Danny Jones Podcast - #148 - Evidence For Super Advanced Ancient Technology | Ben Van Kerkwyk

Episode Date: August 9, 2022

Ben Van Kerkwyk travels the world investigating the mysteries of our past, civilizations, cataclysms, and what it all means for us today. Check out Ben's YouTube Channel:  http://YouTube.com/UnchartedX http://UnchartedX.com JOIN OUR KULT: https://bit.ly/koncretepatreon  Danny  https://www.instagram.com/jonesdanny  https://twitter.com/jonesdanny Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thanks for doing this, bro. I really appreciate it. Yeah, no one else. You are quite the traveled, cultured person. You came from Australia, lived in, where did you live after? Australia. Singapore. Yeah. And then now you're living in Northern California.

Yep. Yep. How, how, what before we start like getting into what you're doing with your YouTube channel, Uncharted X, which is fascinating. I wanted to talk a little bit about how you started in IT. You started working for HP. I did. Well, yeah.

Back in the day, it was. digital deck if people remember deck it's digital equipment corporation I think and then they were acquired by compact and then they were acquired by HP but yeah ended up being HP so more or less 20 years in in that in that company and that's what made you move to Singapore it was yeah so I my background was in networking so basically I came out of university actually dropped out of university to start running ISPs back in the day of dial-up modems and you know 56k modems that kind of fun stuff back when that was a thing, no longer a thing now. But I started doing that and then pre-Y2K, you know, the companies were coming to town, doing defense contracts for getting

things ready, infrastructure ready for the Y2K problem, you know, all of a sudden this massive issue about, well, what happens when things turned to year 2000, all these clocks and all of the, you know, and all of the chips and stuff might have all these issues. So there was a lot of contracts going around and they were looking for people to help them kind of survey and, and, and, work on defense sites mostly. So and I just got picked up. I applied for this job and they figured out that I knew my knew what I was doing on networks because I would go into these defense sites and I was supposed to be just, you know, putting discs into computers and testing computers, but I'd end up mapping out the entire network on these defense bases and they went, well, we really need your

help and come down and help us because the workload is, it's huge. They were trying to do this for all of these defense sites. And of course, you've got this hard stop with Y2K. But that was it. Yeah, I moved. They pulled me into the corporate defense, big government infrastructure world, and that's where I stayed for a long time. And you traveled to, you told me you traveled to China, something like 25 times. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it was, we were, we were, HP itself had a, had a, had a, they were a vendor.

They make network equipment. So, you know, we were trying to grow a business in Asia Pacific. And I began, I was one of kind of the technical, technical experts of guys that were focus on a lot of the. technical side of things in Asia Pacific. So I ended up doing a lot of stuff in Australia and then it just would branch out and out and then they moved their headquarters to Singapore and they like come and come and live in Singapore and work there. So I did that. But yeah, as part of this, our whole region was Asia Pacific and Japan. Bump that. And yeah, I ended up going to China over those 20 years, probably more than 20 times. It's, it's, I definitely have traveled quite a bit in

that career. It was like one year we can, I remember coming to the States seven times in a year while I was living in Singapore. It's just an awful lot of travel involved in that type of a role. And then eventually they were like, hey, our global headquarters were in, we're in Roseville, California, which is Northern California. And David, like, come and come and work over here. I said, yep, okay, sounds good. So I've been in the States ever since.

Is all this global traveling and spending time in China and Singapore and all these places, is that what got you interested in the history of civilization and the human timeline and all that stuff? or is that, would that have happened, would that have interest been sparked if you hadn't been all these places? Possibly, but I actually have to, I've always had an interest in history. My mother was a history teacher. So I did history through school. It was an elective in high school. I almost went in that direction at university before realizing that if I actually wanted to make money in life, I should probably go in the other direction of IT. And I was way more interested in the

computer side of stuff at that point in my life. But I'd always had an interest. I'd always read and like I'd read books on the Romans and I'd had an interest in history for a long time. And I would take time when I would go to places like in China. I've been to the Great Wall. I've been to a lot of the museums. I've been to like the cultural sites. I haven't seen any of the pyramids. I didn't even know those things existed.

Not that you can easily tour those or anything, but I would always take time in these places, Japan, you know, even when I was living in Asia and Cambodia, things like that, to visit these sites. But it really wasn't until I met, well, I had read and I knew who Graham Hancock was. In fact, it was his first appearance on the Rogan show that really sort of started to suck me into that side of things when it comes to all. There's actually like this massive mystery that's buried at the deepest part of our history in the earliest parts of our civilization. And it's got a lot to do with kind of who we are as a human species in what our history is and what's happened.

And then I had the chance to travel with Graham through Bolivia and Peru in 2013. And then through Egypt in 2015 for a couple of weeks. So I did too as a... he was saying, hey, he was doing research for magicians of the gods, which was the follow-up to his fingerprints of the gods, probably the work that he's most well known for, that first really proposes the idea that there's an ancient lost civilization that may be at the root of all of our ancient civilizations as we know them. So once I had that chance to really spend some time with him and in particular in Egypt, I met a guy named Yusuf Aywin, who, if anyone who's seen my videos, would be familiar with Yusuf. And we took a day off from one of the days on the tour and we went out

to a site called Abysseer, and he showed me a lot of the technological and technical details in the stonework that just blew my mind. I knew nothing about this stuff before, and that was when I just decided, it was like, I, there's so much here. USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day, like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With USAA, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a quote at usa.com slash bundle. Restrictions apply. And trying to find information on this stuff is so difficult at that point because, you know, a lot of this data is buried in these books.

Like Chris Dunn had written his books on lost technologies of ancient Egypt. There's a few of these engineers that have dug into it, guys like Graham Hancock, Robert Beauvais, these authors that wrote about this story and about this mystery. It's this information that's buried in these books. You have to be into the topic to understand it. But I thought, you know, this is at the same time we're seeing the rise of the like consumer grade high. quality stabilized video equipment and nobody had really gone out and looked at these sites taking a fresh look at them with some high quality footage and combined it with some of these ideas and these and these new concepts these new ways of looking at history that is buried in his book so

i thought you know there's an opportunity here to to go and do that that's what i wanted to do so yeah a couple years traveling and and filming specifically for that and then found myself on youtube in the end and and kind of growing it from there it's you know i didn't know the first thing about it getting into it but it's been it's been interesting right yeah man And it's crazy that you have videos. Like, I've never seen an hour plus video that just does a deep dive on some of the most minute details of some of the artifacts in ancient Egypt. Like, for example, you spent up, there's like an hour plus video where all you did was look at the core drilling. Yep.

And the little threads that wrap around these cores that were drilled out of these pieces of granite and basalt. It's fascinating, man. Thank you. Yeah. It's exactly how I feel about it. It's absolutely fascinating. And if you set that stuff up in the right context, I think the implications of it is what's truly fascination.

It's when you realize that there is evidence of techniques and tools that we use that simply do not match the things that we find in the archaeological record. Like there's all sorts of evidence from all sorts of different angles that suggest that our concept of, of the earliest parts of our history are most likely incorrect. Our idea of what the history of human civilizations is is most likely incorrect. There's lots of angles and vectors that come at this problem. And one of them happens to be the technical evidence and the engineering evidence that's on sites, the oldest sites that we know of in places like Egypt.

You know, and that's, I want to be clear that when I talk about like, you know, rewriting history, I usually, I'm talking about the very origins of human civilization as we know it. We've got a pretty good grip on on things from about the times of the Romans and the Greeks and, you know, from then on, right? We've got a good understanding of it. It wasn't until that time, I think, that we started to have multiple sources that would detail and record single events so you can start to get corroboration through the story of history. But there's further back you go, the more muddy it gets. And this idea that civilization itself started only 6,000 years ago, you know, with the Babylonians and Samarians, it's an antiquated idea at this point.

It is still the mainstream picture of history, but there has been so much, and it's been that picture, it's been that story for probably about 100 years, like our idea of when civilization started around 6,000 years ago, and we were all Stone Age before that, has been in place for probably a century or more now. And, I mean, at least from the age of enlightenment, the age of reason as that as that started to grow but there's been so much development so many new discoveries and so many adjacent sciences to to history itself that have made discoveries and and really push this field back they should be having the impact on the story of history but they don't so that's you know that's one of the that's one of the angles that i like to take on it and one of the

the particular elements of that that i'm fascinated with is the the technological evidence that suggests that there was something else going on a long time ago. And there's another model that fits our model of particularly the Egyptian civilization, but also that of South America and Eastern Ireland and Turkey and a few other places. And it's an inheritance model, this idea that these civilizations didn't just emerge out of the Stone Age from nowhere and immediately peak and immediately build the greatest pyramids and things we've ever seen that are still standing, which is today the story, right? All the greatest works of Egypt are the old kingdom works that happened in the earliest parts of their civilization and they kind of declined for ever

since then that doesn't make any sense from a technological perspective so that that ever look at our civilization as a as a technological evolution like we we have we have ramped up to space shuttles and and space flight you know we you know we it takes time to develop that capability but when we look at places like egypt it's it's the inverse it's like they peaked early from out of nowhere apparently and then dipped off and there's another model that works really well to explain that and it's it's an inheritance model so it's the idea that maybe they didn't start with nothing maybe they inherited some of these concepts some of their artworks some of their objects their architecture their their their artifacts for people who real quick for people

who aren't familiar with your videos and your story and the overall uh scholarly timeline that's basically the the known narrative that's taught in school books and textbooks what is the like 30,000 foot overall accepted view of history as we know it. So according to the accepted view of history is that we have been in the Stone Age up until around 6,000 years ago. So, you know, call it 4,000, between 4,000 and 5,000 BC was when we started this is, and this is the standard model, if you like. That's when we started to develop things like agriculture and organized society and

civilization itself began to begin. So prior to that time, human beings were. were just hunter-gatherers, like Stone Age technology. We weren't organized in any way. And so once... This was like 200,000 years ago, right? No, no. No, well, Stone Age, yes. So the idea of civilization itself is only 6,000 or so years old. Like the... As long as humans have existed before that, the idea is that, no, we were just Stone Age hunter-gatherers. Now, that may have made sense when we were considered to be maybe

50,000 years old as a species. We... We... And that was the... case. We thought we were around 50,000 years old for a long time. And then some discoveries were made that put the human, like human remains were found that, you know, anatomically correct and modern human beings were there from about 150,000 years old, years ago, sorry. And then recently in the last, this is one of those discoveries that should really have an impact on history is that in the last 10 years, there's been, there's been human remains, like anatomically correct human remains found in Morocco that date homo sapiens us back to around 300,000 years old. So, you know you have to once you get into that range of say 300,000 years old and here's another

thing that to throw that out there again new science that should be impacting the story of history genetic evidence the DNA evidence shows that that us and neanderthals split from a common ancestor somewhere in the realm of 800 to 900 000 years ago so that's that's what I would consider the the range of possibility for human timeline so for sure we've got human remains 300,000 years old. We may have been here up to 800 to 900,000 years ago. And for all of that time, you're going back, you're not talking, it's not like planet snowball back in that time. We've got warm periods, you know, periods of where there would have been plenty and like the same type of anatomically correct modern thinking human beings getting together. And it's not, we start to solve problems.

Like we do develop civilization and develop like problem solving capabilities generation by generation. So it's, it's kind of hard to think that it only at the very tiny, tippy end of that whole period, let's say 300,000 years long, only the last 6,000 years has been the development of civilization. That's the standard model. Right. And basically what you have found specifically going into places like Egypt is that the narrative of Egypt alone is that from the start of Egypt until the end of the ancient, what is the last civilization that was in Egypt was the the old kingdom or? No, well, I guess they would call it the new kingdom and then the Greco-Roman period. The Romans essentially took it over. Cleopatra was the last kind of Egyptian rule.

Right, right, right. So essentially what you have discovered there is that some of the things, when you look into engineering and the way that some of these stones were cut and moved, don't fit the timeline with what is accepted to be their advancement. technologically with tools because they only had copper tools and chisels. And some of the stones that you found in your videos that you show were clearly cut by like a very, very high precision blade or something like that. Because they produce perfectly smooth surfaces like you would see in somebody's kitchen on their granite countertop.

Right. Well, yeah, some services end up that way. Yeah. So it's the technological evidence and we can come back. There's lots of other sort of supporting evidence for for this hypothesis. And I should say too, it's not necessarily my discovery. A lot of people notice this, particularly engineers. Anyone like Chris Dunn is probably the most well-known because he actually published on it. He's an engineer. But I've taken and been in Egypt with many engineers.

And they just shake their heads and almost uniformly engineers. The people that know, stone masons, stoneworkers, engineers, construction guys, will tell you that there is no way that these finishes and these, the stones and the artifacts that we see in Egypt could have been accomplished with the tools that we know the dynastic Egyptians used. So the real problem is it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit the tools and the techniques that are in the archaeological record, all the depictions that we have where the Egyptians show them working on certain things. So in the early days, yeah, all they had was copper and they had pounding stones.

It's a misnomer. The copper chisels is kind of a bit of a joke at this point because obviously copper and bronze itself won't do anything to granite, but they did have flint. They had pounding stone. So there are ways that you can use other stone material to shape harder stones like that. And they even give you, like if you go visit there, they'll even give you some of these pounding stones and let you like practice heading in these big rocks. In the quarry at Aswan, yeah, where there's literally a 1200 ton obelisk still in its bed that hasn't been detached from the bedrock and it's was supposed to have been lifted up and used as an as an obelisk. And supposedly it was shaped by, yeah,

pounding stones, which they, you know, they, it's funny. When you visit the quarry, it's one of those places they indoctrinate you before you go in. You have to sit down in a room and watch like a 20-minute video about how it was done because then you get out there and you look at it, no one really ever believes, like that's how it was done. I did a video recently on it, like a deep dive into that. It's like an hour-long video looking at the scoop marks and the pounding stone techniques. And there's just, there's very little evidence that supports that that that could have been done that way. And in fact, there's been some experiments. And a lot of, I, I like to look at all sides of the argument and there have been experiments by mainstream

Egyptologists like Mark Lehner and Zahawas that tried to show that that was the technique that was used but even in those experiments they had to resort to using bulldozers and power tools and modern techniques to do anything. It's one of the things that I have a that I'd like to talk about when it that that annoys me about this is that there's amongst all of the naysayers, the people that say, oh no, no, that definitely the Egyptians could have done it this way. They could have just, instead of using like circular saws and some form of power tool to cut the blocks of basalt and granite, which is what the evidence suggests, they'll say, no, no, it was just done with grinding. They would grind it with a copper bar and

sand and water, and they would just sit there and grind through it. And there's been, so there's been experiments done to see how long that would take. And, but not, in amongst that, they'll cut like a couple of inches over a period of days and days and days of work. And as far as I know, this is the crazy thing, is that not a single block has been fully cut, not a single box has ever been formed. We've not replicated a single object in its entirety that we see from ancient Egypt, but we're claiming that these are the tools and techniques that we use to make them. So even the people that are absolutely sure on the standard model and saying, no, no, these primitive tools were used, we've not made a single cut, like we've not cut a single

large block between. And you have to, once you see Egypt, if you go there, the scale of it boggles the mind. We're talking millions of tons of extremely hard stone. And this is back in the day, you've got to remember too, a lot of this granite that is used, particularly in the old kingdom, the earliest parts of the Egyptian civilization. This was supposedly before the Egyptians had the ability to quarry the granite from the, it's like a real contradiction in the story of history, of which there are many. But one of them is that they supposedly didn't have the ability to quarry granite until later, times because in later periods the middle kingdom new kingdom they did develop iron

that access to iron they could use steel you know iron chisels and had a bit more capability they certainly developed that capability they they wrote hieroglyphics were amazing I don't want to dis the ancient Egyptians I think a lot of the artwork and they did a lot of work on these on temples and stuff they did they were incredible civilization but there are just a few things that are outside of their technological reach and and you know those those are things like the the precision that's evident in the Serapium boxes, these giant, you know, 100-ton single-piece granite boxes that we find located underground. That's a good example of some of these artifacts that really aren't

explainable by any primitive means. So let me pause you for a second. When they first started studying ancient Egypt and trying to piece this timeline together, like, was it just, was it just, was the problem just that there was no communication between different disciplines? Like, was there, was it just compartmentalization of geologists and historians and and Egyptologists, whoever, whoever was all involved? It's almost like they weren't really communicating. Like, how did they make this mistake so early on? You know, that's an excellent question because that's still a situation that exists, unfortunately. So one of the major problems, with the discipline of archaeology and history is that if it's old, if it's something that's ancient,

if it's in that realm of archaeology, then it doesn't matter what it is. The archaeologist claims domain on it. Like he claims eminent domain and authority over it, which is crazy because, yeah, we should be listening to the geologists. We should be listening to the engineers, you know, in particular the engineers. We should be listening to the, you know, the geneticists and the other scientists that there's so many things that have happened in these adjacent fields of science that should be affecting that story of history but it just doesn't happen so

when it first emerged you know we Egyptology when it first came out we were very focused on uh the first thing to the real majors leap forward was the was the decipherment of hieroglyphics so there was a whole study that and this is a hundred odd years ago now 150 is uh the decipherment of hieroglyphics really helped so and that's and that's primarily how we're we date and relate pretty much most of Egyptian history. It's through interpretation of the writing. And that is the core study in a lot of cases of Egyptology and archaeology. Like they're, they're there to sort of decipher how these people live, what their society was like, what their daily life was like, their structure, their kings. And I think we have a really good grip on

dynastic Egypt itself, like in terms of what that was like. But at the same time, like if you, you know, when you're looking at ancient objects and you're looking at ancient engineering, the expertise should really be in the hands of the engineers. And that's where the paths really diverge, if you like. It's like historians, it's a joke, but it's like, you know, archaeologists claim authority over ancient objects, but you wouldn't ask one of them to engineer the chair that he's sitting on. You want an engineer to do that. And it's the same thing with geology. I mean, one of the more famous examples of this is Robert Schock, Dr. Robert Schock, is a professor of geology at Boston University, who famously redated the erosion on the Sphinx enclosure around the Great Sphinx

at Giza to somewhere in the region of prior to 10,000 BC, which is well and truly outside of the dating of the dynastic Egyptian civilization. And he did this by looking at the erosion patterns that are on the walls of the enclosure. The walls of the Sphinx, yeah. Yeah, in the enclosure and said, well, that's rainfall erosion that can only have happened in a period where we know that there was, you know, this was a verdant area that gets a lot of rain. Is that because there was like vertical? It's vertical fissures. Yeah. And it's not so the Egyptologists say, well, it's wind and sand erosion, but you know, if you take that

picture of that wall of erosion and you take it without context and show it to any geologist, he's going to tell you it's rainfall erosion. And so, you know, Robert Schock's been pretty firm on this. And he thought he had discovered something significant. He went to an Egyptology conference and tried to present this evidence and basically got laughed out of the room by the old boy network. They're like, ah, you're full of crap. Like, this is nonsense. You know, they just didn't at the evidence they just dismiss it out of hand which is the common technique that gets used and it's really strange but but that's there's a there's an entrenched dogma in archaeology today right and that's why i talk about with this idea of civilization uh has not shifted and this idea of history

is has become a very much an entrenched academic dogma that is that is tightly controlled by those in the in the in the ivory towers and the people that are in you know basically the textbook writers that control the the authority of this and they hand out the degrees and they have have they have the access to the sites to do things you know there's there's a hilarious example of this is in this is has a it's another discovery in the field of archaeology that should be affecting history which was the discovery of a of a place in Turkey called go beckley tepe have you right yeah go beckley tepe so incredible site Klaus Schmidt German

Archaeological Institute uncover this in the 90s they excavate they keep working on the site unfortunately Klaus Schmidt has passed away they discover that this site was deliberately buried and they've they've used organic remains that they found underneath this burial to date the site to at least 10,000 BC. So right bang on in that same realm of time that Robert's shock developed like dated the sphinx. So 10,000 BC would be how many years ago? 12,000 years ago. 12,000 years ago, okay.

At least. And that's the youngest date. Like that it could be far older than that. That's when they think it was buried. Like it was deliberately buried. Because they tested some sort of organic material there. And that's when it did. but that could have been a newer.

There could have been a newer date. It doesn't, and again, you can't date the stone. Although, the nice thing about that side is because it was buried and they know it was deliberately buried by the nature of the chips and the, how it was buried, it wasn't like a natural material that it was buried. It was deliberately buried and like put into hiatus for whatever reason. And beneath that, they found these organic remains. So it's like, okay, we know that what was beneath this burial layer was at least as old

as these carbon remains. It could be far older. And in fact, there's been recent discoveries of, other signs of civilization in in turkey that that are four or five thousand years older than that still is a lot of finds being made in turkey now's karan tepe tepe there's cemeteries there's a lot of discovery being made in turkey but what's interesting about this is go beckli tepe is a massive megalithic site like it's large it's a whole bunch of these different stone circles with with large pillars that have been carved some of them weighing up to 20 25 tons really yeah they're

huge. And, you know, they're all got anthropomorphic shapes carved into them in high relief, so they're not like carved into the stone. They come out of the stones and the rest of the stone's been carved. And it's clearly requires civilization, right? For

human beings to create monuments and sites to that extent, it's a massive site. It's mostly still buried. We've only excavated a tiny portion of it. But they can see what's there through ground penetrating radar and other techniques. But what's obvious to anyone who's sees it or reads about it is that it requires a form of civilization, right? You need a population base.

