible that things just go away. You need two generations

to forget something. Right. Like, I always think about it this way. Like, I don't know my great grandfather's name, you know? Yeah. Like, this is the guy, like, that, The reason I'm here, really. I know up to my grandfather, and then that's it. Do you know your great-grandfather's name? Like, how far back can you go? Great-great-grandfather? Something like that.

I started this family tree a few years ago. I think five, six generations. Okay. So you'd go probably to like the maybe 1800s, 17-100s? Yeah, something like that. But I don't know by heart, actually. but I have it on paper. So it's one of those things

where it's like even something that's personal in our everyday lives just is gone. You know, and like, sure,

you could maybe find it, but in that time without extensive record keeping, the idea that the information gets lost seems pretty plausible. But the functionality and the utility of like hard stone,

you know, vases would seem to present itself regularly. And so people would find new ways or different ways to basically get the same result, but they won't be the exact same as they originally were.

Yes. So, To me, that is very interesting. And again, kind of goes, I guess, against the mainstream narrative of what these people were and what they did. And I think there's sometimes a neat understanding of history that things slowly get more and more advanced and that everything is continuing to go up, whereas the reality is that might not be the case. Specifically, in ancient Egypt, it seems like there is a de-evolution and that there is technology that is lost in some capacity. The dynasty Egyptians were great. they were probably the best of their time, the astronomy, the mathematics, all these.

So they built amazing stuff. But you can see that those objects like these are the very big granite statues, the multi-hundred-ton grain statues. They just, maybe they were not important that much anymore, or they started to evolve technologically on a different path and this was not important anymore. Or they inherited a lot of these stuff from the previous culture. That's also an option. We don't know how old are these exactly.

I was in the Grand Egyptian Museum a few months ago in Cairo. And there I've seen a ball like this with three different serial numbers on it. One from the current museum collection or archive, one from the previous, one from the previous, one from the before that and sometimes they are dating these objects by the inscriptions on them because some of these has

very very primitive inscriptions like the pharaoh's name or something i started to wonder what if they did exactly the same we do now they found those they wanted to claim as theirs they put it on display they put it in their graves but they were not the original

manufacturers of these objects. I mean, again, that seems plausible to me. I mean, but that's the case throughout all of ancient Egypt, right? Like, there will be a new pharaoh that perhaps discovers or claims an existing monument, and then we'll just put his name directly over

the first name that was there. Yeah, that's common. Ramsey's the second, Ramsey's the Great, was well known by this. So, he, his father was Setti the first, and he inscribed over his father's inscriptions.

Right. So this is common. Yeah, that's why you can see those helicopter and spaceship glyphs in Setti's temple, because Rameses came and he overwritten some new stuff on his father's inscriptions, and it's flaked off in a way that it's now resembling this UFO stuff. It looks like something strange. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, that's interesting.

If anyone hasn't seen it, I mean, you should look it up. we can probably have a drop it on the screen here while people are watching. But it's basically these old hieroglyphic inscriptions that look like helicopters or UFOs or planes. And they look strange, but the theory that you're explaining is that because of this overlay that would happen where people basically put their names on top of existing names or on top of existing glyphs, they basically just change the shape of them completely. You could imagine if you wrote, you know, like your name and then someone wrote their name on top of your name, it would create a weird looking thing in the dead space. You know, and so basically trying to do like a tattoo cover up, you know, there's going to be, there's going to be some elements that are a little bit weird if you're not, you know, completely erasing everything. That makes a lot of sense. So to me, I'm like, it would make complete sense that they would happen with, you know, these vases. If you see a name on it, it's like, well, it's not necessarily that guys because throughout history, people have been known to kind of take credit for things that they didn't necessarily create. Exactly. So that would make it difficult with the dating, you know. But it's at least as old as that, likely older. Whatever the name is, it would be at least that old. At least that old.

That's fascinating. So what is the mainstream pushback to this idea of having some type of, you know, lathe, like a hand-cranked lathe to actually create these for the people in that time? The lathe were attributed to those people thousands of years after these were first found. So it's like Middle Kingdom, the idea of like a lathe? I think so. I'm not sure, but I know that these. were coming from the ages or the period before the official lathe begins or starts to be appearing.