You need to have people specializing in different disciplines like stonework and quarrying and getting these things together. You need to have a developed ceremonial and cultural ethic that sort of guides you while we're making stone circles. We're doing this. We're doing that. Martin Swetman actually thinks it's a dating system that relates to the Great Year and Procession of the Econoxes. That's a whole other topic. That might be a lot more. involved in Gobeckley-Tepe yet it would require a developed language too right it must yes you have to communicate but the point is you need civilization for this and this so this gets back to the dogma of of archaeology and and and history itself so this is an incontrovertible I think to me

evidence of civilization so we are this is now civilization has developed agriculture you need all of this support systems in order to make this happen so can we move the established date of civilization now back from 6,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago. Well, no. What happened was is that the people that, and this is, this gets reflected on Wikipedia quite a bit. If anyone is interested in looking at, I always like to look at the edits page, like, who's been making edits on Wikipedia pages, because you'll find a lot of academics.

There's a lot of fuckery on Wikipedia. Yeah, oh yeah. They just changed the definition of a recession like a couple weeks ago. Yep, recession got changed. Yeah, so a vaccine that might have changed. Yeah. to but uh it's so one thing that has been that was changed on the back of this go beckley tepe uh discussion was was now the definition of hunter gatherers so instead of saying well this is

civilization now they've just changed and said well no no just hunter this was done by hunter gatherers who just like to do some stone work on the weekends you know get away from the wife and the kids and and just make a hobby out of making stone circles it's then is literally on on the page for for go beckley tepe and wikipedia and this is so instead of moving that in trench date of civilization back, they're just like, nope, this was done by hunter gatherers. They were just bored and they had all this time on the hand. So they developed an advanced form of stoneworking and large communities to do it. It's so silly.

What would be the problem to dating the beginning of advanced civilization back that far? Would it uproot lots of other ideas and constant and historical dogma? You know, it's, it's the historic, to me, it's the historical dogma. The challenge, the problem is, is that. Unfortunately, like archaeology and Egyptology and all these things, they're not like hard sciences. They're not like physics, chemistry, where you have hypothesis, experiment, result, and we can move forward with that sort of thing. It's a much more of a social science or a cultural study. So in history, particularly when you go back that deep into history.

It's not necessarily objective. Right. You're piecing together a picture that's based on very scant evidence. So evidence that's been through cataclysms and flooding and thousands of years of quarrying and destruction and thousands of years of subsequent civilizations building on these same sites, trying to put that picture together is a really complex and difficult thing. And there's multiple ways to interpret that evidence. But what happens, I think, is, and this is my opinion, I've talked about it a few times, but I think that the entrenched academics, the people that are the, if you call it dogma and you call archaeology a religion, these are the priests of the. that religion. It works in the same way, I think, to a lot of, of religion. It's like you have a story. You are very attached to that story. Your position of power is attached to that story.

So, you know, and it's like you are the authority on that story. This is the academics and the archaeologists and stuff that are in these institutions that have access to the sites that write the textbooks. So when you come along and there's new evidence that threatens the veracity of that story that you've been championing for so long, it's not just like, oh, maybe we'll learn something new here. It becomes kind of a personal threat. You're threatening people's sense of self-worth, their livelihood, so you get a much stronger reaction to it.

There's another, and that's what we see. And I think there's another factor involved in this, and that's the nature of the discourse has changed. So in Victorian times, and I often focus on scholars that come from those errors, guys like Flinders Petrie, and, you know, there's a whole number of them that I look at in my vision. videos, but these guys that were in those, you know, the 1800s, early 1900s, that are much more open-minded when you read their works. Like, they understand when they're seeing mystery and they don't

know what's going on. And I think in other ways, they could do that because they were safe in their discussions because they only happened in the academic halls, you know, that was their peers. That's where the discussion happened. You know, it wasn't this open slather thing. And so what's happened with the development of the internet and the rise of popular authors and things is that discussion has moved out of the academic realm and into the public sphere in some extent. So you've got guys like Graham Hancock, Boval, and the generation before them that started writing books on this topic, really challenging the mainstream story of history. And then with the internet, you know, you've got punters like me who can come out and in

some, I think, make a convincing argument in a few different ways about it. And so your, you know, your, your academic kind of mainstream orthodoxy are entrenched and they're being assaulted, I think, from all these new angles. So you end up with, instead of a lot of debate, you get a lot more of these angry responses. I think you get a lot more firm pushback. Like, it's just like they just deny it, ignore it, change it. And there's a lack of real debate in this space. And there's been famously a few occurrences where we've tried to have debate and stuff.

And it just hasn't happened. So, yeah, unfortunately, I think that's the nature of it. But on the flip side, I have hoped that the next generation of academia will be a bit more open-minded because I think, and I've been contact, I can't tell how many, you know, archaeology students and Egyptology students have contacted being gone. Like my works open, open my mind or they've read Graham Hancock and they say, you're on to something. That's the thing, man. That's what I was telling you about last night. I'm like, what does like, even if mainstream academia or scholars, the people that write the textbooks, don't. don't want to take you seriously.

Like, at what point through technological advancement and with finding information online through YouTube videos and stuff like that, at what point do you just leave them in the dust? And they're not even relevant anymore because there's people like you and Graham and Randall and Jimmy that anyone who's interested in this stuff, that's where they're going to go to find out information about it to you guys. They're not going to go read through the textbooks because they already know it's in the textbooks. Right. Well, yeah.

And so I have some hope that maybe that it's, it's, who's it? is it Planck's theorem or something? It's, I can't remember the name of it, but it's like science advances one funeral at a time. It's not just history that this applies to. It applies to a lot of disciplines, unfortunately.

It's the nature of establishment to resist change just for what it's worth. I mean, that's the very nature of it. That's the thing about the internet is, is the best information rises to the top or the best content rises to the top. You know, like before with the way academia would work is right. People would be commissioned to,

write these textbooks and they're the people within the universities. They're in their own kind of little bubble and, you know, their salaries are on the line and there's different leverage here and there in the whole bureaucracy of the universities. But now it's splintered off into these unregulated factions of the internet with people like you. And when you have an hour long video that focuses on core drilling that has two million views that says something about what you're talking about and how legitimate it is. Yeah, thank you. I agree that's what's happening. And I think that the new generation of academia, these people that are in school now are forced to deal with some of those perspectives. Like, you can't just ignore them, which is the case for the old guard. They can just sort of dismiss

it and say, oh, he's just writing a book for profit or whatever, which has been a common line that guys like Zahy who else will trot out. But, you know, you know, The next generation, I think, are being forced to deal with some of these questions and perspectives and to open their mind to them. But I will say that it's one of the challenges with this is that the, and it's a frustration for me personally, is that the access to sites and research in particular on these sites is all controlled by academia. So that's, so you have, you know, let's take Egypt as an example.

You have the Department of the Antiquities, previously called the Supreme, what is it, the Supreme Council of Antiquities. but the antiquities department in Egypt, they partner with universities. And you saw the British run geyser and you've got the French running Sakara and, you know, there's, so it's all these institutions that then are allowed to go to access and to do actual research on the sites. And you're still in a, we're still in a position in academia today. If you propose something who you step too far out of the bounds of that standard model, then you're, you know, you're excommunicated.

And this has happened to a number of people still in these days. It happened, I talked about an example of it at Tijuanaaku in Bolivia that happened to a Bolivian researcher who dared to suggest that the celestial dating of that site puts it, you know, at that like 9,000 BC or so. And he was, he had to resign from his post. Now, these things still happen. So there's still a control of it. But so what's frustrating is that there are so many things we could be doing with our technology

today to explore a few of these things and doing them without damaging anything, scanning, you know, exploring various passages. There's a passage in the Serapium that we don't know where it goes, that we could be exploring these issues and trying to answer some of these questions, but we don't do it because we just assume that those problems are solved. Like, it's like nobody in that in that standard model world is going to admit that there's some advanced engineering going on in some of the artifacts. They're just like, nope, it was hard work and it was, this is Zahiawast's standard answer.

It was a national project. They built the pyramids and they built all this stuff because they really wanted to. And there was a lot of people working really hard for a long time. And it's like, that's, that's wonderful. But that doesn't explain the technological issues that we see. And, you know, there's some glaring examples that we can talk about. And, I mean, one of my favorites is the stone vases, but we can get there. Yeah.

So there was three main obvious examples of high technology in Egypt that does not, line up with the tools that the earliest official civilization of Egypt had. What were those three examples of high technology that they had? The ones that I use in particular are the, I think when it comes to the engineering aspect is the evidence for machining. So this is the cutting and polishing of stone and of very, very hard types of stone in particular. You have talking about things like granite and basalt and diarite, which are, if anyone's familiar with the Mo's scale of hardness,

can be anywhere from like six to eight on the, on the Mo's scale of hardness. This is the Mo's scale of hardness. M-O-H-S, Moes scale of hardness. So it's basically like, you know, you take a harder material, and if it scratches the surfer material,

another material, it's harder than that. So it starts at, you know, your fingernails like a two or a two or a three, and then diamond is the top of the scale at a 10. Okay. Yeah, so you get to 10 and that's the top scale. So, you know, steel, iron is like a five and a hundred. half six. Steel is like a like a six. Things like that. So you're talking about stone that's harder

than steel. Okay. Wow. Granite. Basalt's a little bit harder. There's even examples in that we get to it with the vases, but there's examples of stuff made from corundum, which is a nine. Like it's literally just about as hard as diamond, but there's vases made from this that display all these evidence of machining. So it's not just the fact that these stones were used, but there is evidence in the stonework of of frankly power tools something's been used to to carve these stones at a very rapid rate yes some examples this is this is different he's talking about some of the bigger stones with like the flash surfaces right there's a good there's a good sawcut yeah there's a good one with an angle on a saw cut you can find but that's not a bad example either that's still a that's

part of the machining discussion and that's a bigger tube that's that's an even bigger tube drill michael look for one of the pictures of the rocks it looks like it was cut by a big circular saw Yeah, go to, yeah, it's in tooling. When you showed some of these, like you were pouring water over the top of these things that were cut flat. Yeah, so you can see this dryation. So when it comes to machining, you're talking about different types of cutting techniques. There's tube, like circular sores, tube drills. There's also straight saws.

And after that, you have machining and like polishing. So there's a, there's not a natural. This isn't it, Michael. That's one of them. So that's a cut that's into a block of basal. at Giza. Keep going. Looks like it was cut down the center. Yes, it was. Yeah, there's a number of examples of that on there in that directory.

No, Michael. Yeah, there you go. So there's an example of circular saw cut being dipped into basalt, which is harder than granite, by the way. So could a normal, like concrete saw, like a demo saw cut through this rock? Yeah, it could because, well, tile saws and things like that that are diamond, the diamond tip blades. So that's the closest analogy we have to the evidence that's in the stonework. that's the thing. And there's been a bunch of,

I dive into a lot of the experiments and the research that's been done in these, the history of, of investigation into these different types of cuttings. So tube drills, circular sores, cutting stones, the grinding method, the pounding stones.

Yeah, this has been an ongoing discussion for 150 years. It's been people that have been looking at this and scratching their head for like 150 years and going, this can't have been done with these primitive tools that we've found in the archaeological record versus the, you know, the establishment saying,

well, these are the tools that we found. So therefore, these must have been the tools that we used. And it's just like, you can't use those tools to show us the same result. Something else was done. And, you know, we know what tools are dynastic Egyptians used. There you go. That's one of the great examples.

Yeah. So this is a really one of my favorite examples, actually. This is a block of stone that's at a place called Abu Cian. Can you full screen this? But yeah, so there's a block of stone at Abucia that is. Oh, there you just passed it. It's nearly cut all the way through. keep going there you go that's a different one but that's that's that's that's a good example too

that's that's actually a place called abar wash so you see the arc right there's a there's a clear circular arc to this stone so it's a it's either a drops it's like what you would call a a swing saw or a circular saw that has that has cut this stone and the one that we saw earlier that's at abysia actually has a little lip at the end of it so it's it's like it hasn't quite cut all the way through the stone but there's a little like over lip that's still there from thousands of years of weathering and through that little lip we can tell that the blade of this thing was very thin, couple millimeters at best. And when you measure out the arc of it, you're talking like 30 feet diameter, like some huge

processing plant cutting this. And then you also see striations on the stone itself that shows you how that saw progressed through the stone which was quite rapidly. Now this is amazing evidence because you can now sort of determine the rate at which the saw progressed through the stone, which turns out to be quite, quite rapid. And you can compare that to the experiments that have been done in the orthodox model, which says that, well, what they did was they got a big copper bar and they grind and they just ground sand with water on it.

And they just went back and forth for days and days, days and days. And there's been a bunch of experiments that look at how long that takes. And these are like a couple of the guys like Dennis stocks that are on the mainstream side that have done a little bit of work on this. And it's just the numbers are insane. And you also, you don't get the same marks using that technique. And one of the major problems with it is, is that you wear away the copper bar at about the same rate that you're wearing away the stone. So and when you start to extrapolate that.

So for example, I think I calculated that there's a box. There's a box that's in the second pyramid at Giza, that cuffray's pyramid. It's a granite box. It's like 10 feet long. and four or five feet wide. And using the experiments and the rates that we've done to do the grinding method, just to make the six cuts that you'd need, so north, south, east, west, top and bottom, six cuts.

You're talking a year of labour to cut that one box to make those cuts using copper bars a year of just grinding. And that doesn't include how they hollowed it out and everything else, just the base cuts. And when you extrapolate that to the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of granite blocks, of basalt blocks, of blocks from other types of of stone that have all had to be quarried out first from the quarry, which takes just as long, if not longer with these primitive methods, shipped to the site and then cut down to basically

their dimensions. Then you've probably got years of work, this is with primitive methods, years of work on top of that, just finishing it and hollowing it out and doing all the other stuff. It's, I, the calculation, it just takes it from the realm of the impromptoms. probable into the impossible. Like they had to have been working with the stone at a faster rate in the old kingdom. And you have big blocks like in the great pyramid that way up to 70, 80 tons single piece. That big slab that we were just looking at a minute ago with the kind of like curvature toward the end, like the smooth part of it had a big, the end of the, where the smooth

part met the rough part. It was like large curve. Yeah. Are there any like circular saws that big today that could cut that? Yeah. So there are there are circular saws, not generally that big. And again, it could have been a swing saw. So it could have been a curved blade that was swinging back and forth. So we do do it. So if you look at modern stone processing videos, which I show a few of in my videos, that is how we do it. We use large circular sores, large swing sores or large like wire sores that are reciprocating

go back and forth. And it's just full of like water and it's noisy and it's dusty and it takes forever. Because cutting this type of stone for your kitchen counter or whatever is very, very difficult. And this is just, so this is machining. You asked me what the three things were that I think are evidence of, of, of, of ancient high technology. One of them is machining. So that's the evidence for cutting, right, polishing and all of that. The polishing is interesting too because, and this gets into some of the other discussions around the writing and the differences between the writing and not, but, you know, polishing a flat surface of the way the mainstream talks about how they polished it.

Well, you'd get sand and rock and water and you just grind away. You just sit there and polish it away. slowly you'd get to this point where in some of this granite still reflects lights like a mirror it's insane the finish on some of it is incredible not a natural property of granite you have to work at it really hard to get there right and then in other areas though we see evidence for this type of same polishing in in non-flat surfaces so in really bumpy flat side surfaces like the either features of statues the fingernails and this and that so we see that polish that are on non-flat surfaces and that that that blows this theory of like stone and sand and water like like out of the, out of the, it just, it blows it away.

You can't polish surfaces like that with that method, but we see the same, we see that polish on these dips and curves and all these other really strange surfaces all over the place. So the other category really is precision. So this is one that I focus a lot on as well as machining, but there's evidence for a tremendous degree of precision in a lot of these, particularly these ancient artifacts. And, you know, we see it in obelisks, we see it in boxes.

slabs and statues and some of the architecture. But in particular, you have, um, there's a, there's a box, some of the boxes are like the best example. It's easiest to understand because it's linear precision. It's like straightness, flatness, sharp corners, 90 degree bends, things like that. Yeah. And Flinders Petrie found a box is a place called Lahoon. It's a granite box that's in a granite room. It's all been manufactured out of granite. And this box is, is perfectly square and, and straight and flat to within like one, one thousandth of an inch. So you're talking like it's like a hundred like a tenth of the width of a human hair within the limits of his tools and this is he discovered one of those square tools and he went in there and held it up

against the corner and you couldn't even try to light through it precision tools yep so petri this is what petri found you know 150 years ago and there's it's subsequently been backed up by other people using modern precision tools and there's there's many examples of this type of thing but the most precise object that we know of i think in at least in these linear terms in egypt is this box in Lahoun. It's not a huge box. He weighs about 15 tons. But we see the same thing in the boxes in places like the Serapium, which is probably my favorite site because it's, I did a lot of videos early on on the YouTube channel. I need to go back to the Serapium and do some more work on it. Where is the Syracum? So Sakara, Sakara is a huge site. Is that a step pyramid? Yep.

That's right. Yep. Step pyramid of Joe's are well known for that. It's part of the, I call it the sunbelt. It's like the pyramid sites. It's like Giza, Sakara, Dashore, Abysir, Abu Ghra, even my doom down towards the south. So there's all these pyramids on the west side of the Nile. Yeah, I just watched the documentary on Netflix about the step pyramid last night, like the cats and stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They're pulling cats out of the tombs. That's right. Well, Sakara is a giant necropolis. So one of these places you've got to remember, too, even if I think their origins may stretch back much further into time, you know, than the dynastic Egyptians but they were definitely used and and built on by the dynastic

egyptian so they used them for burial sites and sikara in particular like they're still digging stuff like bodies up out of the ground there i've seen i've been exploring in the catacombs there and you just bones and rooms full of human remains and like just femas up to your your hip in one room and that's crazy yeah human skulls and another and i mean this is not touristy areas but but there's there's literally miles of tunnels beneath sikara so there's it's like a giant underground necropolis as well as having stuff on top pyramids. Is that the, is that, uh, that step pyramid in Sakara where like you go into the middle of it and you look down and it's just this giant pit with a massive granite box at the bottom

of it. Yeah, it's one of my phone. In fact, they just opened this up for tourism. I actually actually thought a really good thing is that the Egyptian authorities are opening up more things. Uh, they seem to be understanding that like people are interested in the mystery and they want to see stuff. So thankfully they just did a good job renovating it and opened it up for tourism.

Yeah, so that you have this step pyramid structure, allegedly the Proto Pyramid, I think was actually built by the dynastic Egyptians. But it's built over a massive pit in the ground. It's probably 100 feet deep, about 45 or so feet wide, square. And you look down onto this thing. And at the bottom, there's a massive multi-piece granite box that's made up of like 32 pieces of granite weighing anywhere up to about five or six tons each. And I've been down there. And there is multiple levels that go. down beneath that as well. So from there that's where you're an entrance to like a whole

cavern system starts. There's something like four or five miles of tunnels beneath this thing. And I've been down four or five levels beneath that box. So I did this last year. We had special permission to go down there. And it was mind-blowing because that place and the step pyramids attributed to Farrow-Jose, I think is the first pyramid of the fourth dynasty, which is a famous fourth dynasty, that place is where they found more than 40,000 of these exquisite stone vases, right? So that's in these tunnels. Jean-Pierre-Loyer found them, a French archaeologist. He found the remnants, and this is where they discovered like 40,000 of these incredible stone vases, more than 40,000. And in fact, when you go down there, there are still

there's chunks of these things and remnants of them all over the place. Like, it's not your average tourist thing. You need special permission to get down there. but there's some incredible artifacts down there. We also found alabaster boxes, like big single piece alabaster boxes on a level where they were still excavating. I have a whole video that gets into the details of it. But yeah, it's a tremendously interesting site. Now, I think there's an explanation. I think a timeline for this.

Again, inheritance works out. It's one of the theories that I have is that I think that box and that pit were likely there and that the Egyptians constructed that step pyramid over the top of it. Imhotep designed it. And I think that was then claimed and used as a burial site for, for Josah, the, the, the, the, the, the, the box. What is this box right here? This box? Yeah.