And I think a lot of weird controversial videos went viral, like they were made by UFOs or very, I don't know, five, X-C-N-C machines and the pushback started there in my opinion. The people were too grandiose in their claims. Yes, exactly. And I think the easiest explanation is that either we didn't find those tools yet or they were inherited from a different culture, but we don't know the connection yet. So probably it's like it's a big missing link in history, in our understanding of those ancient people. And there's also, I think, a fundamental mismatch that happens with scientific standards of evidence and what the American public will accept as likely or probable.

So it seems like within the scientific standard, it's like we're not going to accept any type of theory without substantial evidence. Without some type of like, you know, smoking gun that we are able to discover, we're not going to really change what is the overall story or what is the overall explanation. And so for us and for the audience listening, they're looking at these vases, they're like, they're made of super, super strong stone. They're so, like, almost perfectly circular. Like, their tolerances are just, like, so phenomenal. And they're built before the lathe.

And there's an obvious mismatch here. And so for the general public, I think they can look at this and be like, well, yeah, this was obviously made with some type of, like, you know, primitive machine or some type of, you know, hand-cranked lathe with like some type of two-axis situation where this is fixed here

and then there's some type of fixed point above it and it's able to bore it out and they're able to angle it to then make it somehow perfectly circular. But without ever discovering those machines, the people that were using them some type of inscription about how they did it,

it's difficult for mainstream archaeology to actually get on board. And so as a result, now we have this mismatch between sort of like, you know, the institutional sort of scientific sort of scrutinizing side that needs like this almost

impossible standard of evidence and then people like you that are doing independent research saying like, hey, this is obviously not made by hand and there's a fundamental disagreement that occurs between both parties. Yeah. That's how it seems to me. And Egyptologists and archaeologists

didn't look at these things like we do now. So no one analyzed these before us this way. So there were rumors that they are more precise than we think and they are special for the reason and that's why adam actually started to collect these and analyze these first and then now we could get into museums and collect hard evidence and we have been in london in the petri museum in turin italy in the boston mf a in the brooklyn museum so we are museums are opening up as they see that

we are trying to follow the scientific way in collecting these evidences and just to compare actually we we also scan pottery wases and alabaster vases so I can show you actually the difference between a few of these if you're talking about the alabaster this is this piece here it's a coming from the same culture same Nagada culture 3000 or even more BC and obviously as you can see by your naked eye. It's got some issues. Yeah, it got some issues.

It's a nice piece, but the median circularity of this is 200s of an inch. Or three or 730 microns. 700? So again, to put in comparison, the OG is

16 microns. 16 microns. This is 700. 700. Yeah. If you are looking at an alabast, which is we also scan this is the the type of vessel which is actually described to be made by imhodep and joser with the traditional hand crafting method and you can still see these today in

Egypt if you go to Egypt you can see these being made on a street by craftments and the median of the the bottom is a little bit wonky but the the base is quite good or the rest of the body 500 microns so it's a little bit better we have also seen by the way we have also seen alabaster with 100 140 micron or something like that so there are nice alabaster bases but as as i said it's it's much easier to carve right it's a softer stone you would think you would find many more alabaster vases with you know know, 15 microns, 20 microns, because it's so much easier, but you don't. Yeah. And if you look at the best ways we found in the Petri Museum, this little piece, 72, 72 microns. Yeah. I mean, it's also worth noting just how thin these are.

Like, they're so remarkably thin. Not every of these are thin. if you look at the OG ways compared to it Which one of these is the OG face? None of these. Oh. Sorry.

These are only museum scans. But I can show you the OG ways actually. So if you look at the inside, this is a laser scan where we could capture some of the interior, but there is a nice CT scan where you can see the full interior.

And this is the wall thickness. Wow. So not all of these are thin. There are some thin vases where you, if you shine a light inside the vase, it, you can see the entire. It's transparent. Almost transparent because of the crystal content, the type,

and it's also like a few millimeters thick. Wow. Or even less than a millimeter. So it's also another question. How can you reach that level of thickness without breaking or fracturing the material? Right. I mean, even under the best circumstance, with a machine, that would be extremely difficult

to make it so thin. It has to be very stable and not shaking at all. So it's a complicated process. Wow. With this one, you can see this was scanned completely. I could scan the interior as well. The original shape and texture is this. This is made out of diarite.