This is one of my favorite boxes at the Serapium. So this is in, so the Serapium is at Sakara. It's a series of underground galleries, a beautiful gallery, like these tunnels you could drive a Volkswagen down. They're huge and straight, and some of one of them goes only 200 meters. And inside the Serapium, you have 25 of these things, which are these single piece, like, 100 ton granite boxes they're insane it's absolutely insane and this one in particular is in an off-limits area that we went into that's rarely seen by tourists it may be the biggest one there it's made out of um like a black granite or might even be granite

uh it's not we don't know exactly where the quarry for this thing was that's its lid sitting on top and it was it actually isn't finished it was it developed a crack at the end and it was for some reason just shelved there. They decided, well, we'll just tuck this thing away in a corner in this underground structure and leave it there because it was never quite finished. That thing weighs a hundred tons. With the lid, yeah. So the box itself might be about 70 and the lid's probably 30. And the lid's been pushed back and it's, yeah, it's insane. And there's 25 of them. And here's a thing. Like, we've never made anything like this in our civilization. We don't,

not saying we couldn't, but an interesting experiment. Chris Dunn went to like a granite processing company and said, hey, what would it cost? How could you make us one of these boxes? And they're like, well, you know, for starters, the lump of granite's going to be a ton amount of money. And then it's like, we just wouldn't, we couldn't, we couldn't make the box without developing specific tools to do it because the way they'd make it is they'd cut like five slabs and then bolt them together, you know, like a floor and then four walls and they'd bolt it

together into a box. These are single pieces. So what's, what's impressive about that is it's like, you have to quarry. There's one block of stone and then dig. it out you have to dig all of the inside out and then some of the examples of precision in the serapium are absolutely remarkable you have perfect 90 degree uh corners in some of the boxes perfect 90 degree interfaces with the lids and some of these walls maintain that geometry from like being 11 feet apart like that's insane like that's one of the major challenges of this is is in

designing and and maintaining that type of relative geometry in a space where you can't afford to make any mistakes. So as you cut down, if you cut something wrong, like you're done. You can't change that whole inside shape, but they've managed to keep these incredibly precise. And you get right down to these little trilinear corners in the bottom corners and then the walls on it are all polished like mirrors. And there's 25 of them. Now, they're not all finished. So what's even more remarkable at the Serapium is it seems like a lot of this work was being done in situ. Like the boxes were being worked on in situ. What do you mean? In situation.

So there's evidence of multiple steps of work. So that big black box we looked at, yeah, this is, for example, is a collection of the boxes. The lighting's not the best in the Serapium. You kind of have to see it to understand it. But yeah, these are tremendous. And they're all housed in offset alcoves from these tunnels. They sit down about six or seven feet. Like the alcoves are sitting down about six or seven feet.

Yeah, it's kind of like a horse stable, right? Kind of, yeah. They're all in their own little stables. Yep, yep, and they're all offset. This is a strange thing. There's no two alcoves that line up and look at each other. So you've got multiple challenges when it comes to the Serapium. One of them is, first and foremost, logistics of moving that stuff in there. Like the roof hasn't been constructed, right? So it's not like if you were doing this from a functional perspective or the easiest way to do it would be that you dig the hole in the ground, you'd put, you'd lower the boxes down in there and then you'd build the roof and everything over the top of it. That's not what's going on the Serapium. These are tunnels that are dug into the bedrock. So the boxes had to be moved in through the front door, maneuvered through all these tunnel systems, and then placed and lowered down into these alcoves. And again, you're looking at blocks of stone, up to 100 tons, maybe more if they haven't fully been hollowed out and finished. And the crazy thing is, is the biggest boxes in here. You're talking about a foot of clearance difference in the width of the box to the width of the tunnels.

So you have one foot. It's like I like to use that the Friends episode where they're trying to move a couch up a stair, case like pivot imagine trying to move a hundred ton object in that tight space into a into an alcove like that and again we don't know how they lit it we don't know how it's it's pitch i've been down there where they turn the lights on it's pitch black you just go inside a little way and it's you can't let a flame in there well there's no evidence for that there's no there's no you we see in a lot of temples where they've they've used fire and flame and you have that exhaust you have the soot marks everywhere there's no evidence for that in in the seraphium yep we

don't know how they lit it. There's no evidence for heavy use of flame. And then we don't know how they moved it because you, the calculation to move a 50, you need at least 150 people to move, say, a 50 ton box. That means... Look at that fucking thing. Yeah. That's insane. So if you assume one person can pull

200 kilograms, which is 440 pounds, then you need 150 people to pull a 50 ton load. You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing

documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed. Pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash Spotify. Terms apply. If you love diving into culture and comedy, like on Danny Jones podcast, playoff hockey is right up your alley. NHL on T&T has the best coverage, making every game feel intense and unpredictable. Playoff hockey is a different level, overtime, big hits, and no one coast. The studio crew, with Paul Bissonette cracking jokes and Wayne Gretzky breaking things down, makes it even more fun to watch.

Every shift matters, and the personalities keep things lively. Watch the Stanley Cup playoffs. on TNT, TBS, True TV and HBO Max. So you're trying to cram 150 people into these tunnels. It's impossible. It's impossible. So, you know, in this, the Egyptians weren't known to use pullies or levers or capstanes or any of that stuff.

I think those things were used later on to push the lids off. I think there was the Romans and other people that came in there and found these sealed boxes were probably like... What's in them? What's in them? What's in them? And so all of them except for one had their lids pushed off when August Marriott found it. I think it was like 1850 something.

What did they put it on? We don't know. So, well, there's an explanation for it in the mainstream world is that they were, there were sarcophaguses for apis bulls.

So there was a, a sacred bull called the Apis bull. And they say that these were, these were boxes for appas bulls. They would mummify these balls and put them in there. Now, all of the boxes were found empty. When Augusta Mariette rediscovered the site in like 1850 something,

thereabouts, except for one box that had its lid still intact. He couldn't move the lid, so he blew it up. He blew it open with dynamite, which was unfortunately a technique there was probably used a little too often in the early days until guys like Flinders Petrie came along and sort of tuttered them away from doing that.

And he found it was completely empty. There's nothing in it. So we've never found, so there's another set of tunnels nearby called the lesser galleries. And in those gallery, they're like really primitive tunnels compared to the Serapium. And in those galleries, they found wooden boxes, wooden boxes with Apis

balls mummified in them. Oh, really? Because they found a wooden box in a nearby set of galleries that isn't connected to the Serapium, they therefore spread that excuse across all of this and go, no, you know what? It's all ceremonial. It's all Apis balls, which is, it becomes a bit of a meme after a time. Every single thing is ceremonial or, you know, some sort of representational. there's nothing functional. I mean, the mainstream story of history. It's all everything's ceremonial,

like everything. And I think there's, I think it's nonsense. I think there is a functional purpose for some of these sites. Now, I don't know what that is. And maybe our technology

hasn't gotten there yet because, you know, this comes back to my, kind of my perspective on technology. The giant fucking pyramid, how would you do that just because of a,

for a fucking ceremony to bury dead people? It seems, bizarre to think that. Well, it's, it's, you could more, you could maybe explain it with ego. Like you might have a king that's that ego-centric to do it. But, but there's, there is something,

I'm convinced there's something going on with underground boxes. Now it's either boxes in, precision boxes, in pyramids or in, you know, in underground in the Serapium, we see them at Abbe. They're all over the place. We see these, there's a real trend of these giant single piece, sort of precision carved granite boxes, or very hard stone boxes in underground locations or in places like pyramids.

Now, there's a, there's a, there's a lot more that suggests some form of functionality was on these sites as well. One of the things that I was fascinated by that I see, you see it at Giza, it's at the pyramids, it's at, it's at Sakara, it's at, it was at Dashore, is that there's, there's signs of infrastructure. There's literally a channeled block infrastructure beneath the floor tiling. So we know this because the floors are all,

The sites have been destroyed and we see it. So you have these U-shaped blocks of sometimes like white calcite or even granite, like these sort of expensive and hard to obtain material with these channels in them that run underneath the floor tile. So you're talking like a two or three foot thick floor tile or basalt or whatever it is. Beneath that layer, there's a whole infrastructure of like piping basically that runs beneath these sites. And you see Y joins, you can trace it. At Abyssyrian in particular, like this stuff. goes everywhere, but we also see it at Giza, at Dashore, at Sakara. So there was something

going on with that. Like that was a functional thing. It wasn't, it wasn't on display. There wasn't a ceremonial purpose for it. It's an expensive type of stone. There must have had a reason for using it. And it's running underneath these sites. And it's like nobody's really willing to explore that idea that was there, was this a processing site of some sort? Was there some function going on? Because from a technological perspective, like we, we are very guilty as a civilization of looking at everything through our lens. Like we look at the past and we look at it through our lens and understanding of the world through our technological perspective. Like we we have a particular approach to problem solving like an electromechanical approach to problem

solving and we kind of apply that to everything else. Now there's all many domains of science that we're just starting to explore harmonics, resonance, organic materials like all of these things, you know, we will know more about in 100 years, let alone a thousand years. So there's, you can, from that, we can say there's definitely things we don't know. So I think it's possible that the functional purpose of these sites and, and if there was one, that purpose and that method that they employed to achieve that purpose may still be outside of our technological realm of understanding. Like it might have been, had something to do with resonance or something else. Like a domain of science that we're beginning to explore

and that we'll learn more about now. And I think that if we were more open-minded about investigating these places, we could learn more. We might actually learn something about it, but because there's a lack of willingness to really even explore those topics and because we just determine everything ceremonial

and everything was made with copper chisels and pounding stones, and it was all done by the dynastic Egyptians, we just don't ever go down those paths. Is this the idea of the Giza power plant? This is one of them. Yeah, exactly. What is that? What is the Giza Power Plant concept?

It's a championed by Chris Dunn, by the way, a friend of mine, an author guy I respect greatly. I interviewed him on my channel. He wrote a book that he's well known for called the Giza Power Plant that suggests that the pyramid was essentially a device for producing energy. And he explains every facet. What's interesting about his theory, I still, to me personally, that still sits within like, well, we're trying to use our perspective to kind of explain it. But what's interesting about it is that he does explain every aspect and element of the pyramid in that. And using his theory, he successfully predicted what was behind Gaten Brinks door, which is like a whole other, there's a couple of these shafts that run out of the chambers in the Queen's Chamber in particular is the one they're talking about.

There's these shafts that run out. They're very small, like 10, 12 inches sort of wide. Is this like when you look at like the anatomy of the pyramid? Yeah, you see these little shafts. Can you Google the anatomy of the great pyramid and we can have a visual for this? But yeah, so there's the tombs in there. Well, so there's the king's chamber. The chamber.

So-called king's chamber. There's an upper chamber or lower chamber and then the subterranean chamber. Right. And so also called the king's chamber, the queen's chamber and subterranean chamber. Now, there is shafts that lead out from the king's chamber that eventually reach the outside of the pyramid. The queen's chamber ones terminate somewhere inside the pyramid. and when they finally, finally sent some robots up there to look at it, they found, well, there's a door here.

Like this little shaft eventually terminates with a little limestone door and what looks like copper handles in it. So they eventually saw, we'll get another robot, get a drill, and we'll stick a camera in there and have a look. And so Chris Dunn using his theory successfully said, well, under this theory, what you should find after that door is a space and another door. And that's exactly what they found.

So yeah, there you go. This image here shows you the upper chamber. The red there is what you would call the King's Chamber. It has a series of chambers above it that are all these essentially 70 tonne granite blocks that are all stacked up in its internal structure. And it has these shafts labeled as 10 on this diagram that reach the outside. So what's the shot that put the camera down where you saw the door? Like seven, I think, is the seven, the Queen's Chamber shafts. Yeah.

Yeah. So that's, yes. I mean, by the way, you've got to understand the ridiculousness of the orthodox explanation for all of this is that, is that, so when they, apparently when Kufu had this built, he had the, he was going to be interred in number seven there, what's called the Queens Chamber. And then he changed his mind. He said, you know what? Put it further up in the structure and do that. And they just built it on the fly, which is, which is absolute nonsense. I'd like to point. Like, you do not, we've, the precision of this structure is rarely matched. today and in fact wasn't matched until the 1800s in terms of it of how precisely the great pyramids aligned and there's about a million other aspects to the great pyramid that we could talk about oh yeah we don't like this fuck it let's make it a little bit taller yeah yeah make it a bit tall like then that's the idea we did this on the fly it's absolute nonsense and one of the i have a couple videos that look at this stuff too is is that one of the things that's remarkable

about it is the structure itself is interesting but the actual foundational work that went into the ground to prepare and build on top of is just as interesting, like an engineering challenge and puzzle, because they did, they must have spent years and years preparing the site to basically take this, this object. And this is the case, both with this pyramid and in particular the middle pyramid, because it's not on flat ground. They had to prepare the ground. Like they literally, the whole thing's locked into into the ground with these foundational tiles of limestone that, Some of them weigh like 150, 200, 300 tons. And it's dug down and that's, they created a foundation layer for the pyramids.

And in particular on the middle pyramid, it's actually built into this sliding, like a sloped hill on the, on the, I think it's the north. No, it's the, the western side of the pyramid is, is like it's cut down about 30 feet. So you can actually go around, if you go around the western side of the middle pyramid, like this 30 foot wall where they've cut down into the bedrock, then they've leveled that out, and then they've built up of the eastern side with these huge tiles, and then they've built this like millions of tons structure on top of it. And they've actually used the bedrock to lock it in too.

So instead of like taking all the bedrock out, they actually like on the west of the southwestern corner, the top five courses of that pyramid are actually bedrock. So it's not tile, it's not like blocks. They shape the bedrock. and it just integrates with the slope of the hill into the rest of the structure to where all the way on that, on that eastern side, they built it up with foundation tiles and locked it in. So that whole thing is just locked into the bedrock.

Like, that's one of the reasons it's still standing and they resist earthquakes so much is that they are so well designed. And there's been so much engineering about how these things are locked into the bedrock that they have put up with all these earthquakes and they're still standing versus so many of the other structures from ancient. that were done later that have all fallen down. So going back to what we were talking about with Chris Dunn, when they were sending the cameras up, down those pathways to go into those chambers, he predicted what was going to be on the other side of that door accurately? Yeah.

So what was on this? It was a space and another door. Okay. Yeah. And so the little copper things, they look like door handles. They could have been electrodes. So that's how they fit into his theory.

I'm not 100% up to date on that book. I haven't read it in a while. but using his, what's interesting to me is that using his theory, he accurately predicted what they would find. And that's what they found. So Chris is writing another book. He's writing a follow-up to it. He's done. He's got some more data now.

There's been more research done on the Great Pyramid. In fact, there seems to be indication of a whole other series of chambers in there that we haven't discovered yet. There was something called muon detection. There's a, I forget the scan pyramids project was the name of it. So they've been doing this is actually a great experiment. I hope they do more of it. But they've been doing this for years where they put these cosmic ray detectors inside the structure. In fact, the last couple of times have been down into both the Queens Chamber and the

subterranean chamber, which are normally off limits to tourists until you get a special permission. You can go in there. They have racks of equipment and they've been doing these morn detection experiments for a couple of years now. So you're looking at cosmic ray particles and there's a slight difference when they go through a material versus through a void. So by detecting this and analyzing and compiling this data over years, they've kind of determined that there are a couple of large voids still inside that structure that we haven't discovered yet, or not publicly discovered yet, I'd say.

So we'll see what happens. And, you know, of course, this, yeah, this caused, this announcement caused some angst with the Egyptologists who came out and said, well, there is no such, I mean, it's our US went between well, there is no other, no other chambers. And if there are other chambers, we already knew they were there. And it's this crazy response to it. So I don't know. Hopefully it's hopefully whatever they discover there, they make it public.

But, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if there are things like that that that have already been discovered and then kept on the download because they don't really match the regular story. What if they just wanted to keep it secret so they could sell it to another country for like some sort of like weaponry purposes? Or if they found out what it does or something like, we'd, like, we'd, turn this one back on. I don't know. Oh my God. Do you imagine? Yeah, I'd like, yeah, I'd bring it on. Why not? What now, what is the story there, now isn't a part of it underwater? How does water,

um, relevant to some of the chambers underneath and isn't water used somehow? Yeah. So, so, so this is an interesting dynamic that you see both at Giza, it's a carra. You see it in Peru, that there seems to be a correlation to like underground water. There's definitely water. So But there is groundwater. So there's a, there's a, there's a shaft at Giza, it's halfway down the causeway of the middle pyramid. It's called the Osiris shaft. And it runs like 120 feet or something down into the,

into the bedrock of the plateau. And there's three sets of three levels. And they have these chambers and there's, funnily enough, boxes and things down there. But at the bottom level, like, there's only, you know, a couple feet of clearance because the rest of it is buried, it's in water. Like, it's just, it's all the groundwater's seeped in and it's risen up.

So, yeah, there's definitely water involved and there's there's certainly a lot of theories about the great pyramid that suggests that it was hydrodynamic or it had something water was part of its um the mechanism that operated it or something there's lots of different theories out there about it uh i'm not particularly well versed in in in many of them uh i think there's there may be something to the harmonics um or having water that that may have activated some of these structures in the past i don't know that's a pure speculation but but there is a correlation between like underground rivers underground water sources that we see in, you know, in Peru, we see it in, in, in, in, in, in, in Egypt,

there always seems to be some source of water involved in these things. So yeah, I don't know. Doesn't seem like they were made for humans to be in. Yeah, that's for sure. It, you feel, honestly, when you go into the Great Pyramid, it feels like a machine. Like, you feel, it doesn't feel like a tomb. No. And it's not a tomb. It's, there's, the idea that's a tomb is really silly. There's, we know what old kingdom tombs look like, you know, we have lots of old kingdom tombs and the decoration, the writing, and there was a very consistent pattern to how they buried their nobles and their kings. And we've got lots of examples. And these things aren't tombs. There's no horroglyphs on the inside. We've never found bodies in them, et cetera. We've never found bodies

in them? No. Oh, wow. Not in not in the great pyramids. Okay. I mean, there's certainly, we found bodies in boxes, but there's always there's anomalies with them. It's like, well, it was a later burial. Like, I think a lot of them may have been reused for burial later. there's every time you investigate into like the human remains that have been found in places it's always there's always some anomaly involved in it i mean i mean for example there was there were bones a hip bone of a woman found inside the pit at the sakara the step pyramid that they dated to be far older than they said was was supposedly the date for the step pyramid like it's crazy and then you get stuff that's way younger it's like what's clear is that there's probably been people in there

and it's been used and it's hard to really call it's really cold correlated, but certainly no bodies, no mummies been found in them. And it feels like a machine. Like it feels industrial. It certainly doesn't feel like it was built for humans to go around. In fact, it'd be almost impossible to maneuver around in those things without the addition of the wooden steps and the handrails and the stuff that they put you in there because the, you know, the passages that you go in are like four foot square if you're lucky. I think the bent pyramid is like three and a half feet square. And, you know, it's an excruciating kind of angle that it runs for like 300 feet and you've got to try and go down and squeeze into this thing and without the the handrails

or the all the stairs they put in there it'd be it'd be virtually impossible for most people so it feels functional and there's there's signs of something happening too the great pyramids of real mystery like there's the granite's been deformed like in the king's chamber the upper chamber that the granite has been discolored and deformed and there's evidence that the entire thing has shifted out like an inch. Like it's almost like an overpressurization in there or something that pushed all of those blocks out around an inch, which is insane. And you think about how much pressure that would take. But that's, you know, there's, there's, how do they know that? Well, they're just looking at the architecture and analyzing it. They've, they've looked at the gaps in the, uh, in, in, in all of the

masonry and things. I mean, it's just, that's, yeah, it's one of the, I don't, I don't, I don't know exactly how they figured it out, but that's, that's something that's happened there. For For sure, it's been discolored. Like there's a, as you go in there, if you ever get the chance at the top of the Grand Gallery and you're going in there, look at the color of the ground. When it switches to granite, because it's all limestone other than the central structure of granite, it changes color.

Like as you go in, you've got this nice rose granite and then it gets darker. It's almost like it's been burnt. Like there's, so it's like, who knows what's happened in there. Maybe it's soot. I don't think it's soot because it doesn't come off like soot.

Yeah, I don't know. There's, there's, there's, again, this, I keep coming back to there's something about these boxes in these pyramids and these boxes in these underground spaces. And a lot of these boxes, I mean, they're hermetically sealed. They're precision carved on the inside that had to be for a reason. And not for nothing, but the whole just to round out on the precision thing, one of the arguments I make about precision is that there's a specific relationship between precision and function.

Like developing precision, we do this today are the best examples like microchips and ICBs, integrated circuit boards, you know, microprocessors and stuff, right? The ability to develop a five nanometer process that pumps out a chip that's got millions of transistors on it in a tiny little footprint costs billions of dollars to develop that capability. We don't do that because it's ceremonial because it's fun.

We do it because we're chasing a functional return on that chip, like the small footprint, the power that whatever powers the modern world. it's the same thing with precision. Like we developed the ability to do precision manufacturing and machining in our times to shoot straight at. It was like Navy gun barrels. We're like one of the first reasons like, oh, we can do this.

And then the steam engine, you know, more pressure. And so we developed this capability because we were chasing a functional return on it. It's a prerequisite for an end result. Yeah, there's a relationship. So when you only develop precision, And you spend the resources that it takes to develop precision because you want a functional return on it. And that holds true for any form of precision. Like if I maintain that if the boxes in the Serapium were ceremonial, then there's no reason to carve them out and make them perfectly square or to have these inside corners.

It's kind of like you just color within the lines and just hollow it out with enough space to put a bull in there and then you shove it in place and you never open it again. Like that's what they say it was for. it just doesn't make any sense. You just wouldn't develop these capabilities of creating flat surfaces to within 1,000th of an inch because it's ceremonial. Right. It doesn't happen. Not to mention the fact that the lids seem to be removable. They have the lifting bosses and they were like on off, on off.