This is very extremely hard stone. and it's attributed to the sixth dynasty. It's a little later. It's a little bit later. And the interesting part or the interesting aspect of this is that the interior is more precise than the exterior. So the interior is around one thousandths of an inch. Oh, that's so funny.

I have so many results here. I mean, the fact that the interior would be more precise than exterior is just hilarious. I mean, there's no reason that that would be the case. Like, there was no reason why they would make it that way intentionally. Maybe it was easy for them. Maybe their tools allowed this easily, and they didn't have to think about it. Right. So the exterior is 140 microns or 5,000s of an inch.

Mm-hmm. And the exterior or the interior is 1,000s of an inch. 26 microns. Wow. 260 microns. No, 20. 26. Is the interior?

Interior. Wow. I mean, that's almost as good as like the, you know, like the Petra vase here. That's also from the Petrie Museum. Oh, wow. So this way is externally was the best, had the most or highest tolerance, 70. But the interior of this one is a little bit better. Wow.

It's tough. I mean, that is remarkable. I mean, yeah, like, it's so interesting that people collected these and they thought they were so interesting without even knowing how interesting they really were, you know? Like, they were looking at. them being like, wow, these are really precise. They look really cool. And they didn't even realize that they were, you know, in some cases, you know, 16, what is the unit? 16 microns. 16 microns. That there were 16 microns of, like, the tolerance was just phenomenal. I mean,

that's so crazy. So, I'm curious. What happens now? Like, I think you've made a pretty compelling case that these were unlikely to be made by hand, you know, that some guy was, you know, some artisan perhaps, a skilled artisan 5,000 years ago was sitting there and like carving these out so perfectly that, you know, even today modern technology would have a hard time with it, so perfectly that if you shine a light through it, some of the light would emanate out because it was so thin, so perfect that, you know, to make one of them, it might take years and somehow there's tens of thousands of them. You know, the levels of perfection

that we're talking about here are just so remarkable that I have a hard time believing that they were made by hand. One of the things that I struggle with, though, is the variance between them. It seems like no two vases are really the same. Not really.

You can see similar ones. You can see wazes with a very similar design. Mm-hmm. But we didn't find two identical pieces yet. So the mass production theory is not working, in my opinion. Even the mold, like if they were cast, I mean, yes, if you can cast it, then where is the mold? And why there is no two identical pieces.

I mean, are you also, are you able to cast stone like this? You can cast stone. I'm not sure if you can cast it. this until or to reach this kind of tolerance or this level of tolerance. Because you still have to make a perfect mold. Yes. Which, I mean, it would be easier to make one

perfect mold than, you know, making tens of thousands. And the other thing is if you are using a lathe, you still have to do the handles somehow. So you cannot do the handles on a lathe. You have to come with a different device and remove the stuff from bit. If you leave like

a bull nose and then you come later and remove that parts between the handles, the luck handles, that would leave some mark on the piece. So the handles are also a part of the same stone? Yes. It's not a separate piece. No, it's not glued on it. No, it's part of the same stone.

And it's problematic if you think about the late technology, because how would you do this? That is interesting. That's a different question. And if you look at the OG ways between the handles, you can see a lot of green spots, which means that there is no significant deviation or tolerance changing between the handles. Today, if you want to remove this material from between the handles, you have to come with a different tool. it will introduce an error

because you have to reposition the piece you have to basically or you will introduce it kind of another tool mark and another deviation in this position or in this area but you don't see it's the OG I mean it's interesting though with the OG vase there actually is

a line it seems like at the top like that blue line which would lead one to think like oh I wonder if that is like the band of stone that existed that then they carved away But they carved it away with extreme precision. So it's like, you can see this part.

It's almost as good as the lower sections. Well, they certainly carved it away, right? And like, if it's all the same piece of stone, you have these handles at the top, it was carved away. Yes. How they did it again. No idea. I think no one knows how these are exactly made. Right.

But the fact that there's no two that are similar raises some questions for me as far as, you know, this, this lathe idea or some type of like, you know, multi-axis machine. that with a multi-access machine, I would assume that there would be very many that are of at least the same size or of the same tolerances. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So I'm curious, what do you make of that? If it's computer-guided,

and if there is a program where you start, you can assume that there are two identical, there will be two identical pieces, like 3D printing. It's easy. You don't have to guide it manually again to have the same sizes and everything. But if you have a lathe and you do it, the hand guiding manually, you design the vases somehow.