It's like, well, why are you doing that if it's a one-time use, you know? And why do you shelve a box because it has a crack in it? That's the other thing. Right. All these boxes, it seemed to be really important that they were solid. they were single piece. Like it wasn't that that box, the big black box we saw earlier that's been shoved into a corner,

it developed a big crack in it. So they stopped work on it. It's not machined. It's not perfectly flat. It's all carved out, but it's not, they definitely didn't finish it. And,

you know, they also went to the trouble of removing cracks. Like, this is why a lot of these boxes have these scoop marks on them. It's like an ice cream scoop's been applied to the granite. And that's not for any like ceremonial design purposes. It's to remove cracks. So when you have these little cracks in the granite, they'll scoop them out.

They'll like empty the crack out if you know. So if you have a little crack, they're like empty it out so it can't continue. Right. And then that's, you know, that's a difficult process. And then they polish those scoops as well and it's all finished. So you have these boxes that the outside, they're all, they're all, they're all faceted. Like they're faceted like a gemstone cut. Like they're all flat planes.

But they have these scoop marks in them where they've removed cracks. And that's because they want the box to be solid. So whatever's happening in these boxes, it's important that they were solid. Then it's just, you know, I can't, I don't have any other conclusions beyond that, but it seemed really important that they were solid. Let's take a pause because we're both sweating our asses off. We can go step out to the AC for a minute and I can make a call and see. Leave it, leave it running.

Leave it recording. Do I look? I probably like shiny and sweaty. Sorry, for people who are watching us, we have literally zero AC in the studio, which is why we're both glistening. just a little bit um yeah what were we talking about before we were talking about the uh the geese power plant and the water powering we were getting into that yeah yeah getting deep into the the geese uh the power plants so what what could they what could they have been powering what could

they've been doing well it's the idea i think was mainly that it was some form of energy generator like it was it was it was creating a form of energy like microwave uh that's the theory at least So I'm looking forward to see what Chris Dunn comes out with, with his next book to explore that. It's been a while since I've read that book. But that's, I think it's, like I said,

there seems to have been some functional purpose for some of these sites. I think that's the takeaway for me. And that's certainly what it feels like when you're in that, in that pyramid. Like it feels like some form of machine, what it was. I'm not sure. I'm not convinced that it's,

the answer to that is currently within our kind of technological realm, like I was saying earlier. It's not necessarily something we can already, we can comprehend. Right. It may be outside of our scope of understanding yet, but for sure we're learning more about all these different areas. And it's certainly possible that things exist outside of our realm of understanding, right?

There's not, it's kind of an arrogant perspective to look back on history and go, well, you know, we're like a super set of everything that's happened before. We understand absolutely everything about what you've done in the past and what may have been here. But when you, when you kind of combine the idea of an ancient lost civilization of a high technology

civilization that may have been global and there's tons of evidence for this outside of like the engineering stuff we've been talking about then those possibilities expand right if if you go back and say all right humans you and like you and me been here we're solving problems we've we've for hundreds of thousands of years including in periods that weren't like you know freezing cold and we had some some some some warm periods where we had plenty of food and time and time and space to solve some problems we may they may have evolved down a different technological route. Like they may have been more organic. It might have had more, just like, why, why are they working in stone rather than working in metals and composite materials like we do? You know, so we would,

the way we would solve the problems that some of these structures solved today, we wouldn't do it in stone. We'd do it in steel and concrete. Two by fours and drywall. Yeah, maybe. It's not going to last very long, but, but because it's cheap. We're so focused on money. Like everything's profit for our, our civilization. Pretty much. It is. But one of the other reasons is, is maybe it was just easier for it. Maybe they had no, we have to go with composite lightweight materials because it's difficult for us to work in things like stone. Maybe it was, they had techniques that maybe it was easier for them to use that material. I don't know. Like, I think there's some of those avenues are worth exploring. I think they're worth exploring because there is a tremendous

amount of evidence that suggests there were certainly a high degree of knowledge and some system of understanding that existed well and truly before our current definition of history was ever there. Like we just have these echoes of the past and all these things that come down through all these cultures around the world. They come down through ancient maps. They come down through us through us through to us in ancient religions and stories. Even our modern religions have some of these details encompassed in them. Things like celestial knowledge, understanding of the heavens, of the motion of the earth and of the planets. These things are encoded into religions and cultures where even in some cases,

where those cultures themselves had no way of knowing this. There's a good book, it's called Hamlet's Mill that kind of explores this topic, and it shows that there's a correlation in the same set of sort of astronomical data on things like the procession of the equinoxes, which is a 26,000-year cycle that we go through about what... The wobble.

Yeah, right, it's like, well, it's not quite the same. The wobble is the obliquity of the ecliptic. It's like the angle of the earth that changes. procession of the equinoxes is, you know, what what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, rises behind, like, it all rises in during the spring, during that, during the, the, the, uh, the, the, uh, the, uh, six thousand year cycle, 26 and a half. It actually varies because the, 26,000. Yeah. Yeah. So, on the, on the, on the, um, I believe it's the, the, the, uh, the spring, um, equinox or it might be the, the. the solstice, I should know, it's like we look at what constellations behind the sun when the sun rises on that day. And right now we're in the house of Pisces, so it lasts about 2,600 years. Thereabouts is the age of Pisces. They vary little because the constellations are a little different in size and scope. It's kind of really interesting because that and that data is in a lot

of ways encoded into our own religions and the religions of the book that we use today. It's kind of like the Pisces, the Jesus fish that people put on their cars. Jesus, you know, he was a, he has, there's a lot of allergies. He fed people with fish. He's some of his disciples were fishermen. The age before Pisces was the age of Ares, the ram, which started at about year zero. So Jesus kind of came in right when we transitioned into the age of Pisces.

And if you go back through like the religions of the book, I mean, your, your representation or your primary figure is Moses. And Moses blew the ram's horn. You know, he was a Jew. so he's kind of representative of the age of Ares, the Ram, and before Moses and before that, that was until about 2000 BC. And before that, we were in the astronomical age of Taurus, the Bull. So one of the stories in the Bible of Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments,

he finds his worshippers, you know, he finds his people worshipping a golden calf. And then they smash the calf up. He actually kills a bunch of them. But they smash it up and grind it into dust. and it's kind of this significance of like the transition between the age of Taurus into the age of areas. It's kind of encoded into our religion. I always laugh.

It's funny to see the Jesus fish on people's cars. It's like you're acknowledging the astronomical age that we're in. And after the age of, you know, it comes next right, after the age of Pisces, there's even a song about it. Leo? Age of Aquarius. Oh, Aquarius. The age of Aquas. Oh, okay, okay.

Yeah. And in the Bible, when Jesus is the final, the last supper, when he's going in to Passover, his followers ask him, like, where, what will we do without you, Lord? And he said, we'll go into town, find the man bearing a picture of water, follow him to his house, and there you will find sustenance. So it's basically a message saying, like, find the guy bearing a picture of water and following him to his house. Like we're going into the house or the house of Aquarius, the age of Aquarius after Jesus. So it's, yeah, so these things are encoded in there. And there's more specific knowledge in the, in Viking traditions, in all sorts of

ancient religions that have to do with like celestial, celestial significantly significant numbers, 72 and all of these numbers that are associated with procession, turn up in all of these religions from all around the world, even when such cultures don't have the ability to make those observations themselves. So the idea being that all of this came from a seed point. Like so if there was, go with the theory that there was some sort of globally advanced civilization that understood the mechanics of the heaven. and of the earth in great detail.

And then that stuff was disseminated into all of these disparate cultures after cataclysm. And they were put into these tales and stories and things were deified. Because that's how we do oral traditions, right? We don't just say, oh, it takes 72 years for the sun to move one degree on the horizon. It's like, no, it's put into a tale and a story. And it has personalities and gods and stuff built up around it. And that's how we pass information down through time in oral traditions. but it keeps cropping up across all these disparate cultures and religions.

So it all seems to point back to this idea that there was a like a seed culture, like there was a something that put this data in there in the first place. Someone understood all of this. And in order to understand it, you need to have a high degree of technology and, you know, just grasp of like the motions of the heavens and the motions of the earth. We see that the same thing applies with longitude and ancient maps. Like there's really accurate maps of things like the coastline of Antarctica before there was ice on top of it that shows up in ancient maps

that have been cobbled together from even more ancient maps that have been lost to us because of all these fires and like the Library of Alexandria and other places. They show things like accurate longitude, which is a big problem, like the east-west measurement. We were always good at measuring north-south using the sun. East-West was a problem right up until about the year 1800. when we developed chronometers or watches that were accurate enough for enables to do it.

It was around the time of James Cook's second voyage of discovery. We could develop and actually start to measure longitude, yet longitude and accurate longitude measurements show up on these ancient maps, and they show up in structures like the Great Pyramid. And the only way you can explain that is through technology. There's no other way to make those measurements and do them that accurately unless you have significantly advanced technology to at least the level of where we were in the 1800s, if not more than that, it seems like, because

one of the things that really blows my mind about all of this stuff is that most of these mysteries that we're seeing now, like the engineering stuff, these ancient maps, we only realized they were mysteries by the time we got into the 1800s. Like it took us, it took us so long to develop our technology and our species to really only like 100, 150 years ago where we could actually look at stuff and go, oh, this is a challenge. Like, this is a problem. We developed our industrial base to the point where we can understand the engineering difficulties in this only 150 years ago.

So, you know what I mean? Like we've only recently developed our capability enough to the point where we can look at this stuff and say, oh, it's a mystery. So there has to have been something else going on back in the past because this stuff, It doesn't happen by accident. What year was that thunderstorm rock? They giant, how many tons was that rock? I think it was, it was 1500 or 2,000 tons or whatever it was.

They, they, the thunderstorm when the Russians moved that. That was, I think that was definitely the 1800s, I want to say. And they moved that on like tracks with ball bearings. Yeah, steel tracks. A long time. They moved it a long distance too. They did. They moved it across.

It's now in St. Petersburg, I think. So they moved it. How far did they move it? I want to say it was a. I can't remember. I know I did talk about it in a video. But it was, it was not a trivial distance. Something like a hundred miles at least.

More than that. More than a hundred miles. I think they actually put on a boat and ship, did they ship it somewhere? I don't know. But yeah, they moved it quite a distance and they were working on it as they moved it. And in order to move it that way,

they use cap stands and then like steel tracks and steel ball bearings that they would prepare the ground before and then roll that thing real slowly. And they just pick up the track behind it and set it in front and use these big cap stands to slowly turn and creep that thing across across the ground. And yeah, it's evidence that it can be done. Like that's, but you have to also, what's interesting with ancient Egypt is you have a lot of examples like that. One of my act factor video I'm working on at the moment is to do with the colossal statues

that we see, or the remnants of the colossal statues that we see in Egypt. And we're talking about stuff that was a thousand tons or more, a single piece when it was done. and we have evidence for those in places even like Tannis. And now Tannis is way north up in the delta. Like it's up near the, like it's in the delta or the north end of Egypt. And the source for that stone is far in the south in what they call upper Egypt, a place called Aswan. You know, like a thousand miles away.

So, you know, there's a huge logistical challenge with moving that block of stone. There may have been 1,500 tons before it was finished. The quarried piece of stone, single piece of stone, a thousand miles. north to eventually to Tannis where there wasn't and there's and there's areas like that it would have had to cross it. It's not just the river's not right there. You have to cross stuff. You know, and not everything comes from Aswan either. There are other granite quarries in Egypt like the Wadi Humamette quarry that require motion and movement of these large pieces of stones over hundreds of miles of like desert and mountains and it's not all just like pop it on

the boat and float it, which is its own challenges. It's the third aspect of, of I think the evidence for some form of ancient high technology. You've got machining precision and then quarrying and logistics is the other big one for me. It's the massive stuff that I think anything over four or five hundred tons. Like you can demonstrate and people can move smaller loads like 100 tons, 200 tons maybe with some primitive means. But once you start to get up into that realm of 400, 600,000 tons, material failure becomes a real issue like using wood at all.

you know there's there's tremendous challenges with with with it's not like a linear curve of difficulty it gets exponentially more difficult once you start to get masses like that and there right so many examples of objects in that range of mass in egypt that are just it's a baffling because one thing we do know is that there's no evidence that the egyptians used anything beyond ropes and human horsepower so they weren't using pulleys they were using levers like they would lever stuff there's depictions of that but we don't think they're used used pulleys or cap stands or or animals for that matter we used humans but it has been proven that it would be physically possible or technologically possible for them to move the stones that

were used to build the pyramids right sure yeah a lot of those stones aren't that big like there's that most of the stones on the great pyramid two or three tons um you can move those there's a big challenge when it comes to there's like millions of them yeah there's yeah it's like 2.3 million or Yeah, and there's a problem with the timeline too, because in order for them to fit that to the reign of one Pharaoh, say Kufu's lifetime, he has to have that thing done with somewhere in the realm of like 25 years, which when you split that out with the number of blocks that are involved with building it, it's something like placing a finished block every five minutes,

24 hours a day for 25 years to make that happen because that's how big an effort it is. Wow. In one of my videos, I compare that with the effort it takes to build a lot of our modern structures, which we don't build anywhere near that rate. We take us far longer with our modern technology. Yeah, I wonder how long it would take us to build those right now. They said we had to replicate them with our equipment and our technology. To the degree of precision that it's made with, I don't. It'd be difficult.

Like, it would be, that's the challenge with any of this stuff. It's, I think a lot of it's within our capacity to do, but we don't have the financial will to do it because it would cost. Or, yeah, there's no incentive to it. It would cost an absolute bomb, like an absolute bomb. Even to make one box would be a bomb because it's like, you imagine trying to transport a hundred ton load over our roads. Just the permits involved in doing that are out of control. And then you've got, you know, all of the,

just the transport fees alone are crazy. And then you've got, if you were trying to make a box, it would require the development of specific designed machines to make that shape because we don't cut granite like that. We cut slabs. It just makes it so obvious that we are not a part of, some unbroken lineage. We didn't start here and end here.

There was obviously broken at some point and we had to restart. Yeah. And I think that's really gets at the core of why I think this stuff is important too, is because I think most people, maybe not at the front of their mind, but it's one of those fundamental tenets of living in our society in general. And what it means to be human today is that, well, we've just been taught that we're on this linear scale from, you know, the Stone Age to us. I'm sure there's a little few ups and downs in that path.

But it's like we're on this preordained path where we're going in the right direction as a human civilization. And it's like nothing can really go wrong. We're just, this is the path for humanity. It's like I think if more people realize that, well, no, we're just, we might be nothing but the latest revolution of like I call it the cosmic hamster wheel of human civilization. And eventually the hamster falls off. And that we've been through this loop maybe a few times in the past in those 300 to 800 to 800. thousand years that humans might have been here. We've developed civilizations. We've become advanced. You know, we've had a global reach. And then we've just been knocked down because of the

cataclysm. And that's, that's the real key to all of this. It's the other major development that's happened in the last few decades that I think really unlocks a lot of this stuff as being far more legitimate. And that is the understanding that, okay, we've actually had recent cataclysm. And I'm sure your viewers and everybody saw the Randall podcast and, and they're probably familiar with the Young Godryas cataclysm and that period of time. But, you know, we've always had legends. Every human religion and story talks about flood and fire and, you know, the ancestors being knocked down and having to start again.

But turns out that that actually happened. Like we have, we went through and we've been through several just periods of intense cataclysm that would have been absolutely civilization ending to the point where the most recent one being the Younger Dryas was so severe. that it literally changed the surface of the earth. I mean, we're living in the ruins of the old world. It's why one of the reasons it was America was called the New World. It's like it literally changed the surface of the earth.

That's how severe that cataclysm was. And it would have, yeah, wiped. I'm amazed that there's even anything left from that period beforehand. It was tremendous. But this is established scientific fact now that's really only happened in the last couple of decades. And it's, it's a, it's been a transition. period for geology because.

So is it accepted by science, by the establishment that the Younger Dries did exist? Yes. Yes. So that it existed is definitely incontrovertible. Like that had happened is established science. We know this from ice core records and temperature records. Like it's literally a, the period is called the Younger Drys period. Where the debate is happening is about what caused it.

What are the guys in the ivory tower saying? Well, you know, I think increasingly they're coming around to the idea that it was a cosmic impact. but there's a number of other potential sources for it. I think most of the work, and in fact, it's what's encouraging about this is that this is strictly kind of paleo-climitology and geology. There is a lot of work now,

150 plus peer-reviewed papers that are supporting the concept that this period was brought on by a series of cosmic impacts. Other people have suggested volcanism, other people suggested the sun. I know Randall talks about the sun being involved. I think there's absolutely room for that as well. We're learning far more about the sun and sun grazing comets and the effect that large solar flares and things can happen.

It's not the only cataclysm that's happened, but there's tremendous evidence at this point that it was a cosmic impact. There's more than 50 or 60 sites across North America, Europe, South America, South Africa, that show the same consistent impact proxies in the strata layer in the ground, shock synthesized nanodiamonds,

you know, these extraterrestrial platinum and iridium layers, the black mat layer. Like this is a consistent finding across the world. And you can also... They can date the sediment layers. That's right. So the stratigraphy in the ground is dated. And what's funny is that particularly in North America, the sites, they went to archaeological sites.

So they went to these really well-established like Clovis sites that go back 12,000 years that have these very well documented and researched. strata layers and in those strata layers back at the period bang on the younger dryus that's where they find this stuff and it's it's really well established and it that eventually once they started publishing this idea about this comet theory and it might have a relationship to human civilization some of these guys stopped getting so much access to these archaeological sites to do that work funny enough because a lot of the guy the archaeologists um guys like john hoops at kansas state union they really don't like the younger dryas at all they just hate that idea again it's it's upsetting

John Hoops. Yeah, you talked about him in one of your videos. Yeah, I had an interaction with him. Well, he called me out on Twitter and then ended up. He blocked me for some reason. But he was also, he's, and he's one of the guys that if you go and look at Young Godrys on Wikipedia and you click who's been editing this, it's just hoops, hoops. Really? Yeah. Yeah. So he's writing.

And he's the one who's like. He's the guy who said Graham Hancock's book promotes white supremacy. Yes. Yes, he did. I did a whole live stream on. Yeah, it's shameful actually the way he went. He's, yeah, it's like white supremacy and, and the kind of the cancel culture dog whistle stuff that comes out. He tried to pin all that on Graham, which is absolutely ridiculous, if you know anything about Graham.

And yeah, so they attacked him savagely in a recent one of their publications like American Geology, SAA, the Society of American Archaeology. I have a whole live show and it tears it down. It's ridiculous that he would do something. When people are doing something like that, you know that they obviously cannot like, win this and like cannot have a debate about it and you have to call somebody a fucking white supremacist that's right attacking the man and not the message which is what they they really do a lot of and he so he was always a guy like oh there's not these younger dry stuff is nonsense it's just recycled donnelly comet myths because there's there's a place for comet miss that's been a part of it and it makes

a lot of sense given that humans probably went through some pretty traumatic cosmic impacts and there were people that saw it i mean there's accounts in the old testament of it like you know the fifth angel built blew his trumpet and a mountain burning a mountain burning of fire hit the ground and it's in the maha barata and the indian traditions they literally talk about swarms of meteors coming from the sky so i think there's some firsthand knowledge that's maybe being encoded into some of these myths and religions but hoops is like ah there's nothing to this this you know the all of this cosmic cosmic these papers from the comet research group which are like legitimate scientists like legitimate academic scientists that are

again, under all this pressure because they're stepping out of the mainstream and they're under attack because of it. But he just dismisses all that and he says, oh, if you want the unbiased source, go to Wikipedia, the Wikipedia page for Younger Dryas. And it's like, you're writing the Wikipedia page for the Younger Dryas. And it just immediately ties into like pseudo-archology and Donnelly comment and this. It's just nonsense. It's one of the, you can't really trust Wikipedia on a lot of these mainstream topics. It's, um, it is worth looking into sort of the editing and the history of these pages a bit. But yeah, so there's some reason. resistance to the idea, and I think it's because it upsets the apple cart again with this concept

of, you know, civilization only starting 6,000 years ago. And, you know, funnily enough, like Graham does, he should get more credit for successfully predicting the discovery of the younger dryest. Like when he wrote fingerprints of the gods, I think it was 2006, he, he accumulated all this evidence from all of these different cultures all around the world and had predicted that there must have been some cataclysm that happened around that 12,000 year old period that caused the end of this. And that's where he termed the whole were species with amnesia. But he didn't have a source for it.