That's a different topic, the design, the elliptical design of these. But if you guide it, if you guide a tool manually by your hands, then you will achieve very similar but still different pieces. So you can still have this sophisticated lathe or machine, but the key point here is the handguide. tool. So it's possible that there was a hand-guided element? Yeah, I think so. That would be likely. Even polishing or just the carving itself, yeah. Interesting. That makes sense. Okay. Yeah, I wonder how much could be achieved through polishing? Like, if you were to generally carve this out with hand and you get it generally kind of

looking the same and then you just polish the shit out of it. This ways, this replica, which we ordered from China, out of ground. it was polished by power or with power tools by hand and it reached this 100 micron. Hmm. I wonder if they polished it for longer. They polished it for another like, I don't know, 30 days. But if you polish it by hand, you somehow you have to know how much more you should polish this in this part and that part to be perfectly round, yeah.

Interesting. Hmm. What's up, guys? We're going to take a break really quick because you know what time it is. It's time to level up and Blue Chew just dropped something wild. Okay, Blue Chew's been rocking with us from the beginning. So, of course, we have to rock, pun intended, with them. All right? And what they've just done is changing the game. All right, this is next level gold metal energy. This is Blue Chewold. If you never heard of it, this is the newest innovation from the number one chewable ED brand. All right, this isn't the little blue pill that your grandpa used. This is. This is blue gold. It's a little blue pill that your grandpa used. This is. This is blue gold. It's, This is the four and one beast that is setting the gold standard for performance. We're talking two ingredients to keep the good times rolling, okay, mixed with apomorphine and oxytocin that are going to turn up the arousal and the connections in your brain, as well as the ingredients to keep the blood flow to keep everything pumping, okay? Blue chuteu gold dissolves into your tongue and works in as little as 15 minutes,

and that means you're going to be rocking quicker and staying in the game longer. Let me just say that's how we put this tent up every single episode. We give Christos a blue chew, and, you know, what? We have this 10 rocking all year round. Okay, that's what it takes. Now, I recommend this in a, you know, a married Christian relationship, but you know what? You guys can do whatever you want. Blue Chew is the ultimate service to get you these chewables to your door in a discreet way to keep the bedroom on fire. We have a special deal for the listeners of this program. You're going to get 10% off your first month of Blue Chew Gold. If you use the code Gagnon, Gagin-O-N-G-N-O-N, that's promo code

Gagnan, G-G-N-O-N. You can visit Bluechoo.com. for more details and important safety information. And thank you so much to Blue Tube for keeping the lights on and making this show possible. Now, let's get back to it. What's up, guys? We're going to take a break really quick because I got to tell you a story. Imagine you're sitting in your house.

It's cold outside. It's a little snowy. And you're like, man, I just want a pinini. So you go and you order it, you know, from a, from DoorDash or something like that. And it never gets to you. You're looking at the app. You're like, dude, it's been four hours. Where's my pinini?

You're calling. No one answers. Well, this is a true story that happened. There was a woman, a client that was working as a DoorDash driver, and she slipped and fell on an icy walkway outside of a Panera bread and Fort Wayne, Indiana. She breaks her elbow, which leads to surgery and hardware having to get inserted into her arms. She can't work. And originally, you know, she sues Panera, and Panera was like, okay, we'll give you like 125,000. But then the good people over at Morgan and Morgan fought for her and got her the million dollar verdict that she deserved.

Yes. If you never heard of them, Morgan and Morgan is a man. America's largest injury law firm. Yes, and they're that way for a reason. They've been fighting for the people for over 35 years. Now, I'll be honest, if I ordered, you know, a pinini and the woman gets paid a million bucks because she slipped, I mean, it's a tragic thing to happen, of course, but I deserve a little bit of that. I should get a cut at least, right? I have the one to order the pinini. If I never ordered that pinini, she never would have slipped, never got a million bucks, which obviously she deserved, you know what I mean? But maybe next time she gets a million and million. One,

I can get a cool 100,000 out of that regardless. All I'm saying is if you're ever injured and you are looking to get the money that you deserved, the compensation that is entitled to from your injuries, Morgan & Morgan could be the way to go. Hiring the wrong law firm can be disastrous. I mean, you can be locked up in litigant. It's a nightmare. But hiring the right law firm could substantially increase your settlement. And with Morgan and Morgan, it's easy to get started.