Like there wasn't any established, oh, it was this or that. There wasn't any scientific work for it. He was exploring things like Earth crust displacement and a few other theories, possibilities that were, you know, popular in the 50s, 60s, 70s that could possibly explain some of the evidence that we see for massive floods and all this sort of stuff. But then it wasn't until, you know, 10 or 15 years later that the work for the Younger Dryce actually comes out and it totally vindicates him. Not only did he predict it, he predicted it accurately and he pretty much pinned the right

time frame on it. And that's what's geologically being shown now. I think it's a huge missing piece of the puzzle. And I think it should have a tremendous impact on our story of history. But generally it gets ignored by a lot of the academics, unfortunately, in archaeology and, you know, Egyptology. When did the evidence for the younger dryest period come out officially? I think it was the first paper was published, I think around 2007, I want to say. I think it was Prince of the Garber was 2006. Yeah. So he came out and then. So the first paper

started to come out early on. And this was then analyzing kind of the impact proxies. So most of the scientific work has to do with the micro, what I would call like microscopic evidence. It's the black mat layer, the platinum and eridium and shock synthesized nanodimes, all the stuff. stuff you need like a carbon spheral stuff that that tells you there's an impact and it's it's sort of a proxy for an impact and that you need a microscope to look at the other the other evidence for this cataclysm is the macro evidence and this is where guys like randall carlson come in who show who can and this has also only been enabled in recent decades through to thanks to things like google earth and drones and sort of the aerial look on this stuff now we can start to see

the patterns for cataclysm that are still written on the land. And in places like the channeled scab lands, like it's still written large, like it's fresh and there is evidence for these just catastrophic flooding. Because it's all tied into that one period. That's the thing that makes the Younger Dryas so severe. And of course, there were, there's evidence for other cataclysmes before that.

But the Younger Dryas associated with it is a megafaunal extinction. Like half of the megafauna on the planet when extinct. There's a genetic bottleneck of the human species. So we had a huge bottleneck. This is only recent work as well in genetic diversity and in numbers, particularly male population numbers that's associated with the younger dryas. You have an incredible rise in sea levels around that period just after the younger dries. And you have a tremendous climate catastrophe where the climate swings rapidly all over the

planet, which is a contributing factor to some of the extinctions. But all of these things just focus in on this one period. and you know there's there is only a couple types of events that can possibly cause that and you combine it with like well we got all these impact proxies yeah some stuff hit the planet probably ended the ice age melted the ice sheets caused these catastrophic floods nearly took out humans took out half of the large animals on the planet like 85% of them in south america it turns out and yeah it knocked us back it would have been a civilization ender if there was anything around at that period particularly in america's it's gone like it it would have been wiped out and That's the other thing. People are like, well, sea levels have risen three or 400 feet. Let's go look off the coastlines at that three or 400 feet and see if there's any remnants of civilization. One of the problems with that is that a lot of it's going to be buried in sediment. Like there is the off flow of those floods when they, if those floods are what destroyed those,

if there was coastal civilizations at the time, they might be buried in hundreds of feet of sediment because that's, it wasn't just water, you know. It was just dirt and rocks and ice and forests and animals and things. things that just pounded the planet. Where are the ideas for where the one of the biggest impacts for Younger Dryus was? I think Greenland is one of them and then the Indian Ocean is another. Well, there's a couple. Yeah, so there's a couple of different things there.

So the Greenland Crater is called the Hiawatha Crater. Heawatha Crater, right? Yeah. So there's been some controversy around this lately too. It was speculated for quite some time that it could be a young crater as it could be associated with the Younger Dries. Recently, there's been some work done there that suggests it's like 20 plus million years old. But I'd encourage anybody who just read the headline on that to go and read the actual paper

and maybe take a look at some of the criticism of the paper from guys like Martin Swetman. Because there's some issues with this, I wouldn't say it's definitively dated that way. One of the challenges is that they didn't go to the center of the crater and drill down and take a core sample of the, it's a difficult area to get to. they were like 10 miles away analyzing material that's coming out of a stream that's coming from the crater and it's possible that they're analyzing the remains from an ancient volcano

could be the crater, I don't know. I'm not questioning the validity of the result like that that's definitely the age of the material they dated with whatever technique they used to date it. The other issue that comes into play here is the erosion of the crater. It still looks like a very young crater from an erosional

perspective and the scanning that we've done of it to the point that in the paper they kind of question the rates of of studying erosion data on on on craters altogether because it's like it doesn't make sense it's it should be much more eroded and you know you're under ice in a glacier environment under ice that's extremely erosive like that ice moving around grind stuff down yeah uh over yeah i always thought it would be the opposite i thought the ice would preserve it preserve it if you're stuck in the ice like a mammoth maybe they might but not on the ground like it's like

where that interface is between those billions of tons of of ice in the ground, it just grinds it into powder. Like that's, you know, a glacial, it's, when glaciers retreat, there's something called glacial till, and it's just like the ground up remains of whatever the hell is beneath this load, and it just grinds it into dust pretty much. So there's issues with that. I'm not 100% convinced that the herewatha crater isn't young. That said, it doesn't mean anything to the younger dry.

So if it's not, if it's not the crater for the younger dry is, fine. I think where the likely, and this is something area that Randall Carlson is working quite a bit on. And I've seen some of his work about the idea that a lot of these impact sites for the Younger Drys may well have been across the North American ice sheets in areas like the Great Lakes region and there may still be some indicators of craters. You've got to imagine and remember that those craters are hitting on top of miles of ice, those objects. So it's not quite the same thing as hitting the ground straight up, but you're still going through that ice. And I think there's still work to be done in terms of finding those impact locations.

You mentioned the Indian Ocean Crater. I think you might be talking about Burkle Crater. Yes, Berkel. But that was, I think that was 9,000. That wasn't associated with the Younger Dryus. That might have been an individual event. Still catastrophic. That may have been the source for the biblical flood, actually.

Noah's Flood. Yeah, because that was, I think, I think 5,000 BC was the date for Berkel Crater. And they know this because there's like a two mile wide, it was like a miles wide hole in the bottom of the Indian Ocean. and on the shorelines of Western Australia and Madagascar island of Africa, they have these basically, what do you call it, chevrons, like these waves, these sand dunes, like where it's washed up material. And at the tops and in these chevrons,

they've got organic material that came from the seafloor of the Indian Ocean that they've been carbon dated to around like 5,000 BC. So something went plopped down into the ocean. And they're hundreds of feet high, like there's hundreds of feet high. So like when you shoot a paintball at a wall, the paint splatter. So the sea floor splattered across. It splattered. It was carried in tidal waves that were probably hundreds of feet high that washed inland for like dozens and dozens of miles on Western Australia and on Madagascar like hundreds of feet high.

Like you couldn't imagine it. And then what's interesting about the location in the Indian Ocean is that it would have also sent that tidal surge north up into the Persian Gulf and right up into the med. Like so right around the area that, that, you know, our culture comes from, like all of the Bible stories and things. So this idea of everything flooding and it raining, the fallout from that event, you know, it's kind of in the right time frame for that, for that story. And it certainly would have caused catastrophic flooding up there in the Persian Gulf as well, which is the source for all those of the Aramaic kind of religions and things. So, yeah, I don't know. That may be a source for it. But that's one of the reasons why there's a bit of resistance to the younger dry

is that they haven't found a specific crater just yet. But I think regardless of the crater, I'm like, something happened. Like there's so many, you know, you don't just get this extinction event out of nowhere. Although we do attribute overhunting. That is the mainstream explanation still, mostly, well, climate change. Because we know the climate change, but what drove the climate change? But the overhunting thing's kind of ridiculous because, you know, the amount of species that went in.

extinct in a very short period goes right down to a couple of birds, you know. Right. And it is equivalent to the same amount of megafauna that exists on the planet today. That's how many species went extinct in a short order back then. And it's like this. And did you say there was like a woolly mammoth who got blown right off of his haunches? Oh yeah. Yeah.

So there's lots of other like individual anecdotal, I guess, sort of examples of severe trauma, let's say, to some of these species that have been found. One example is of a mammoth. or a mastodon that his his feet had sunken in, say, a foot or two into some mud. And just at that same level on all four of his legs, they were just snapped off in one direction. And his shoulders up near his, or his hips up near his shoulder, like he was just jumbled up, as if he'd been hit by some sort of massive shockwave. Right.

So you might imagine, well, maybe he was near one of these epicenters and he got hit by a shockwave. And that's what's left. We have, there's a number of examples of stuff like that. It's very interesting to look into, but they're like individual examples of, okay, something might have happened in this area that caused this to happen. I mean, it would take tremendous effort to break it like an elephant femur, for example. Right. It's not an easy task. Right.

But we see that. We see it in some caves with jumbled up bones of different species of extinct megafauna that are mixed up with smashed up trees and things, like this huge mess of bones of all these ancient megafauna that's like something smashed them all up. put them in there. So there's lots of examples of things like that. So I want to go back real quick to some of the some of the work that you did with the machining. One of the things that we glossed over was was the drill cores and the pottery. Michael, if you could find some of those photos of the drill cores, what was the pushback against or what was like the narrative of the drill cores that are found in so many of the stones in Egypt? And then what you found when you once you finally went there with a fucking HD camera.

filmed it. Well, to be fair, again, we've known about the mystery of the drill cause since Flinders Petrie time. He was the first one. In fact, he's sort of the genesis of the controversy around this. So what we're talking about is the circular drill holes, just like this one. This is the hole that's left after the tube has been drilled out. In fact, this is one my favorite examples at Abusea, because you can see on the lip of that thing how thin the tool tip was, right? It's like a very thin tool that was drilled into this stunt. And it's a very thin tool that was drilled into this stone and then that core was was snapped off. What's what what you see in a lot of these holes is today we've got this half he's got this like section cut of it. It's because the stone

has since been split along that axis right. So these were all full full holes in the day. And I think what when these sites have been quarried by people looking for stone later on, they would look for these holes because it's and then they would try and split the stone along the axis at the back. so they would do the wedge and chisel method and then try and split the stone through the drill hole because it's weakened it a bit. It's like, all right, we can cut it. We can try and split the stone this way. So that's why you see so many of these like half cut holes like this one. So what happened, what you're left with is a core that comes out of there.

So you snap this granite or basalt, whatever, core off. And the famous artifact where this stems from is a core that's in the Petrie Museum in London. And it's called Petrie's Core Number 7 because it was number 7 on a plate of other examples. of stone cutting that he was looking at scratching his head saying this is some fantastic method of cutting stone. And it gets to the jars too. But this was what what he found on that stone and he documents quite extensively is that it has a continuous spiral groove. Yeah, that's Petrie's core number seven still today. You can kind of see the groove on it. There's a grooved layer like kind of like a goes around it. And what Petrie found was that it was a spiral. It was a continuous spiral.

So it wasn't like just circular lines. This was a continuing spiral. A slight bit of a slight tilt to it. Slight angle to it. And so he published this and he got a bunch of pushback on it. And then finally, you know, Chris Dunn, you are considered like his modern successor on these engineering topics. I think that's his photo actually. He was allowed to go in and actually examine the call.

So him and a bunch of other guys, Malcolm McClure is another guy that went in and they tested it. They looked at the spiral. They're like confirmed, yes, this is spiral. It's a continuous groove that runs around it. Chris made a latex mold of it. So he,

he molded this thing in latex and then cut it, laid it out and sort of, and geometrically proved that it's a spiral. Didn't they wrap a string around the whole thing? They did a cotton, yep, cotton wool test where they just finally sort of under, under a magnifying glass followed the groove and wrapped it and like showed you

that it's a spiral. I mean, it's got some wear on it. It's, you know, there's sections of it that show you it's more spiral. But, um,

So, but what the mainstream explanation for this, so from Petrie's Day, like 150 years ago, it's always been denied that it's a spiral groove. They just flat out like, nope, it's concentric rings. They say it's just like rings on it. So because the way we explain this in the mainstream model is the same, it's the grinding method. It's like we got a copper tube and we put some sand and water down and a big bow drill and we just ground away.

Like we grind back and forth and back and forth and eventually you can go down. And so they did an experiment. They cut out a little like three or four or four. drill core. Mark Lannis snaps it off and goes, oh, that could be Fourth Dynasty. They don't actually look at the markings. They don't compare them.

Right. But they did a study at Penn State, I think it was in the 80s even, that they, and I had the study, I referenced it in the video. So they did a study where they took different, you know, grinding compounds and different techniques, and they looked at it under an electron microscope.

And they all said, yep, look, this is all concentric rings, because it's like a high-speed drill with different material and very fine concentric rings around these little, cause. But from the very first part of that study, that not once do they mention that Petrie said it was a spiral groove. They just call it circular, like concentric circles. They just don't even admit that there's a spiral groove here to the point that in the textbook where the stuff is

taught. And this is what Chris Dunn showed in his book. And I point out in this documentary is that when they show this picture of Petrie's core number seven in the textbook, they literally tilt the photo just a little bit. They tilt it so that when you're looking at it, the lines look horizontal. And it's like deliberate manipulation of the photo just to make it look like it's horizontal and done shows like if you actually look at this thing in the correct frame of reference, you stand it up straight, you can kind of see that there's a spiral groove on this thing. So the implications of this is the problem, is that when you, when you have,

have a spiral groove on a core, we can now use that to determine how fast did this, did this core get cut? Like what, if you assume that that groove is part of the cutting process. There's the difference between the, the one of the left was the one that was published in the book. Yeah. Where they, they made the grooves look perfectly horizontal, as if they weren't some sort of downward spiral. Yeah. Yeah. And then done corrects it with the shot on the, on the right. That's right and be yeah crazy and it's it's just a little trigger they never and then the the issue is is that when you have a spiral groove on it now you can we can figure out like how fast if you assume that

groove was part of the cutting mechanism then how fast was this penetrating into granite now it turns out that it's something like 500 times faster than we can manage today in terms of like for you know six inches of horizontal travel it goes you know half an inch in or whatever the rate is it's about 500 times greater penetration into the stone than we can manage with our tools today. How do they figure how fast it can go? Well, so again, it's like if you follow the groove, you can determine for so much distance of horizontal travel

what the vertical travel is, right? So it's like, so the road, because you can flatten out that rotation and say, okay, so for six inches of horizontal travel of turning, it might go in a half inch or whatever it is into the granite. And then we compare that with our modern stone cutting tools. Okay, and how fast they go? And so you've got to don't, it's two ways of thinking of it too.

Like our stuff, if you look at the way we cut this sort of material today in holes, it's high speed, like spins really fast and it grinds its way in there quickly. It doesn't take too long. But so this may have been a very slow moving tool. This might have been something that used some other technology to cut the stone, but turned relatively slowly compared to our modern tools. But it penetrates the stone. Like it's cutting through the stone at a 500 times greater rate than we can manage with our stuff today.

which is like how the hell are they doing this? And you see the same thing in some of the other cutting signs. Now, it's at least a lot of speculation around, okay, was it the thermal tool? Was it ultrasonic? Was there something? And so all of this stuff, the implications for it are astonishing because it, for damn sure, it wasn't some copper tube, which we've never found, by the way. We've never found any of these grinding tubes that they said they use.

They've not found a single one. Undoubtedly, they used that technique of the Egyptians used later. fucking thing. Well, yeah, and so some of them get really big. There's like this is, you get them up to eight inches. Like most of the, most of the whole, most of the tube drills are small, but I've seen them. There's a one at Karnak Temple that's eight inches across into granite. And that's, that's even bigger. That's a coffer that's in the Egyptian Museum. They may have moved it to the new museum because it wasn't there last time I checked, but that's like four massive tube drills into a big block of what looks like

basalt or diarate or something. But, and you see them all over the place. So it has all this implications for the technology that was used to make the tools. And that's where the devil's and the details on this thing. And so the argument's always been about it's not a spiral groove. It's never a spiral group because if it is a spiral groove, the implications are earth shattering for for Egyptian history. Yeah. That's why I don't understand why they try so hard to hide all this stuff, like the stuff that you're finding and all this evidence, why they're trying to basically straw man all these findings that you have and all this evidence of technology. Like what's the purpose. I don't see any other purpose other than like money. Like we're getting paid to,

we're getting paid too much to to reveal this stuff. There's got to be an incentive. Yeah, I guess. And again, we talked about it earlier, but it's, I think it's, I think it's. Yeah, on our break. Well, we talked a little bit about the incentives there, but yeah, but earlier we're talking about establishment and just like this, you're protecting this story. Like, it's like the dogma of the story. It's anything that goes against that. It gets a strong resistance. Now, I don't know if there's other motives behind some of it. Well, tourism might be part of it, but tourism, you think, well, if this is even, you think, okay, wow, there's some lost civilization that had higher technology, high, higher technological capabilities than we have today that definitely did this stuff. I think people are going to come there in hordes compared to what they're doing now.

I agree. No, I agree. I think, I think emphasizing the mystery can only be good for tourism. Like, I think, I don't think there's, yeah, I don't think saying that, oh, there's no mystery here. got all the answers. It's going to attract people as much as like, hey, there's some significant mystery here that when you go there and look at it for yourself, it'll blow your mind. That'll bring more people, I think. It's certainly more interesting that way. But it's, yeah, you know what annoys me is that is that the only core that we've been able to look at and

do this experiment on is Petrie's core number seven because it's in the Petrie Museum and they have actually allowed some researchers to play with it. We have lots of cores. We've got lots of drill holes. It's crying out for like latex molds of these things for high definition 3D scanning. You know, it might prove me all wrong. I don't care if if it's like why can't we go and answer those questions because we have the technology to do it. And I would be more than happy to be oh, okay, that was an anomaly. That's not how it was done. As long as we could go and look at these things and do it. I suspect that they're going to keep finding results like that if they do. But the Egyptian Museum and these places have lots of cores from lots of holes. And

And there's lots of these holes still on these sites. And you can still feel and see the striations and the grooves. And I don't know why we're not making these types of investigations into them. They're harmless. And it would help to answer some of these questions. But it just doesn't seem to happen. This might sound like a little tinfoil hat, but do you think they know what the fuck was going on? Or they may be on the cusp of finding out and they just want to hide it from the public?

You know, I think it's a possibility. I don't say that. I don't think everybody's... Like, could they be developing some sort of fucking hypersonic weapon? I don't know. I don't know about that.

I do think there's examples of certainly information that's been hidden from the public. I'd say that. And in fact, I've got some examples. There's a number of times. And it may not always be nefarious purposes. It may just be simple politics

or people like protecting their position. but for sure there's been suppressed, there's information that's been suppressed. One of the biggest things, I do want to come back to the jars, but this is like one of the biggest things that's been, that I did a video on again, about the lost labyrinth of Egypt.

Did you? Oh, yes. Yeah. So the labyrinth is, for people that haven't heard of the labyrinth, it was one of the ancient wonders of the world. Like this was described by Herodotus and Pliny the Elder and Strabo and all these historical figures that saw it.

and Herodotus described it as, you know, exceeding in splendor and wonder that of the pyramids. Like this, this was a tremendous, the labyrinth was this sort of thousand room structure that was supposedly just absolutely magnificent. You could have fit all of the temples of Karnak and Luxor and all of the temples of Egypt into its footprint. It was underground. It had multiple levels. There's all these historical accounts of people visiting it and just being awed, like massive granite blocks and structure. and temples is this huge thing that was just lost to the sands of time, right? It just disappeared. At some point after, you know, the early Romans sort of wrote about it and the Greeks, it just

somehow disappeared into the sands of time. Now, we've never known where it is or what it is. And it would be like a pyramid. It would rival the great pyramid, for sure, if we were to find it. But it turns out we found it. Petrie actually thought he found it, thought he, thought he found the he found some blocks is it's at a site called hawara in in egypt it's over near the fayum region and petri was digging around and there's a lot of people have been have speculated it might have been in this area petri dug around found these massive granite blocks thought oh i'm standing on the foundation for it the bottom level like it's it's all been quarried and taken away and this must be the foundation for it turns out he was standing on its roof so it it's it's and then

and then uh it wasn't really looked out again after that for a while but a guy named louis Decordiae did something called the Madahar expedition. I think it was 2008. He went in and he had partnership with the Egyptian Department of Antiquities for this study. And they went and did ground penetrating radar and these other acoustic tests and a whole bunch of different tests at Hawara. And they found it. They found the labyrinth.

It was spread out across like multiple football fields and all sides of this pyramid and all sides of this canal. Thing is absolutely massive. They found all this granite and these labyrinth line like structures under the ground. and unfortunately his entire report and all of the public information about this was suppressed was literally and Louis de Cordier said it was Zahihua suppressed it under threat of national security sanction meaning that he would ban anyone that that violated this suppression from ever coming to Egypt again and it was buried who was the guy who suppressed it Zahihua

who was he he was the Egyptian minister of the he was in charge of the Supreme Council of Antiquities. He's politician. Well, he's the famous Egyptologist. He's the, he's written a bunch of books. The Indiana Jones. The Indiana Jones, that guy.

Okay. So, but he, and this is, and this is not me saying, this is Louis DeCordia, the guy who funded and directed it, along with Ghent University of Belgium, did this whole experiment, did this report called the Matterhar expedition. If you go and search on the, on archive.org, you can probably still find some of it. I've got the paper from it. It was disappeared from the web. he waited a bunch of years and then eventually came out and sort of talked about it but there

wasn't any press about it so and it's unfortunate is because the the labyrinth is like one of the lost wonders of the ancient world like it's sitting right there and unfortunately it's rotting away in like salty groundwater because that's one of the challenges I think and I think this is where I say it's not I don't know it was I think it's mostly being suppressed and was buried because of probably political reasons more than anything because it has to do with the damning of the Nile River. So Egypt dammed the Nile in the 1960s. They put up what's called the Aswan Dam. And that stopped that inundation of the Noss. Every year, the Nile would flood and then it would retreat and it would flood. And that's how they did a lot of the irrigation. When they

dammed the Nile, everything north of that ceased, that inundation stopped. Now, you'd think that that would lower the water table, but it actually has the opposite effect. Because the Nile wouldn't shrink down in summer, there's been a consistent flow of water into there. It's actually raised the water table. So in the last sort of couple hundred years, the water table in these regions come up significantly, including at geese, places like that, the level of water has come up. So today, the water table at Hawara is at about five meters. And the labyrinth starts at about nine meters. Oh, shit. So. And in order to fix that and to excavate and do stuff, you're talking, it's probably billions of dollars of infrastructure required to even fix the drainage on the site.

And it also sits at the neck, the entry into the phone. region, which is a large depression that's used for a lot of agriculture in Egypt. And they'd have to probably start messing with like farmers water. And it would be a huge political problem. A, it'd be a problem for Egypt if the whole world knew that up, the labyrinth is being left to kind of rot in the ground here. Right. Which is like a historical wonder that sort of belongs to everyone.

And then B, it would be an issue to try and mess with the water rights flowing into this really farming, important farming area that's used for a lot of the agriculture of Egypt. So I think for those reasons, perhaps that, I don't know, that may be part of the reason that it was suppressed, but suppressed it was. I mean, I think that's undeniable. So people that are interested, I've got a video on the topic on my channel and then you can also probably go and find the paper. But it's like I would, I would think that if they went public and you would probably raise the funds through all of the universities and the institutes that would be interested in uncovering that and doing research on it, enough such that you could probably make that happen. because it's like it could be the biggest discovery of the century, if not longer, if they found, if they really uncovered and looked at the labyrinth, which appears to still be there.

What was it used for, do you think? I don't know. I don't know. I think it was potentially like a, it could be a vastly ancient structure that was used by the Egyptians. For sure, the priesthood and they worship the crocodile god there. And there's a lot of that said that they had many, many halls and temples. dedicated to all the pantheon of the gods. So it might have been a reused temple.

I think that happened in a lot of places in Egypt. They places like the Assyrian at Abidos, Temple of Sedi the First. They reused and repurposed this stuff when they found it and it got integrated into their culture over time. I suspect the labyrinth may fit that mold as well. So that's what it was, yeah, I don't know. So it's an interesting question though. You talk about the functionality of some of these things because

this gets back to things like the statues, right? So as much as I think there was a functional purpose to the boxes and those underground spaces and some of the sites themselves with the channeling and the U-blocks, it's hard to argue that the statues had a functional purpose. Like those are representational, for sure, and ceremonial. But they also display a lot of the same precision elements, right? The faces are perfectly symmetrical,

which is incredibly difficult to head jets. or the crowns on some of these structures, these figures have, you know, compound curve surfaces that are also perfectly symmetrical, very difficult to, you almost need computer guided stuff to make that happen. And so I get the question occasionally,

it's like, well, hang on, if the Egyptians and dynastic Egyptians didn't make the statues and you think they're older, is this the builder culture? And my answer to that is yes. I think what we're looking at with these precision statues and in particular the giant ones, but I think this also applies to things like

Kaffray enthroned and a few of the smaller statues. I think these are inherited, and I think we're looking at the remnants of how that build a culture that the Egyptians' ancestors represented themselves. And I think... Oh, yeah, that shows the symmetry of the faces.

This is part of the symmetry, yeah. This is like an example for machining and the same curvature being used on the face. There's another image that shows you a reverse transparency of this same head where it's basically you take a photo and you mirror flip it on the vertical and then you make them both 50% transparent and lay them over each other. And they're identical. And it's identical.

Yeah, identical. Like you don't, this is not, it's neither a characteristic of a human face nor is it something that's achievable with just carving into granite by hand when there's zero mistakes. And by, and remember that there's lots of these. Isn't there an idea that these could have been molded? Like they could have heated up the rock and like, poured it? The geopolymer concept. Yeah, a lot of people... Geopolymer. People call it geopolymers. It's like a concrete type of thing. It comes up quite a bit. I'm not a... I think there's some

evidence for it in South America, potentially with some Andesite stuff, because there's actually been a couple studies done down there. I don't think it's the case for granite. I don't think it's the case for most of the limestone either in Egypt. We have... The idea of it being a concrete, like you somehow, there was a whole movie this K-K-2019, I think it was. It's like a four, five-hour movie. Kind of trashes Graham Hancock and Randallson in it. But it gets to the point of,

well, they use these giant quartz magnifying lenses to obliterate rock and then make it into a slurry and car stuff. I just, there's lots of reasons to... It looks like it, though. It does look that. That's what it fucking looks like. It does, but it's not.

Because you have... We have quarries for first. We literally have quorries. where the shapes of the rocks have been pulled out and we have the unfinished obelisk. We also have things like veins of other material. So in granite and natural rock, you'll have like, you know, veins of quartz, of pure quartz running through it or you have veins of other material that you'll find still in the stone because that's in the piece that was quarried from the ground.

You don't find that in, if you were making a concrete version or something. Yeah, so this is some of the other. That one there. Yeah, that's the reverse transparency. Oh, that's the transparency. So you see Chris Dunnard. hand on both sides. Oh yeah. It's mirror imaged. So if it wasn't perfectly symmetrical, you'd see overlap. You'd see like it wouldn't be in focus or perfectly symmetrical. So it's like

a reverse transparency overlay matching. It's insane. And that's not, yeah, it's the implications of this are incredible. Like what, some sort of giant 3D CAD thing. Now it isn't, it is incredible how it's perfectly symmetrical. That is definitely incredible. But the precision, like I mentioned to you, last night. The precision is very similar to like the statue of David. Where you can see the veins in his hand perfectly. Beautiful. It looks like it's just like a

like a like it was 3D printed almost. Yeah, it's insane. And in fact, you see that. In fact, there's a good point we can come back to in a second about the writing, the difference between this sort of stuff and then what you see in the writing itself. But let me finish with what I was saying about the statues. It's like I think there's a

and you have to remember when it comes to the statues in their culture, the dynastic Egyptian themselves see themselves as a legacy civilization right they they trace their own history back 30 or 40,000 years and we determine that that's just myth and legend like they talk about zepp teppy the time of the gods shamsu hoar the followers of horace and they split out they have these leaders and they document this line of kings that goes back you know 35,000 years and then you know eventually it starts with peppy or whatever the first and that's the first dynasty in our times And we just, we arbitrarily, we're the ones making the judgment,

well, that stuff before, that's just myth and legend. And their actual civilization starts here. They don't make that distinction. And I think that if you go with the idea, okay, so let's assume there was a technologically advanced civilization that did make a lot of these artifacts. And they represented themselves with these statues and these people. Then if you're the dynastic Egyptians and you viewed them as your ancestors, you would model yourself after them. Right. I think that's exactly what's happened.

They've modeled themselves after them. and the pharaohs and their kings were trying to capture that power through ceremony and religion and make themselves one of them and they continue to depict themselves going down through time it's like an advanced cargo cult that's i think that explains a lot of the ancient egyptian civilization like that i think it fits the evidence that we see uh it's certainly one interpretation for it but um yeah it's it's yeah the statues are insane I And what was this made out of?

What were these? Granite. These are made out of granite. Granite. Okay. And where does granite lie on the scale of? It's a six or a seven. Like it's like a copper and even iron's not going to do much to granite.

Like granite's ridiculously hard. Like it's one of the most difficult stones to work in. Are there any other sculptures made out of granite post-dating this time period? Like are there any modern? Are there any modern granite sculptures? In fact, there is. There's a good example of, what's it called? I forget the, I forget the Arabic name for it,

but there's a statue in Egypt in Tahir Square, I think, called Egypt, Egypt Rising. And it's a granite statue. It's made from a bunch of different pieces. This is an interesting thing. It's funny. So they made this statue. We do do stuff in granite. They made this statue.

It's bolted together at a bunch of different pieces. And in order to have it polished, They had to send it to Italy. Wow. In pieces. Yeah, in pieces. And what's funny to me is that they clearly had the ability to polish granite and granite statues pretty well back in the day in Egypt.

Like they were able to polish up stuff. But in today's time, this was made in like the 50s, I think, 1950s. And in order to have this Egypt rising statue polished, they had to ship it to Italy and have it shipped back. And they bolted it together. And it's been out in the elements for maybe 50, 60 years now. And the polish is worn off. Like it's fading already.

which is incredible when you consider that you have artifacts like this that that are sitting in the sun for at least thousands of years if not longer that still maintain their polish so the quality of the work and however they were polishing the stone far exceeds what we are doing with our stuff today like it's absolutely crazy and this is all one piece and it's all one piece yeah you got to pull up the picture of that giant what was that long thing called that was still in the bedrock they were coring oh the obelisk The obelisk. There's a giant, like long rectangular obelisk that they're still, it's still sitting in the ground. The thing weighed, what, like a thousand tons? Twelve hundred. Twelve hundred tons. Yeah, and there is. There it's past it. Yep. There it is. Yeah, it's crazy. It's, you know, and you got to, that photo doesn't do it justice in terms of the angle that it's lying on. And then there's a granite mountains all around it. So you have to, you got to remember to get that thing out of there. Once you detach it from the bedrock, you have to lift it up like 30 feet. And then.

then maneuver it somehow across this mountainous rocky environment to get it to wherever you want to put it on a boat or something. Mind you, the Nile's about a mile away, a kilometer or so away. So yeah, this is insane to go and see it. And this was, you know, this was, this was buried forever. This may be some of the oldest layers of this quarry. When they dug this out, it was under like seven, eight meters of other sediment and other big blocks that they had to split in half to even get to it. And the Romans built stuff like this by putting it together, right? Like, their giant, like the giant, giant Roman columns. Right.

They were in pieces. As did the Egyptians. So later, this is the other thing. Not only do you have obelis like this, we have single piece columns. If you flip through these photos, you'll find some incredible photos of these column ends, these flowered, lotus flower or palm shaped columns that are absolutely remarkable in their precision and symmetry, but they're also giant single piece there. That's a good example right there. These are all over the place. So these are some of the oldest style.

You found these at Sakara, Giza, single piece columns. We also have like... And this thing's about five feet in diameter. Yeah. Yeah. And they may have been 30, 40 feet long or longer 50 feet. And they're all over the place. Now, in later times, in the middle and New Kingdom, they did big columns too.

But they made them out of sandstone. And they made them with blocks, like rounds. They stacked rounds up. And then they'd shave them down and shape them. And the same thing happened with the Romans and the Greeks. And it's funny. you go to Rome, you go to the Pantheon, and you see out the front of the Pantheon, there's like five or six of these massive thick granite pillars,

their single piece holding up the pantheon. They came from Egypt. Like they took them from Egypt and used them in the architecture in Rome, much like they did with the obelisks. It's like it's not the easy people, it's literally the most difficult way to do this stuff, made out of some of the most difficult to work stone, and it was done in the earliest periods of the Egyptian history

according to the mainstream narrative. It doesn't make sense. And they just do, it's just fascinating. They do not even acknowledge this. No, no, it's just like, well, they just, well, the mainstream with the pyramids is like, well, they just didn't care as much about pyramid building after that. It's like they decided to do other things. So it's funny, you know, and when you go to places like Karnak Temple and Luxor, there is a real, you have to be careful when you look at it because there's a, there's a spectrum of stuff there. And it's, I think in a lot of these sites, what happened was the Egyptians found a lot of these things, the statues, the columns, and then they constructed their temples around them.

Like they realized how magnificent and incredible these achievements were, like the work of their gods, as they might say. Not only that, but like another thing that you point out in your videos is they plastered their hieroglyphics on top of them. Where it looks like my two-year-old or my three-year-old walked up to the statue of David with his crayons and just drew a bunch of pictures on them. Because like even with the hieroglyphics, you can see how they're chiseled out. They're not smooth. They're very rough. The lines aren't straight. Yeah.

When you had this incredibly precise geometric object that they're drawing this on. It's like completely different. you can tell it's from completely different times. Indeed. If you go to the writing directory, there's a few... That thing's huge. It's my favorite one, actually.

That column is one at Bastet, which is not rarely visited. In fact, there's a huge granite rubble field behind it. You see, that's all granite pieces. And this is... I have a video I show this thing quite a lot. It's so sharp and well-defined and well-made. It's just, it blows your mind about how precise this was.

And they stamp these things out like they were making them in a factory. Dude, it looks like a fucking mold. does, doesn't it? But yeah, it's not. It's, yeah, it's, it's come from the ground and it's been shipped a long way because this is, the Bastet's up there in the Delta as well. It's like a thousand miles from Aswan where the ground it came from. So what was this? For people that can't see it right now, they're only listening. It's a column. This is the end piece to a flared column. So it's like a, you'd call it like a lotus flower or a palm shaped column that's a flared end piece. The thickness through the middle of the body is probably four, five feet thick. At the end, it's six, six and a half feet. And it's, it's six, six and a half feet. And it's, and it's, it's a flat. And it. And it's, it's a flat end. And it. And it. And it. And it. And it. And it. And it. And it It's shaped with, you know, very sharp defined lines and little balustrades that are on it. What's, what's difficult about these column shapes is that you have to remember when you quarry this block, you've got a quarry a block that's at least as thick as the end of that column. The widest piece. And then you're shaving it down and you're removing all this material.

And then, you know, again, single piece. So you can't really make a mistake anyway. You can't fuck up. You're changing the geometry the whole thing then. You are. When you do that, right. And again, there is hundreds of these things. And what is this made out of?

Granite. Granite. So if you can imagine taking, like if somebody's just listening to this, just imagine taking Plato and putting it in one of those Plato plastic molds where you smush it together and you peel it off and you had this perfectly smooth Plato object. That's what this looks like. And it's made of granite. Yeah.

And another reason why I don't go in for the geopolymerite is that granite itself is a conglomerate material. So inside of granite, you have these chunks of quartz of micro, hornblend, all these other things. And the only way that this granite doesn't work like a composite, it takes millions of years of heat and pressure to form that into the stone that we use today. It would be, it's an unknown science, if it were, if it was a geopolymer, certainly today, I want, this is what Chris Dunn usually says too. It's like, well, just send me a bag of it and we'll mix it up and see what it looks like. Because you can't, and some of this stuff is like, you have giant chunks of quartz in them. And it's an indicator of something else, too, that's, that always blows my mind when I'm thinking about these really large single piece objects of granite is that this stuff doesn't come from surface granite.

Like, you don't find significantly large pieces of granite in the quarry that are like a whole enough without cracks or distortions until you dig down like 30 feet into a mountain of granite. You've got it. This is like core granite. It's very high quality stuff that comes from the insides of granite mountains. And so you're already talking about you have to remove like 30 feet of granite to even get to a piece that you can start to quarry that might end up as something like this. Right. And there's hundreds of these types of things, hundreds of them. Which goes to show, which kind of proves that it had to be extremely, I mean, not extremely, but it had to be relatively fucking easy for them to do it.

Must have been. Because they did so much of it. Otherwise, it would have taken them a hundred years to make one of these. Yeah. With the tools that they supposedly had that in that time after the, after the, you know. Oh, younger dryers. Right. Pounding stones and whatnot.

You're just pounding away, which, yeah, there's been experiments that show just how long that takes. So, and this contrasts nicely when we talk about these precision objects with what we see in the writing. And you've got to remember with the writing, the horriblyphs, that is far and away the primary source for how we date and relate objects like this into the story of history. So if you have a precision carved box and it has the name of Ptolemius or Ptolemy or a king on it, then Egyptologist is going to say, ah, this box was made for Ptolemy, and it was made in the time of Ptolemy, and therefore this is where this comes from. So we use the writing to date and relate stuff. Oh, there you go.

There's a perfect example of it. This is a good example. So the box in the Serapium, there's one box in particular that they consider the most valuable because it has the most writing on it. And again, it's a remarkable box, right? It's this incredible dark black granite box that's reflecting material and reflecting light like a mirror and somebody's taken a friggin' chisel to it and has basically vandalized it. Because when you look at the writing, you flip through a couple of these, you'll see it.

When you look at the writing, it's just chook and scratch compared to the box itself. And there's like no straight lines. You can literally see the tooltip marks that are on it. They couldn't make a straight line. They, in fact, there's places where they couldn't even chip the material. And you've got to compare and contrast that with the perfect straight line. of the object itself. We clearly had the ability to polish it.

Yeah, if you go back to the sphinx is one of my other favorite examples. So this is what's called a Hixos sphinx. It's in the Cairo Museum. I think it's still there. It might get moved to the new museum at some point. But you can see the work in the granite, right? They're showing you the ribs of this animal through like reflections of light. Like clearly well polished, beautiful work into the stone.

And then it's just been brutishly kind of chiseled into. by this writing that's on the side of it. And you can see the tool marks. The people who made this line would never deface it like that. I think so. Yeah, I see, I think the writing, my opinion is that all of the writing came with the dynastics.

And in a lot of cases, they were writing on top of inherited objects, and we have proof of that. We'd certainly know that there was a lot of relabeling going on. Like some of these Sphinxes have like five or six names of different kings on them. Ramsey. Ramsey's, so his like,

like Sedi the first, Ramsey's the second, then his son, Merrin-Patar in the 19th dynasty, were notorious for this. Ramsey's in particular was notorious for writing his name very deeply on top of other people's names. And you see there's example after example of this going on. So we know that they were rebadging stuff. They were putting their name on stuff. But today we kind of just, people's, if they just have a minimal understanding of ancient Egypt,

Everyone thinks like Ramsey's the great, you know. Ramsey's was the most powerful king of Egypt. He was the strongest. He had the most stuff. He built everything. He put his name on everything. He definitely did build stuff, but he put his name on an awful lot of stuff that wasn't his to begin with.

And, you know, Petrie calls him the great usurper in his work, which I think is a good title because he, yeah, his labels on everything. Like all those statues of those faces, the ancient statue, everyone says they're of Ramsey's because he's chiseled his name onto them. And in almost in every case, you can see how the technology involved in the writing. That's us, by the way. That's us. We came from Ramsey.

It's obvious. Yeah, pretty much. The technology in the writing doesn't match the technology used to make the object itself. Like that's just, I think that becomes an undeniable fact that once you see that and you realize it and you start looking at a lot of these ancient Egyptian artifacts, you can really notice it. And it's like, man, okay. So how much, if we're dating and relating everything by the writing, and we're putting these objects into the story of history by the writing, and the writing doesn't remotely match the technology that's used to make the object itself, how can we say that that object was made at the time of the writing? The writing came later. Right. So we don't know when these things were originally made.

Let's look at some of the pottery. Oh, yeah. The pottery is fascinating. That's another thing that kind of looks like, again, it looks like it was made on a pottery wheel. It looks like it was made of fucking clay on a pottery wheel. It's not. Some of these insanely hard rocks. The vases.

Yeah, the stone vases. So. And this, the stone vases are one of like the most like the one of the most obvious smoking guns. I think they are. Yeah, they're the small items. They're not as spectacular in some ways as the big stuff. But I think they're absolutely fascinating because there's a real history here and there's a tale of two industries that we can get into. So what you find.

you go to the museum, Cairo Museum, and I'm sure there's, hopefully there's many more, because they've got, they found like tens of thousands of these. Hopefully there's many more on display in the new museum when it opens up. But what's interesting about these is that you have a collection of these stone vases.

Now, Petrie analyzed these and there's been a lot of work put into them by other guys like Chris Dunn and engineering studies that show they were lathe turned. They were certainly turned on some form of spinning tool. There was something that carved them. that was extremely sturdy that could carve extremely hard material. And then we're not talking about just granite here. Granite, chisd, carundum, diarite, slate, God, nice.

There's all sorts of, like, there's all sorts of exotic types of stones that these were made. Lapis, Lazuli, all sorts of stuff that these were made from. And a lot of them exhibit like really precision made elements. Again, perfect symmetry. There's some of this example of one of these vases that sort of stands on its tip like it's like it's like it's an egg right balances. It's balanced perfectly. You have some of these stone vases that you got to remember the material wall it's very strong is also very,

it can be very brittle. So it snaps easily. It's kind of like diamond will scratch and cut things. Because there's different materials in there. It's like fault lines in the material. Yeah, there's different materials in it. But if you hit diamond, it can shatter. So it's the same thing with some of the stone. Look at that thing right there. Go back. That's the, that's the vase that stands on the tip on its tip. So there's no flat bottom to it. No flat bottom. Yeah. If you, if you have it, there's another angle on it where you can see it sort of standing on its tip.

And some of the material of these vases gets down to like the thickness of Petrie called it a stout playing card. So thin cardboard. They've shaved it down to that level. It's, it's, it's, there's all these remarkable elements to these vases. They're clearly the result of some pretty sophisticated tooling and, and, and, and, and, carving techniques that it's not pottery. Now, pottery is a different thing with clay, and that's used as part of defining civilizations.

Show me the pot shards, that's all pottery. And the Egyptians use pottery. What's interesting about these vases is that they all come from the very early, according to the mainstream story, from the very earliest part of Egyptian history, and that's where they stop. They don't make any more. So the vast majority of these vases were found under the step pyramid of Joseph,

which was the first, I think the first pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty, 40,000 plus of them found in the tunnels under there. They're all stacked up, a lot of it broken, a lot of them busted up. Look how thin the top of that is. Well, that's actually the curundum bays. That's made out of a nine on the most scale, believe it or not. And all that. So what are all those different like specs that are?