Their fee is $0 unless they win. That's right. Their fee is free unless they win. your case. You don't pay zero, you pay zero cents unless they win your case. You can visit for the people.com slash gagnon, J-A-G-N-O-N- that is F-O-R-the-Peeble.com slash gaggon or dial pound law that's pound 529 from your cell phone. That's for the people.com slash gaggon or click the link in the description below. And thank you so much to the good folks over at Morgan and Morgan for sponsoring this program and making this show possible with this paid

advertisement. Well, let's get back to the show. Yeah, I mean, it raises questions. Again, I'm like trying to narrow down on exactly how it was done and why it was done in this way. And you said that some of them, obviously the ones we have in front of us, these exact replicas of quite small vases, but there are some that are five times the size.

There are some that are massive. I can find that video. It's in the British Museum actually, and it's huge. Imagine the original size of these, or the row size of the, actual material. This is the method from the later dynasties.

That's the explanation how they carve those. They put these wooden stuff inside with a kind of flint or some kind of blade attached to the end of it. And then they had some weights on the higher end. And they could basically rotate it by hand. This is working for alabaster. But if you think about this, pieces down these are heavy pieces like this size at least well and obviously the

original the raw material was much bigger they had to carve away this excess material and the in homogeneous nature of this tone just obvious these different minerals has different hardness. I mean, that's remarkable. So the black part and the white part has different levels of hardness. Yeah, exactly. So it's a different it's a new variable in the game, I'd say. Now, is it possible that they were done by hand, just like how that hieroglyph kind of depicted, right? You have, you know, just a piece of flint or some type of other

stone that's in there that you're carving out. And, And just by chance, the OG vase was virtually perfect. And that one was perfect. And some of these other ones have different deviations. But every now and again, they made one that was just like almost perfect, just through trial and error. And maybe they were able to make them quicker than we thought. Is it possible that that is the case? We see badly made hard stone wages as well.

So we see those with very low tolerance. So like the same level as the pottery, or you can see it clearly with your eyes that it's, it's not good, not good at all. But was it a different craftman? Was it a different workshop? Was it an apprentice who started to learn how to make these? I don't know. It's possible.

But you can see perfect, imperfect ways. Yeah. Interesting. And the fact that there are some that are perfect, some that are imperfect. To me, the other question is something you already touched on before is like, why do you need a vase to be perfect? You know, like, why does it need to be perfect?

perfect, perfect. Like, if you could achieve this with pottery, why not just do pottery? Either you, it has a function, so the tolerance or the level of perfectness has a function, even if it's a sacred function. I think Luke Caverns had this idea that probably if they were holding some sacred psychedelics

or like random sacred liquids, they wanted containers to be perfect. to resemble the goodness or something like that. Right. Or they had the tools which allowed them to make these easily. And it wasn't that difficult. Or maybe both. It could be both.

Could be both, yeah. That's interesting. Yeah, I just, I don't know. I don't see why you would need something like so little to be so perfect. I just don't get why that would be the case. It must be some type of like spiritual or like a religious thing because functionally like this doesn't need to be that perfect. And I presume,

even with machinery, like making this that perfect would just be annoying. But yet, here it is. But we are trying to launch a challenge. So we are at the Artifax Foundation, we are trying to challenge craftmen's and artisans to make these or one of these with the traditional methods,

no cheating, no modern tools, document it, and if you can reach the tolerance of these, we are giving away a 24,000. $25,000 price. Wow. So it's not an easy task. And sometimes when you are trying to get it from a modern manufacturing company,

you don't get that comparison. So you cannot compare that modern granite ways I showed you to these. And if you want to know what's achievable by hand, it's really hard to know what's the limit. I think the best way to do it with that. like a challenge. I think that's great. So every detail

will be available on the artifactfoundation.org website. Oh, that's awesome. And are you trying to approach specific types of students or specific types of people directly to work on this? Stone, mazons, craftsmen,

yeah, who has experience working in hard stone, igneous rock, like granite. Is there a time limit on this or is this like just open? I think it will be open until it's claimed.

Yeah, because the timely, I mean you cannot really estimate how much time do you need for this and we would be happy to see someone trying everything he can like a very skilled stone mason with the right tools not modern but but traditional tools and and seeing the results can it's can it reach the same level like this or the same level these vases has have or it's possible or not. Let's figure it out. Hmm. Now, what does the future of this field look like? Like, let's say, you know, more time goes on, you're able to analyze more vases. You're able to see that the tolerances

of these vases are just too perfect. And I think you've already done that, but let's say you continue to do that. What will it take for mainstream archaeology and mainstream history to change their narrative on what the pre-dynastic Egyptians were able to accomplish? I think they need data. They need wetted research. I think we have to involve Egyptologists and archaeologists and we are actually working on this

with the Egyptians in Cairo. And they are seemingly open to this. So the younger generation of archaeologists and Egyptologists are getting more open to these ideas and to work together. I think the main problem here was that they didn't apply modern tools to these because no one thought that these are exceptional or no one thought in the academic field.

And I think these still today considered as controversial theories and voodoo or I have no idea, but they are not researched enough. And that's what we are trying to do. And we are not only researching the vases. We have been in Egypt. We had an expedition last year. And we have measured a few boxes, great boxes. And that's also very, like, extreme.

Could you touch on the boxes really quick? This is really, really interesting. Yeah, I can do that. So basically, we have a pyramid in a phyum oasis. It's a little bit, let's say, Not in good shape. Seemed better it is. Yeah.

A fixer upper. So the outer layer is a mud brick and it's collapsing. It's, it's, you cannot go inside, but. When was this discovered, this pyramid? I'm not sure. I'm not sure when. I think it was Old Kingdom also or Middle Kingdom. It's a pyramid of Senuss Red, but I'm not sure about the actual age of this.

What's more interesting, that's the, that's the, inside so these tunnels are not connected to the pyramid there's a tunnel system underneath this structure so you can see at the top like that rock part that's the pyramid and that is you can go underneath and inside the pyramid there's an internal structure that you could have gone into back in the day but it's closed off I think so yeah yeah and then below it there is a completely unrelated tunnel structure yes pretty complicated yes I have been only in in the in the in the tunnel structure and it's actually quite remarkable so this is the pyramid here up there

and uh you can go down it's uh he's adam actually uh here you can go down uh with a special permission it's not available to the public um and yeah there are a lot of stairs it's a very long long uh descent descent a lot of bats all over the place There was a room with full of bats in the corner. He's Ben, actually. Oh, nice. Yeah, and we tried to do nice photogrammetry and scanning on these, on these. I will show this one, our artifacts, which is down here.

There are some pits and shafts filled with water on the bottom. For what? Like, what is that even for? I don't know. I'm not very knowledgeable regarding this, this, uh, structure itself right story of it uh i was there to investigate that that box so yeah bats everywhere and then you come into this room when when we were there actually one huge piece of rock just fell no way yeah so it's probably a little sketchy it's collapsing it's catchy

that's why it's not open to the public it's not really safe anymore i would but it's beautiful i mean even in its current state you can kind of see like there was real intentionality and craftsmanship the into creating these walls. And there's a big granite room inside. So I will come to this point soon. It's a small bed again. There's an arched ceiling made out of granite. And inside, come on, it's a long video, sorry.

So this is a huge granite room. And everything you see here is granite. And there is a very precise box. in the middle of this room. And Sir William Flinders-P-3 investigated this box. He measured it and he said, probably this is the most precise object,

granite object, ever came out of Egypt. Yeah. He measured the flatness of these, like the top rim and several parts of it. And the other side, like not the left top, but the right top. on there he measured 4,000th of an inch flatness. Wow.

And it's made out of one single piece of granite. I mean, it's just remarkable. And if you see the edges, it's like crazy. And it's not fitting through this door. Right. So either it was built inside the room or the room was built around it. Yeah, exactly. And we try to like prove Flynn's. there's petri's measurements on this box and we could actually measure the same he measured

so you actually took scanning technology into it yes and also photogrammetry and these stuff so we have reconstructed this box in 3d and we could fit perfect planes on these parts and you can see that the range is in inches and the green is is around plus minus four thousandths of an inch which is roughly 100 micron and most of this part is 100 micron wow we could measure also the bottom and other pieces like other corners other walls of it and both came out around the same 4,000s of which is extreme. I mean, it's perfect.