There's crystal inclusions. Okay. Like it's like chunks of different material, which do make it much more difficult. Like when you're machining these, you're going from softer to hard. of material. So it makes it really, really hard material to work in. Very challenging. And then hollowing out the insides is a whole other deal. They also have these handles, which means they weren't all turned on a lathe that had another tool to create the shapes of the handles. But the history of these things is like, they were all found in this one area. And then even at

Sakara, in the museum, they say that it's likely that all of these vases were heirlooms from earlier dynasties from the first or second dynasty because when you go back and you look at first or second dynasty tombs we find things like the schist disk now you're familiar with this this is kind of a notorious object

it looks like a propeller with a wheel around it yeah there's a picture of it in here in this section if we find it but the schist disc is a really remarkable artifact now it's been repaired and it's been put back together

but it's the challenge with the schist disc is in how you make it Like it's these folded blades or wings of schist on it and it's very thin. But they found that in a first dynasty tomb. So the tomb of Sabu, a prince, I think. And what's interesting is that these precision objects, these tiny precision objects go back even further. There was one of the pictures up there. That's the schist disk, yeah.

It's remarkable made out of stone, single piece carved that way. It's been kind of repaired. What type of stone is it made out of? It's schist. Oh, shist is the stone. Yeah, it's a very brittle, but it's very hard stone. insane how that was made. There's a few really strange shaped objects like this that are in the museum.

But you can go back into pre-denastic times. And I saw the image of one of my favorite little objects there, which is a tube of lapis lazuli. Right. It's a hollow tube with a gold sheath that's been tube drilled out and hollowed out. And lapis is a very hard stone. It's got a gold sheath on it. And it's in a display case next to like bone and bead ornaments.

And like really see the bone thing next to it? Yeah. And the beads, it's like, oh, look, we found this. It's from a pre-denastic site. It's an object that takes, you know, it's a high technology object, but we're right next to all these beads and bone stuff. And it's just the same. It's fine.

They're just the same people made this. No worries. And in fact, there's an even better example is there's a site, oh, Toshka, I think it's called. And it was one of the sites that was flooded when they, when they, they dammed the Nile. And so it was like buried, but they explored it in the 50s and 60s. and there's a few photos of it at the Aswan Museum

and it's a site that they dug up they found human remains, a skeleton, they found some pottery, and then they found stone vases, like these precision stone vases, and there's organic material in that burial that they carbon date back to 15,000 BC. So 17,000 years old

and you still have these stone vessels in a burial from 17,000 years ago. And it's on a site called Toshka. So what happens is that, okay so we've got all these stone vessels and they come down egyptian civilization starts first dynasty we've got we find first dynasty barrels with stuff like the schistis we get up to josa who must have collected all of them and he buried himself with them and then we find them and then after that period nothing like there there is not anyone they never make vessels like that again what happens is that

with josa there's a guy called imhotep famous polymath like genius egyptian people may have recognize the name. He designed the step pyramid. He also analyzed these vases and he came up with a method for trying to create vases made from alabaster, which is white calcite. It's a much like a three or a four on the most scale. Okay. And there's a scene on the wall that they found at Sakara that shows these guys making these alabaster vases with like these rotating like little like flint chisels and stuff and them sort of manufacturing these vases. Now this scene on the wall is exactly what the Egyptologists and all of the establishment people point to and say, see, this is the Egyptians making these stone vessels. I'm like, no, that's the Egyptians making the alabaster vessels that

were imitating them. And we have examples of these alabaster vessels. If you flick through this, you'll find these white vases, and they're nothing like the stone vases. They're imprecise. They're imprecise. They're wobbly. They're like, they're some of, they got good over time, but they're nothing like the stone vessels. And they're far, far softer. material and this is what was used for conopic vessels going forward. Keep going. That's, that's granite. I'll show you when we, that's the scene on the wall. Those are the vessels, right? Okay. So those are the vessels that were made after the time of Imhotep and Josa and after all of these stone vessels were basically collected. This is the type of stuff that you see

from then on. It's not, like the only way you can describe the stone basis is perfect. That's the only way you can describe them. Yeah. And these are imperfect. They're imperfect. They're well done. They're and the examples get better, but they make an alabaster's far softer and far easier to work than these other types of stone. And these were the vessels that were then used later on as, you know, conopic jars and stuff like that. For the organs.

For the organs of people, yeah. What's funny is that they, some of these stone vessels before Josar and stuff, they were used as conopic vessels too for nobleman and things. But do you see where they've got lids on them, right? Yes. The stone vessels didn't have lids. So what they would do was the Egyptians would make

like a mud stopper and it's like this cone of just like mud it's these horrible looking thing and and they found and all of the stone vessels no one made lids for them so it's like hang on if you if you're if you're the Egyptians making the stone vessels to use as conopic jars you might make a lid for them because you certainly made lids for the alabaster ones you made but there's no lid so they have all these like stoppers uh in the museum you can find like these just these clay rough stoppers that they would put this little thing on top of these jars to seal them up and it's like proudly displayed next to the vases as like, hey, this is what they did. I've got a picture of the stoppers in there somewhere, but it's just funny. To me, it's like what's more likely,

you know, that they had the ability in the first and second dynasty to make all these things, even when the architecture of those periods don't match any of the, any of the technology that we see, you know, in the stonework itself, or is it more likely that they inherited them, that they found them that, you know, because these things also exist back as far as 15,000 BC from other burials and we've certainly seen him on pre-denastic sites, I think the inheritance scenario makes a lot more sense because it's, I hate these things that just, you know, you don't just lose that technological capability to make them immediately and it's just, oh, well, now we're doing imperfect alabaster work. Those are the stoppers.

The stoppers that they use for the tops. Yeah. So it's, I think the, I think the vases are a huge smoking gun. And once again, very difficult to find any to look at to analyze. We, when you go down beneath the step pyramid as I've been down there and there are thousands of pieces of shards of these things and some of them with the bases, that's the first time I've ever been able to handle some of that material. And you can see perfect sort of lathe marks and how they were machined and carved in all sorts of varieties of semi-translucent stone.

It's incredible that that stuff still down there. But there's so much of it, they just don't care. And all this stuff in the museum, they're not going to let, they don't seem to want to let any engineers or people look at them and analyze them and do work on them. And I'm like, that's what's required. Like we should, like Petrie does in his work. Like he looks at a lot of different pieces of turned granite and he's one of the first guys that talked about like these were turned on a lathe and they had some unknown cutting tool that manufactured them. But again, they're the result of some pre-advanced machining techniques. and another contradiction in the story of history

is that the Egyptians weren't supposed to have had the wheel at this point. Right. A lathe being a wheel mechanism. They didn't have the wheel in the old kingdom. That's what they say for some of the big obelisks, right? That they would have put two big wooden wheels on each side of them and roll them across like a plateau or to another destination like down a hill. Yeah, yeah.

They say some stuff like that. Those things are 2,000 tons. Well, they have, right, because it's not just Egypt. I mean, this is like the one of the explanations for like the trillathon at Balbeck in Lebanon, for example. Lebanon, right. The Roman temple of Jupiter has, you know, you've got three 900 tonne stones, single piece stones in the foundation for this Roman temple that is a Roman temple that was built on top of it. And then in the quarry, you've got you've got a couple of stones that are like 2,000 tons. One of them is 2,000 tons.

That's single piece limestone block. It's like a three-story tall piece of block. It's insane. Yeah, the pictures of the, well, there's this, pardon me, the stone of the pregnant woman is the famous one. And then they recently discovered another one sort of off to the side of it and underneath it. Kind of very. Excavating it. Yeah.

And that's supposed to be even bigger, like 2,000 tons, that one. And they think that the Romans probably never even knew they were there. So there's no evidence, no record of any, there's no, okay, that's the stone of the pregnant woman, right? And they're standing on the bigger one. And it's still on the bottom. It's still connected to the bedrock. I don't know if that one is. Okay.

I think the one beneath it may be, but it's also a worked stone. But the one beneath it's kind of bigger. Like on it, the guys are standing on it. Like that's a single block as well. So the crazy thing about this is that like, like, I'm sure in today, if we wanted to, we could move that. Yeah, sure. But it would be. It would not make.

any sense. It wouldn't be cost effective. It wouldn't be practical. Like we would never, in the first place, never want to make anything out of that material. So like, it's just almost, it's like, it had to have been, it had to have been practical to use this stuff. Like,

what was their reasoning for using to carve these giant structures out of bedrock like this? It must have been extremely, it must have been no problem at all for them to move it. Yeah, that must have been able to do it. I think that's the conclusion you come to. It had to have been easy in one way. And you're right, we wouldn't do things this way. Like if you look at, and this is another argument against geopolymer is that we use geopolymer

today, like bricks and, you know, or anything like that, but it's like one mold produces a million bricks. And you have a lot of examples in Egypt of like every stone on the pyramids a different shape and size. But that's how we would do it. We would do geopulamers. We wouldn't make stuff out of big single pieces like this. And you certainly wouldn't do it because it's easier. It's anything but like it's far more difficult to do it this way but the reasoning for i don't i don't know i mean i don't know what to say other than they could uh certainly there's benefits to it like things become much more earthquake proof they last longer uh i don't know if that was an intent for them um i do think in egypt in particular there was something to the type of stone that was

being employed like there's a particular mixture of stones basalt granite limestone white cal site in particular those three or four and they have different electromagnetic properties which is a whole sort of can of woo and we've got a video where we do a bit of experimenting on it we're putting high voltages through these different types of stone and you see granite kind of acts like a conductor sorry it's like an insulator limestone acts like a conductor basalt somewhere in between and you you see those particular combinations of stones on a lot of these old kingdom sites and you see a lot of like granite cased in limestone or limestone

cased in basalt and there's there's like melted stone in some places that looks like there's been through all this heat cycling there's a few really interesting implications at a few places that we kind of explore and it's like don't know you know it's like in the layouts of some of these things if some of them make me think about things like circuit boards and logical circuitry and i don't know and one of the there's a good example when it comes to technology like this it's like what are you talking about is there like electrical currents flowing through it. Well, we don't, you know, it's difficult to define the things that we don't know. So one of these, there was a discovery recently, I use this as an example in a couple of

different form of electromagnetic wave propagation. So everything today works on this Hertzian wave theory, right? So antennas, electric wires, everything in the world today, we transmit through a wire, we use an antenna, it's like an unshielded wire. It uses Hertzian wave theory. Well, there's another theory of electromagnetic wave propagation. called Zenic surface waves. So there's, it was a theory that was proposed a long time back and it was shot down as not being like the math on it didn't work out or whatever. There's a reason why it got dismissed. And then some people started looking into it again, perhaps Tesla. In fact, it was most likely Tesla that looked into this that basically says that instead of, you know,

using a conductor or something to transmit signals or energy, you can use the interface between the surface and the air more or less is how it works. And turns out this theory actually works and this may well be what Tesla was doing with his wireless transmission tower that he built at Wardencliffe on the East Coast and he was sending like transmission transmitting like electricity and signal wirelessly it wasn't through the air it was using something called Zenic surface waves so what they've done there was a there was a company who I think has since gone bankrupt called visiv technologies vizivv who built basically a Tesla tower in Texas you can find pictures of it and they used it as a global test site.

And so what it would do was you could take a receiver and put it anywhere on the planet and this surface, this tower in Texas, their global test site could send electricity and signal to it anywhere in the world using Zenic surface waves over the planet. Surface waves. Yeah, it's like a surface wave. It's like it's imperceptible, but it's like it, I don't know, all the science is a bit deep for me. I know it uses the interface between the surface and the air.

and it's basically a method of transmitting without loss signal and power to anywhere on the planet. And this is what Tesla was doing as well because the tower they built in Texas looks just like the Tesla tower. And the theory all checks out. Now, I think they went bankrupt because the regulatory environment probably is very slow to change. And the interesting story behind Viziv is also that they were founded by naval intelligence guys, these old generals that retired from the same group of people who took all Tesla's stuff when he died and they classified it. So it's like, maybe these guys were noodling on this for like a couple decades in the

military and then decided to start a company and try and change the world. But it would enable like using this technology, you can put nuclear power plants in geologically sustainable like stable areas. You can put solar farms in the desert. You don't need wires. You don't need transmission. So it uses natural materials to transmit this signal. So my point is it's a whole different way of thinking about electricity and signal propagation.

right we never would have thought that we could do that without wires or without that stuff but once we discovered it and our perception changes so when we look at the past it's possible that we're a caveman looking at an iPhone you know like we we might just be right that's a black piece of plastic or it's just breaks when i do it it's useless but you and i know what it is because we know what wireless networking is what a cell phone signal is what a camera and a microphone are and what a touchscreen is right we have the context to explain and understand what we're looking at. And I think in a lot of cases, when we look at the past and that sites like this, and it's like, I think we'd lack some of the context to truly explain it and understand it, you know? It wouldn't be possible for there to be any

evidence for tools like this to create these kind of things, right? Has there been any sort of evidence found of the tools that were used to make these precision objects? No. So that's one of the big arguments against it, is that there's like, show me the tools. Right. There are no tools as far as we know. There's a few reasons for this. They weren't made of stone. Well, they were probably something else. Yeah. So one of the things people have to remember with you look at the past is anything, it's like a miracle when we find anything made of metal. That's original. It's so, so, so rare because metal was very valuable. It was prized. Like, stuff was taken and melted down and worked on, turned into weapons and whatever. And everything, every scrap of metal was taken

from these sites a long time ago. So it's really rare. So things like the, anti-cathera mechanism which is this crazy thing they found in a shipwreck the only reason we found is because it was in a shipwreck and no one else dug it up what was it you've not heard of the antikathera mechanism no it's crazy it's a really interesting story there's like it's a it's a mechanism it's like this very complicated device that would basically determine you can look up the anti-gathera mechanism it's um a very complicated device that that sort of mapped the the solar system and and time and the orbits of planets and it was made up of like hundreds of different dials and wheels and elliptical gear sets inside it.

And it's they've x-rated and they've looked at it and it's like scratching their head, like don't really know where it came from or where it or what it was for. But it's like a very precise like cosmic calendar almost timekeeping thing. And they found it in a shipwreck off of Greece, like an egregian shipwreck with a bunch of other artifacts. And it's been eroded, but they've managed to sort of figure it out and put it back together. And it must have been one of many of these types of things. yeah, that's it there. And if you look at the way they've x-rayed this thing is insanely complicated.

Patrice Poyard gets into it in his documentary Builders of the Ancient Mysteries. Great documentary, great guy. Yeah, it's a real mystery. Like it's one of those out-of-place artifacts that has a much higher level of technology than we sort of credit the ancient world. And they were able to put it back together and use it? No, I haven't used it. This is what it looks like.

But by x-raying it and by doing other scans of it, they've kind of been able to figure out what's inside it and where all the cogs are, but it's insanely complicated device. And you've got to think it's probably one of many. And they somehow found out that this could map the galaxy. Yeah, it depicts like orbits of planets and there's all sorts of stuff about it.

I do want to do a video exploring it in some more depth at some point. But my point being is that there was probably lots of those things and they made a metal and they're just gone. The only reason we found that one is because it was on the bottom of the ocean. Right. And so metal disappears when it comes to the tools. The other thing is we don't leave tools at job. websites either.

Like so valuable. Valuable tools are valuable. They get taken away. And the third thing for me is like I'm not necessarily sure we need the tools because we have the result of the tools. This is supposedly the rebuilt version of. How do you say it again? Anticathera.

Anticathera mechanism. Yeah. I think that's how you say it. Okay. Holy shit. But we have, you know, we have the reason. It is, isn't it? It's, yeah, you dive into it.

There's like, got these watchmaking. that are just scratching the heads are sort of like, you know, we've invented nothing new kind of thing. Right. But yeah, we have the results of the tools. That's the point I like to make. It's like, look, we've got,

we see the signatures of the tools and we have the objects that the tools made. There must have been tools that made them because you cannot show me that you can make these objects with these primitive, these primitive methods that you say they do. And that's where this whole argument comes around to like, you know, the burden of proof here is on the people that claim they know how it was done.

Like it's not, my point of view on this is, I mostly am saying that you can't do this, you haven't proven that you can do this with the primitive tools. And therefore other things must have been necessary and there's implications on that. I'm not saying that I know how it was done.

I don't know what tools used to make them. I am very convinced that it wasn't pounding stones, flint chisels and copper tools. You know what it wasn't. I know what it wasn't. And because there's, and the burden of prism, proof is really on the experimentalists that want to say that it was. And as I said to you before,

there's we haven't made a single cut. We've not blocked, we've not made a single artifact. We've not cut all the way through one single, you know, big granite block using these methods. We've done a few test cuts here and there. And there are a few people that, you know, replicate one little element of the problem and then claim victory. Right. But the, the problem is, is many fold. You have to, you have to include the most difficult aspects of, of these objects, which may include things like relative geometry, like how do you keep this face that's 11 foot away from this face in exactly the same plane, stuff like that. Like there's a lot of challenges to it. And those are the ones that need to be addressed to, I think, really debunk this and say,

oh, yeah, you can use copper chisels to make this stuff. I just, yeah, it doesn't make any sense. And furthermore, every engineer that I talk to and I've taken to these places, the people that know just shake their head at it. Like, there's just no way. Like, it becomes very obvious. And unfortunately, it's just not, the engineers aren't the people that we listen to as experts on this anymore. Like in the mainstream, it's the archaeologists and the Egyptologists. But I wish we would spend more time listening to engineers and actual experts. It seems like a civilization of that kind of intelligence and advancement. It doesn't seem like it seems like they'd be smart enough to avoid some sort of astro-astronomical cataclysm from an asteroid or a comet.

Maybe. I mean, maybe they're trying to warn us, too. That's the other thing that's really interesting about this, is that maybe they saw it coming and maybe they built monuments as a warning. There seems to be some validity to this. Like there is, Martin Swetman's done, he's a doctor in Scotland, I think he's a University of Edinburgh. He's looked at Gobeckley-Tepe as some sort of a cosmic warning sign,

like that it was marking it's it's it's stone circles and the animals and the constable and and the the depictions on it represent um constellations and and cosmically significant time so he he's sort of he's got a whole book written about it where he he's pointing out that it's possible that they were actually they're telling us about a period of time uh when when this happened and uh it may be possible that they're actually trying to that these might be messages passed through town down through time to warn us. The sphinx itself might be something like that. It might have been built as a marker pointing at the age of Leo on the horizon.

This is like part of Bovile's theory about the Orion correlation and the Sphinx aiming at the age of Leo according to that procession of the equinoxes circle that maybe that was a message coming out as from that time as well. What is it going on with the sphinx? It's pointing at. Well, so if you go with the dating of, if you go with the Sphinx being a lion originally, for sure its head was recarved at some point. Yeah.

But if it was a lion, then it would have been pointing at when the sun rose on the solstice directly at. It would have been in the age of like the house of Leo 10,500 years ago. So right around the younger dryest period. So it would have been lined up with the Leo, the lion as a constellation. It would have been built 10,500 years ago? so it would have been at the right constellation but then remember that's the dating that's shock's given it due to erosion analysis and everything but that also happens to line up with the constellation of Leo for the age of the the the procession of the equinoxes we would have been

in the age of Leo when that happened so there's some suggestion that maybe that's but isn't that significant 2000 years after um 2000 years after the younger dryas uh was it before or it was it was It was right on the Younger Dries. Younger Dries was like 12,000, right? 12,800 to 11,600 years ago. So that's the period, yeah. So 12,800 to 11,600 years ago is like the period of the Younger Dries. And there's a spike before and after.

So I think the Sphinx with Leo sits in there somewhere. Before or after the younger Dries. I think either during or just after. During or just after. Just after. Okay. But again, it's possible that the Sphinx is even older. I've heard Robert Schock say that too.

Like it could be vastly older than that still. But the point is that maybe when you say a global civilization like that might have been able to see it coming or dodge it. I mean, I don't think we're only just now starting to develop and think about the technology involved in like maybe deflecting an asteroid coming at us. I think we're decades away from actually being able to do something about one. I mean,

we care more about getting the gold off of it. We probably would. Yeah, let's mine it. Yeah, let it hit us and we'll do with it afterwards. It's full of platinum. Yeah, maybe. Maybe Nancy Pelosi will go up there and I can get some gold. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

For all you'll know it's coming and trade some stocks. Make the profits. Asteroid mining companies going up. Could you imagine? Paul. Buy some stocks. Let him out of jail for his DIY yet. I don't know.

But yeah, I don't know. But there's some, there's some sick, like a, cycle to this thing too. It does seem like the further back in time you go, it seems like every, there's almost a periodicity to cataclysm and we're approaching it now, like a 12,000 year cycle almost that seems to keep happening. So who knows? Whether or not it's a torrid meteor stream or it's a sun, it's a sun explosion thing. I think that. What about volcanoes? Volcano, for sure. Volcanoes can cause like proper amount of volcanoes. There's been some speculation. My buddy Matt at Ancient Architects Channel has been on kind of a mainstream tear lately. And he's, um,

he's kind of been poking at the idea that maybe it was volcanoes that caused the younger dryass and not a common impact. Like there's tons of volcanic eruptions that happened around that time. One thing I've been wanting to point out to him is, you know what causes tons of volcanic eruptions is cosmic impacts. Oh, really? Yeah, so cosmic impacts actually cause earthquakes, volcanism, tidal waves, hurricanes, massive weather events. They're almost like, we can't do anything about those events on their own. but there's one thing that kind of is the source of most of the really big extinction events and that's cosmic impacts and that's the one thing that we stand a remote chance of actually

doing something about if we really bent our back to it and go don't they say that the yellowstone a volcano erupts like every 600,000 years something like that and the last time it erupted was right exactly 600,000 years ago from now yeah that would be a bad news it would certainly be bad news for the east coast um this side because the winds would it would blow from there for a hit this side of the country, the East Coast, I think a lot. I don't know if Yellowstone on its own would bring down civilization. It would certainly slow us down. It would be a tremendous bad news day.

But I don't know if it on its own is quite big enough to fully bring down civilization. It'd probably be close. But yeah, I know that they're saying that about Yellowstone. It's an interesting, interesting site. In fact, the thing about Yellowstone, it was, I know, Randall talked about this on your podcast too, but it was what spewed up all the basalt that made up eastern Washington State. So that wound in the mantle of the earth that's spewing up this material as what was responsible millions and millions of years ago for all the basalt plateaus of eastern Washington State. And then it's kind of like the crust has shifted since then and now it's over on Yellowstone in Montana.

And then, yeah, but if that goes, it'll make some noise. Yeah, absolutely. And that makes me think about like if we were to get white. out by a volcano or a cosmic impact right now. There would be no evidence of us. It'd be very little. It's a, it's a fun, not a fun thing. Except for Mount Rushmore and what else.

The Hoover Dam. The Hoover Dam. Yeah. Suez Canal, like Panama Canal. You might, yeah, so you might eventually go, you know, thousands of years into the next civilization and then they finally develop enough engineering capability to go, holy crap, somebody dug a ditch between the oceans, you know? Yeah.

Like the, the Carthals and stuff. Yeah, and there wouldn't be much left. Yeah, Hoover Dam, maybe Mount Rushmore. those were their gods. Those were the gods of that time. Yeah. I don't know. But for sure, within a couple generations, I mean, of something like that happening,

technology goes away so fast. You'd have people sitting around campfires telling stories about cell phones and plasma TVs. It'd be like magical device that we could talk across the world. Maybe there'd be people replicating it and making little shiny black rocks that they would hold up and try and use ceremony to capture the capability and technology, which I think is exactly what happened in ancient Egypt, too. They were trying to use ceremony and religion to capture the significance and, you know, technology that happened. They might have had some understanding of all. And the pyramid worked.

It did this. So we're just going to like dance around it for a while with fire and yell at it and maybe it'll turn on again. Right. Do you think that civilization that built the pyramids, the builders, do you think they somehow found a way off the planet? it. Here's the easy window for people to just credit you. Can't trust him. He believes in aliens.

So I would not put it out of the realm of possibility. And I know this gets into another topic that you're interested, which is the moon. Yes. Because, you know, I wouldn't, I can't discount it. Like, I just think that, you know, it's possible that there was a split at some point in the past that some people split. and who knows where they went. You can't rule it out. Along the length of time in the universe and the distance of space,

like there's all these things are very possible. But in terms of our civilization, sure, within the last several hundred thousands of years, we could have developed to a point where, yeah, that type of transport and travel was possible. And it was just wiped out. Like, again, if our civilization was gone 100,000 years later, there'd be nothing left. we just wouldn't know. There'd be no nothing left. It'd barely even be, I could imagine even much of Mount Rushmore, there'd be some of it left, I guess. But in 100,000 years, who knows what would be left? Yeah, it's hard to, you can't rule it out. Well, I think Randall said that if we were,

there were to be some sort of cataclysm now, he said it would take, I think, less than 500 years for there to be absolutely no evidence of like the Empire State Building, for example. Yeah. It would just be, it would be nothing. must. Yeah, very little left. And then, yes, there's slow erosion and process of time for after that to get rid of the few stone things that we did make. Yeah, the Hoover dams and the Mount Rushmore. But in terms of our specific technology, our civilization, yeah, gone in centuries. So like, if you look at the depicted version of what like aliens look like with the big heads and little arms, like you would think that that would be us and the future. So could that have been

like if if the civilization that we used to be before the younger dryus had advanced to the level where they could move massive stones like that and create objects like this and it was uninterrupted by a cataclysm it seems like that's where we would end up yeah i think our long-term um solution for and survival depends on our ability to ultimately get off the planet And that would drive our evolution 100% you spend time. I mean, it's not, it wouldn't be easy. Maybe not even get off the planet. I'm not even saying like get off the planet, but maybe like to evolve and to become a better,

to become a better species that doesn't want to, you know, fight over land and kill each other for resources. You know, we'd have to get rid of our genitals, our reproductive organs. And we wouldn't have to think, use that part of our brain anymore. We wouldn't think that way anymore. We'd only think logically. We'd think like machines. Yep. get rid of, yep, get rid of all the emotion and our frontal, like, our, what is it,

our, our emotional centres in our brains being a little too big. It's a Christopher Hitchens quote that I love on that, that he gets into. But yeah, I don't think we're the, we're not the end result of evolution. That's not going to stop. And maybe our role here is really just to give birth to the next phase of human evolution to like birth, whether it's, it could be AI generated, it could be some hybrid transhumanism type of thing that gets us to that space but it does you know there's a there's a good line from the expanse that love that that show and those books but it's like at one point there i think miller

the detective who's questioning whether or not the the universe really wants us out there like if we were actually would be any good for for the rest of the universe if we got out there given how warlike and crazy we are as a species of stupid stuff we get up to i do think yeah it seems like that's the if if we were to continue to evolve and to get to that point then you're maybe that's that's the type of thing it would be it would be either using artificial means to to limit our emotional response to stuff and our what is effectively human nature the tribal instinct to the us and the them and this you know we have these these vestiges of our past that are still part of us and part of our culture today and a lot of these elements of

society moves forward at a much faster rate than we ourselves can sort of do internally and with our instincts and stuff. So yeah, maybe that's the answer. It seems more probable that it's us than something from distant galaxy, like thousands of light years away. Could be us, could be us from the past, could be us from the future.

From the future, right. Yeah, yeah, it could be us. Like the whole UFO phenomenon. From the past, which could also be the future. When you're able to travel to traverse time, I think the lineage, the linear aspect of time disappears. Yeah, the faster you go.

It's like that movie, everything everywhere all at once. Yep. It just came out. Yeah, the faster you go, the less the slower time passes, right? So, yeah, you could spend millions of years in our time zipping back and forth and only a short amount of time in yours or the opposite in a lot of ways. So, yeah, I don't know.

It could be. I think there's unlimited mystery and speculation you can make on some of these things. But yeah, for sure there's, I think our current version of history is really limited and just bookended and it's probably time that we changed it, you know. opened up our minds a little bit to some other possibilities because that's that's honestly where I think it's one of the things that drew me in is that's where science has taken us. Like we know from a lot of these other adjacent fields of science that some other stuff has happened and it should be affecting our view of history and of our role, maybe our role here on the

planet as a species too. That's one of the things I wrapped up Randall's podcast with was I was talking to him about like, what do we do? Like what do we do to preserve our technology, our species, whatever? Like if we do end up in a Noah's Ark situation, like what do we do to preserve? what we have right now because hard drives aren't going to make it. Let's build a monument on the moon to start with. Let's go to the moons.

Let's get an outpost on the moon just as a first fallback safety measure. Yeah. And then figure out Mars and everywhere else. Like, yeah, ultimately, long term, we have to get off the planet. Like, it's the cosmic shooting gallery analogy, right? It's, it's, whether or not it's our destiny is a species, I don't know. But if that's what we want it to be, then we do have to. get off the planet. And that's why I think this stuff's important. Like the fact that if more people

realize that we've been through cataclysms, that we're so vulnerable as a civilization and as a species for that matter, that it might incur, and if that was encoded into the zeitgeist and just the consciousness of humanity itself, because we taught everybody that message from an early age, then maybe, maybe there'd be a way to change our priorities, spend a little less money on tanks and bullets, maybe a little bit more money on collaborative space exploration. and bending out, because we're at a very unique point in our evolution, like where it's such a fragile civilization, like a rock from space could end it, supervolcano could end it, but we're at a point now where we actually have the ability to address some of these issues. We can really make headway

on some of these challenges. And this opportunity may not last forever, but we should, I think we don't do the best job of sort of grasping those opportunities as a species and trying to really drive that thing forward because yeah ultimately it's like the long-term solution and survival of our species depends on us eventually getting off the planet like spreading out not not always leaving or anything but but we should be spreading out like that's that should be in my opinion a higher priority than it currently is yeah what do you think about us getting our technology somehow onto the moon for future just in case as like a fail safe i think it's a great idea i think we should be going back to the moon

Or getting too. How do you think it's weird? Like even Elon Musk doesn't even talk about the moon. Yeah, I don't understand it. Honestly, it seems like it's like stop the Mars stuff. Let's let's test this stuff.

And in fact, the moon makes so much more sense to establish an outpost there because that is a far more efficient location for launching like intrasolar missions. You don't have to fight gravity. You just like you get stuff to the moon. You can put together a mission that goes to Mars with much, much less resources than do it. You can test all of your system.

We're close enough where you can rescue people maybe. I'm doing the movie with Brad Pitt. Yeah. Where his dad works on a spaceship that's like off of Saturn, I believe. Yeah, one of the moons of like Titan or your own. No, he was on Neptune. Oh, that's right. His dad was doing research on Neptune and he had to, they had to go,

he went to the moon and they launched a rocket off the moon to get to Mars. That's how you do. I think that's the long, and that's what we would do. You'd launch it off the moon. You just don't have to overcome that much gravity. spend that much fuel trying to do it. It seems so weird.

Why are we're like glossing right over the moon? But we're supposed to go back, right? What's the name of the Artemis, the moon missions that are supposed to go back soon? I can't remember when, but I really hope we do. Like I think the moon's the place to go. Like that's like step one. Mars is great and all, but like let's go to the moon. Like the moon is the place to really establish an outpost, I think, first.

And then, you know, really that becomes the launching pad for every. everything else. I'd really love the, I've talked about the expanse. You into that, the books and the show, the expanse, you heard of it? I've never heard of it. Oh, it's a great show. So it's a book that's, it's a series of books really popular Amazon, well, Amazon end up taking it over after sci-fi created the first few seasons. But wonderful books, but it explores kind of the, because a lot of sci-fi is like way out there and we're like, you know, into the galaxy and everything. And this is, this is more like, well, no, we've been on Mars and the moon and the, you know, the asteroid belt and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn for, you know, a couple hundred years. And it explores one of the political aspects of like, well, what happens when you're born on Mars and your children are born on Mars? And you're still like paying homage to Earth. And you're like an outpost of Earth at that point, you become a Martian and now you want to be independent Martian. And so there's all these different factions in the galaxy, all the belters, the people that live in the belt, the asteroid, that have evolved differently because they're in such low-gee environments

and they're like doing nothing but sort of a resource outpost for Earth and then they sort of react and there's all these wars that get forward. It's like a really interesting exploration of that, of what would be a step in between the whole like, well, now we're a galactic civilization. Once we spread out into the solar system and once you start having generations of people being born on these different places, all of a sudden they don't know what it means to be from Earth.

They're not a human like the rest of us. They're different. they've evolved differently because they're right you know all these generations of low G environments and stuff and it's like well now we want to be our own thing out here wow yeah yeah good show yeah what is it on it's called the expanse expanse i think it's all of it's unavailable on amazon prime because they took it over after sci-fi dropped it or whatever but yeah what is this august 29th 22 is that supposed to be the artemus date yeah it's planning an uncrewd test flight to the moon yeah so i think it's the artemus program was the first

one now we're developing like a super heavy rocket and the idea is that we want to send people back to the moon, which would be nice. Because we haven't really had that capability since, well, the 60s. Which we just burned all the plans, apparently. We were talking about last night with the, the solar eclipse, how a certain time of the year, the size of the moon is perfectly, perfectly covers the size of the sun. Well, it is. That's one of the weird things about the moon. There's many, many, many, many, many strange things about the moon. One of them is that it is both 400 times smaller than the sun and 400 times closer than it, so that when we have these eclipses, they're exactly the same size in the sky from Earth. That's insane. It is insane. There's a lot of insanity about the moon. If people are interested, I can recommend a book called Who Built the Moon.

Who Built the Moon? Who Built the Moon. Wonderful book. And it sort of gets into a lot of the anomalies about the Moon. It's one people don't realize it's like very unique. We've never, ever, ever observed another sort of planet moon relationship like we have with our moon. And the fact of the matter is life wouldn't exist on this planet without the moon there, without the moon creating intertidal zones. There's all sorts of anomalies about the moon itself.

It's, you know, it's 25% the size of the Earth, but about, I think, 4 or 5%, it's mass. So it's vastly lighter and yet stronger at the same time, too. There's a really strange dynamic. It's stronger, yeah. So it's like it should be deforming at a different rate based on its density and the gravitational pull that's exerted on it by the planet. In fact, there's all these gravitational anomalies on the moon. We've detected like different levels of gravity in different places on the moon. But what is interesting about the moon is that because there's no atmosphere, we can see the craters that are on it, right?

And some of the craters are massive. Like they're like 400 kilometers across. Right. But they only ever go to a certain depth. They only ever go, like, I think it's a couple of kilometers deep. It's like, we know the mechanics of, like, crater dynamics, right? So we can see this on the earth and on other planets when stuff hits and it's bigger, it's going to go deeper. On the moon, everything stops at this one uniform depth, no matter how big the crater is.

It's as if it's like this, there's this softer material on top for a couple of kilometers, and then it's some hard shell that it just bounces. off and it just doesn't nothing penetrates i think it's like two or three kilometers or something but there's this really interesting study on the crater depths no matter the size of the crater it only ever goes in so deep what happens to the rocks that hit it it just they all typically on the earth they go underneath the crater right right i don't think we've ever gone up there and dug into sea but just from our observation of the moon we can tell that these craters no matter even the biggest ones only go a certain depth like they just they don't penetrate into the moon any further it's

like it's like got a shell around it or something. Yeah. It's really strange. Tunguska is the dinosaur. No, Tunguska is 908. That was the Siberia. Siberia. What was the one that killed the dinosaurs?

Well, they call it the, I think it was the Jurassic Triassic or the, the, it was Chica Club or whatever. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know how to pronounce it. Right. It's like in the, in the Gulf, the bottom part of the golf, like Cancun or you're Cancun. Yeah.

Yucatan. Yucatan, yeah. Have they ever tried to like dig into that and like find pieces of that? I don't know. I don't think so. I think you're just looking at the remnants of some. Is the thing still solid under the ground? It depends on the material.

We don't know. Like it would be so far, if there's a core of that, it would be so deep and so buried in sediment and probably at the bottom of the damn ocean. You'd have to drill way down to try and find it. I don't know if anyone's attempted it. but they don't always leave a trace like that. I think as Randall was saying on your podcast, it depends on the density of the object as it comes in, whether or not there's a core left over.

Right. I mean, there could be. If it's iron, it's iron. It's like mostly iron. Yeah, there should be some left over. Certainly we've got plenty of like meteoric iron fragments and cores that we find around the place. But it'd be cool to find something big from that.

But yeah, I don't know. I have no idea. I don't know if they dug down and find it. Yeah, the thing about the moon is insane. Like, it's, it's pretty fucking wild when you start to dig into it. I mean, it gets pretty like tinfoil hat, but...

Well, it does, but there's no good explanation for how the moon got there. Like, it's very unique. We don't, the mainstream explanation for how the moon got there is very suspect and is admittedly very suspect by the people that even come up with it. Like, they're like,

this is kind of the way we think it kind of come. Yeah, it's the double big whack theory. I think I was explained to you. Yeah. It's this idea that because the moon is so lightweight and less dense, it's like surface material from planet Earth is what it's formed of is what they think. So, you know, something splattered into a primordial Earth hard enough, like a proto planet or something hit us, to take off this huge amount of mass, like, well, volume of mass, not specifically mass,

but only surface mass, like not because people don't realize, like, Earth is iron. like we are we are 40 i think the most abundant element on the planet is iron it's like 47% iron like we are we are we are hard rock in space like the surface stuff not so much is not that much not as much iron out here but obviously the moon's not made of iron so something hits the earth really hard takes that much material out into an orbit around the planet and eventually it it it correlates and sort of forms the moon as it is but that impact into earth Earth would have left it spinning at a high rate such that it needed another impact from exactly the right direction and exactly the right speed hitting the earth at exactly the right

point to slow it down to our current rotational speed and dynamics. So it's what they call the double big whack theory. Double big whack theory. Yeah. So two big wax into the earth is how they approximate billions of years ago, of course, that this somehow happened. And it's not a very strong like people like, eh, the probability is super, super low for that possibility to happen.

They don't really know. Most of the people that dig into the moon get to the point where like just scratching the head going, we don't really know how it got here. But if you were to design a system to support life, if you were to create an environment to support life, then it's pretty perfect. Like it doesn't get any more perfect almost. Like we need the moon. We need the earth in the specific location it is.

We need the tilt of the earth to give us that seasonality. the moon gives us those intertidal zones with its with its gravity and those are the areas on the planet where life first emerged and evolved it's it's remarkable how necessary the moon is for life on the planet and it's almost as if you were designing like a little little test kit for life or habitat for life you absolutely need the moon there and you know there's yeah it's this is another analogy on an extension of the whole technology technology discussion it's like as technology evolves,

we were talking about space flight and stuff before. I imagine now we go to space, right? We have to use spaceships and small things and lightweight composite materials because we're trying to overcome forces of gravity and nature. But let's assume that sometime in the distant future, we have fundamental control over the forces of nature. Gravity.

We can control gravity. We can control the elements, like those fundamental forces of nature. What does a spaceship stops to look like a spaceship at some point and it might start to look like something like a small planet. Like if you can control gravity in the forces of nature to the point where you can create whatever you want, if you were to create a spaceship or an environment to go into space with,

it might start to look a lot like a small planet rather, or a moon, that's not a moon, like, or a moon like, then it would a spaceship, something that can contain an atmosphere, something that has its own gravity. Like if you, that's, it's like this projection of technology way into the future. Right. But that's what, it starts to look more organic.

swings back around from like these composite materials to organic materials and maybe that's what things start to look like. So again, in that vastness of space and that the distance of time across billions of years, who's to say that the moon wasn't like created and flown here and put in place to like support like, hey, this planet's in the right zone. Let's give it the thing that it needs to create life and we'll squirt some DNA at it. And then, you know, a billion years later here we are right i don't know it's it's it's you can't again can't rule it out and it's interesting thing to think about and i think with the moon it's almost it almost becomes a more likely scenario than there's than the current scenario of like well there's double big whack it's like where are we is that

what you just said is that is it more probable that that that's what happened or is it more probable that we are just a flame in a ever never ending sea of darkness right yeah yeah i don't think we're that. I don't think we're that. I don't think we're there. I'm fairly convinced that that in terms of life, I think we've sort of, although we don't have evidence for it directly, but mathematically, I think we've proven that for sure the conditions for life exist in lots of places. Like the Kepler missions pretty much ended that story. Like, we figured out that, all right, there's plenty of planets orbiting, plenty of stars in plenty of habitable zones. Right. That the conditions for liquid water, blah, blah, blah, that we need for life, it certainly

exists in a lot of places. And we're almost, we're on the verge of finding signs of life on Mars and this and that. We're like, oh, maybe we found something. It's like for damn sure, if you find it on two planets in one solar system, then it's got to be everywhere, whether it's advanced or not. It's another question. But, you know, again, it's like we are the result of a blink of an eye in the span of time that we think the universe has been here.

And it may be a lot older than that yet. We don't know. I think there's some questionable evidence behind Big Bang. gang and stuff like this, but the cosmic microwave background. But, you know, it's just, if you go billions of years in either direction, it's like, civilizations can rise and fall and go away. I mean, who knows? I just think we're not the only thing that there's floating around in here.

I'm convinced of it. So whether or not we find out about that in our lifetime, it's another question. Well, if there's anyone that's doing the hard work to try to ask the questions is you. And, uh, dude, I'm thankful for people like you and for, you for doing all the work that you do and going to Egypt and all these different places and documenting it and making your documentaries are fucking great and uh you know I speak for millions of people clearly thank you but um let people know that are listening and watching where they can find more your work where they can follow you support you all of it thank you Danny uh yeah

unchartedX.com's main place my website uh you can also find me on youtube it's uh YouTube.com slash C slash uncharted X all of my social medias are in all of my my videos at the bottom and in the description, they're also on my website, but I'm available on all those social platforms as well. And yeah, I'd love it if you guys would check it out. And hopefully we'll get you to Egypt at some point too. Hell yeah, man. I'd love to. Egypt and then we're got to go with, we got to make sure we go with Randall to the Azores. The Azores definitely, yeah, working on that plan. That is going to be fun. Let's get fun atlantis. Yeah. Fucking fascinating. All right. Thank you for listening, everybody. Good night.

Thank you.