When this was discovered, was this used as a tomb for a sarcophagus? Was there ever a top that was found? Yeah, the mainstream explanation is that it was used as a sarcophagus. I see. But nothing was ever found in the modern era. It was likely looted beforehand or something to have effect. Is that what the story is? I'm not sure about this particular pyramid.

I don't want to say wrong thing. or lies, so I don't know. That's fair. Okay. I don't know. Is that Googlable? I wonder if we... Yeah, yeah.

It's a pyramid of Senosrette. Of Senosrette. Would you mind Googling that, Gabe? The pyramid of Senosrette. And just see if there was ever a... Or Lahoun. L-A-H-U-N. Okay, Lahun.

And just see if there was ever a mummy that was found inside a pharaoh or a body, sarcophagus, et cetera. But that is just fascinating. I mean, even like, the squaring. on the angles here or like almost perfectly 90 it's it's crazy it's crazy if you i have another shot from the other side so if we are coming this is behind this granite room they are trying to keep it up it's it's a collapsing slowly um but if you go towards this room from this direction you can see the mazernery like the this

This is this arch ceiling is also granite. And the arches are perfect. We didn't measure that, but it looks quite nice to me, actually. They look remarkable. I mean, it looks so modern, I guess, is my feeling. Like, it just looks like that could exist in, like, a villa today, you know? Yeah. And I want to show you the flatness and reflection on the box.

I will come to this point soon. And you can see where it changes, where you have, like, I guess, more traditional limestone or some type of, you know, more common rock in the box. region to then perfect like red granite. Probably this mortar is is modern some kind of fix or I don't know, but he's Kyle, Kyle Allen from the Brothers of the Serpent podcast is also part of this investigation. Are you familiar with them? Yeah, yeah, they're great. So you can see the, this, uh, it's not the best shot, but did you see the reflection of, of this, uh, maybe when I came in. Do you see that? it's not perfectly smooth.

You can see some... Yeah, those little aberrations. Like mineral dense or something in the stone, but it's, I think the right term for it's perfectly grinded. No, it's not, not grinded. Sorry for my English. I have no idea, but it's perfectly flat, but not smooth. Right.

So it has deviations and dense in the material itself. But that's possible from, I mean, granite is like an amalgam of many different types of stone. So it's possible that some of the pieces of stone or crystallization within the granite erodes with time more, or that there's some type of reason why that goes away, or it's harder to actually grind down or to smooth out. And so it creates these little aberrations. But this is, I feel like, pretty common with any type of piece of unrefined granite. It's an inhumogeneous material. Right. Like if you had like a modern granite countertop like prior to being, you know, perfected, I guess, you're going to see like little aberrations and even with granite to this day. So to me, that doesn't seem that that crazy. The fact that it's all so flat is remarkable. And the bottom of it isn't. That's the most interesting part. So if anyone listening at home can imagine, you have basically what looks like a shoe box. Okay. And there's like a large lip on the top of it. And it's just a perfect.

rectangle and the top of it is completely level. Like you could just put a ball right on top and it wouldn't roll anywhere. But the bottom part is cut at this strange angle. Yes. So it's the, it's actually imperfect, or perfectly imperfect. It's somehow created in a way that the bottom part is cut at this angle. It's a perfect angle. So the angle is made with a precision as well. Right. It's intentionally made that way. but for whatever reason it's at an angle so it almost looks off kilter by like an inch or two but then the top is still perfectly flat yeah bizarre

truly strange and that is just the actual you know box itself not to mention the rest of the room is also what looks like virtually perfect granite and if I'm not mistaken today we don't really make like kitchen countertops with this tolerance like four thousandths of an inch

right it has no function. Now, the burial story, again, this is an obvious trope that exists with an Egyptology that when people don't know things, they just say, oh, it was a burial ceremony or whatever. The burial story, to me, does actually make sense here, right? Like, you have a box-type thing

with no drainage system, no reason to put things in or out, you know, it's beautiful about the size of a human body inside a pyramid. I'm like, or at least underneath the pyramid. To me, I'm like, I could conceive of something being, you know, someone being buried here. To me, that's not crazy. Where that person is, what happened to the rest of the things that were in the room, I would like to know.

But to me, that seems like a reasonable explanation. And the fact that the tolerances are so perfect for a burial ceremony also makes sense, right? Like, you don't need these countertops to be perfect. You know, you don't need the countertops in your home to be perfect. You don't really need this to be perfect. unless you had some type of spiritual or higher calling to make them perfect for some type of presentation in the afterlife. So to me...

Or the entire structure has a different function which we cannot understand now. Maybe if it's a part of some kind of system which requires these tolerances like a manufacturing system or something, then it's also... Could be an explanation, but still, I mean, we can speculate, but I don't think we will exactly know what this was used for.

That's possible. And not to mention if they have technology or machines that are different than what we think that they have, maybe making this is actually not as difficult as we think it is. Yeah. Interesting. So now for something like this, what kind of a machine could be used hypothetically to make something like this? You can lap these surfaces, so you can make an almost perfectly flat surface with like rubbing two stones or, or flat stones on each other or three.

There are different types of flapping techniques, but my, so the most interesting part of this is the angle. Like this almost 90 degrees perfect angles. And it's very, it's not sharp, it has some kind of flattened edge, but it's still, you can see that this flattened edge is also very straight. The mainstream explanation is the same kind of tools. If you use like dollarite pounders and Flynn tools, theoretically, according to archaeologists, you can make this.

I don't see that happening here. So I don't know. I think that's the right answer. I'm not a machinist. I don't know. But this also requires a very sophisticated tool in my mind. opinion to guide it even if it's a hand-guided power tool some to some sort it has to be sophisticated yeah I mean this is it's just remarkable like the level of precision that these specific

pieces of technology or these specific artifacts possess and the fact that it doesn't raise more question with mainstream traditional archaeologists I find interesting I wonder if I would love to ask just like straight down the middle Egyptologist or archaeologists and be like what do you think of this and I wonder what they would say have you asked them well when we are in a museum set up and then we are scanning those things usually one archaeologist is with us and she's watching usually making sure that we are not breaking anything and in the meantime for example Chris King is trying to explain what are the implications why are we investigating this and seemingly they didn't even think about that that these things could be

that precise, but they are open to the idea, actually. I think we need to show hard evidence, hard proof and data, and then we can have a constructive discussion. That's why I think the challenge is a very nice opportunity to show that, okay, today, if we challenge every skilled stone mason, let's say we cannot achieve this, or we can achieve this but with different tools, then we can start a question or start this discussion with archaeologists,

okay, something is off with these explanations. It's not able to explain the precision. Right. And most of them are open, I think, at least to the discussion. But in academia you have to show the proof, the data to have like a standpoint. Just remarkable. Well, Carraway, thank you so much, brother. I really hope you get many people signing up for this competition, because I think the competition will yield interesting results for you guys, not only to raise awareness and kind of spread this, you know, same sort of passion and obsession

with these specific artifacts, but additionally, to see different ways that these things could have been made. And maybe people can find, you know, clever or interesting ways to actually make these things that no one had ever thought of before. I think that would be really cool. if nothing else, it just adds more experts into the industry. So whether you have a machinist that tries to make it, or you have a craftsman that makes stone pieces of pottery, they might have a contribution, and then you can actually just collect interesting people.

And then who knows, maybe someone wins. Yes, so if anyone is interested in a more detailed in-depth documentaries and videos about these results and what we are doing at the Artife Foundation, they can find the related podcasts. You just search for ancient technology podcasts or my name on YouTube or Spotify or Apple Podcasts. It's K-A-R-O-L-Y-Poka. And yeah, they can find all of these material there.

Amazing. Well, Carraway, thank you so much, brother. I really appreciate it. And I'm going to keep an eye out for what happens with this competition. And hopefully, hopefully we get to a point where there's a certain standard of evidence that mainstream archaeology and history

will start to look at this and be like, all right, maybe our understanding of the timelines of technology are different than we originally thought. But who knows? Thank you for the opportunity. Of course. It was great.

Thank you, brother.