The Joe Rogan Experience - #1124 - Robert Schoch

Episode Date: May 31, 2018

Robert Schoch is an associate professor of Natural Sciences at the College of General Studies, Boston University. He has been best known as a proponent of the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis. Check out links to more of his work at http://robertschoch.com

Ready? Five, four, three, two, one. Mr. Shock, first of all, thank you very, very, very much for being here. I've been following your work for a long time now, and I'm very appreciative of you and very appreciative of everything you've done, and I've been fascinated by the subject of ancient Egypt. So I'm really excited, very psyched to be here. Well, thank you. It's a real pleasure to be here. I've heard a lot about your show. I've heard a lot about you. My, of course, the late John

Anthony West, I think was on with you a couple of times, maybe. He was very proud that, I guess, you did the only full Skype interview with him. Yeah, that's the only one I've ever done is with him. Yeah, he used to like to talk about that. Well, I just had to talk to him. And, you know, he was in upstate New York at the time. And it was just he really didn't have any plans to come down here. And I just I was very fortunate to one day get him in studio, though. It was really nice. So it's been wonderful.

Well, his work, that DVD series he did, Magical Egypt, was amazing. And I had seen your work before that in that Mysteries of the Sphinx thing that was narrated by Charlton Heston. Charlton Heston, NBC, 1993. I think in many ways it was the Mystery of the Sphinx that really broke everything open. It brought everything to the public attention. I've had many people tell me. I'm not trying to brag or anything, I'm just saying factually,

that this really opened up a new field, if we could put it that way, a new way of looking at things among the popular public, perhaps the popular media, but people around the world versus the academic scholarly journals and the back and forth, that type of thing.

You have to remember, I'm a faculty member. I'm at Boston University. I'm an academic. And many of the academics have poo-pooed, should we say, over the years, bringing things to the public. But I think it's been important to do. Now, what we're talking about for the people that are uninformed is the idea that some of the structures in ancient Egypt are far older than conventional wisdom or conventional modern-day archaeology, modern-day Egyptologists. time period, and people like John Anthony West and yourself and some other folks like Graham Hancock are proposing that it's entirely possible that there were many different eras

of construction in Egypt and that there are some structures that are far, far older than we think. Yeah, exactly. And this, what I was alluding to is this really opened up with our work on redating the Great Sphinx. Yes. And I think you know the story, but maybe just to summarize in the smallest of nutshells, John Anthony West, before I met him, he became a follower, should we say? I shouldn't say follower, because that sounds wrong. That sounds like it's a religion dogma. But he became interested in the work of the late Schwaller de Lubitsch, who died,

passed away in 1961, but he had mentioned in one line that the Sphinx had been weathered by rain, I would say precipitation, as a geologist, not wind and sand. So this, if it were true, and it is true, would put the Sphinx back to a much earlier period, which would tie in with Schwaller's work and John Anthony West's subsequent work, that there were indications that dynastic Egypt as we know it, going back to about 3000 BC, was really a legacy of what I call now an earlier cycle of civilization, something that goes back much, much earlier, which at this point I date back to the end of the last Ice Age. Ice Age ended at 9700 BC, just to put it in perspective for people. So when did you first get on board with this? Did John Anthony West come to you? John Anthony West, okay, so the story goes this way. John Anthony West published Serpent in the Sky, his probably most famous book, first edition, 1979.

He was then looking for someone that could really validate or at least assess from a scientific point of view this theory about the Sphinx, which he had just barely sort of touched the surface based on Schwaller, that maybe it could be older, but this was really a geological question. He mentions that in 1979 in Serpent in the Sky. John Anthony West went on to become very involved with Egypt, and he started traveling to Egypt. He led tourists to Egypt. He wrote The Traveler's Key to Ancient Egypt in 1985, also mentions in appendix, I think it was, just the, quote, older Sphinx theory, but really looking for someone to

at least assess it scientifically. He met a fellow in Egypt, actually, at the time, Robert Eddy, who is a PhD English literature, I believe, something like that, but he was teaching in Cairo, American University in Cairo, I believe. Then he came to Boston University. This is late 1980s. I was and still do teach at Boston University full time. Robert Eddy and myself got to know each other. Robert Eddy mentioned me as a geologist to John

Anthony West, and that maybe this was someone who seems fairly knowledgeable, fairly open-minded about things. At the time, did you have any thoughts on Egypt or the dating? Oh, my interest in Egypt goes way back. I was reading about ancient Egypt when I was literally six, seven, eight years old. I had a grandmother who had a wonderful library at the time, and I would go through her library. She had books from the British Museum on ancient Egypt going back to the turn of the century. So I was prepared in the sense I was open to such things, but I didn't imagine getting involved in Egypt in any way professionally. Did you have any thoughts about the dating of the Sphinx or the pyramids or anything back then before you looked into it? Yeah, there were two things.

So there were two things going on in my head back then, which maybe prepped me for this. Number one, I knew the conventional story. I knew that the Sphinx goes back to 2500 BC, according to the standard Egyptologists. In 1989, which is when I first, I believe it was 1989, I first actually met West in person. I had in my mind that the Egyptologists must be correct because they've studied it. They must know what they're doing. I was coming from an academic point of view. I'm just saying where I'm coming from. I had gone to Yale University to get my PhD in geology and geophysics.

I was very well grounded in, quote, the status quo academic point of view. So I thought when I first went to Egypt, I would just prove West wrong. I would just prove that the Egyptologists knew what they were talking about. But, and this is an important but, I was also trained in many ways, both as a graduate student and going back to my grandmother, who I had great respect for and was also very, should we say, liberal and open-minded but critical. You always have to follow the evidence wherever it goes, and that's always been my rule of thumb, that not everything is always the way people say it is, even if they're, quote, authorities.

And something I already knew when I went to Egypt for the first time was that some of the very old Egyptologists in the late 19th, early 20th century had actually suggested that just the way it looks, the feel of the Sphinx, not based on hard evidence, really, that maybe it was older than the pyramids, that maybe it goes back earlier. So I felt that it wasn't all said and done and, you know, pat and sound that the Egyptologists necessarily knew what they were talking about in modern times because some of the earlier Egyptologists who they held in very high respect supposedly had said different things. Secondly, and I hate to bring this up, but I will because it's part of the background. I, my grandmother, who I mentioned a second ago, was a theosophist. And if you know anything about theosophy, it also suggests that, you know, maybe there's things that go back earlier. What is a theosophist? A theosophist, it's, how do I explain it? Have you heard of Blavatsky, Madame Blavatsky? No, okay.

I'm losing my headphones. Theosophy was founded in the late 19th century. It questioned a lot of the materialistic values, a lot of the dogma of science of the time, of religion of the time. It looked to the East in particular, to other philosophies, other worldviews. So basically, it was a way—this is what it did for me, at least, and I'm not a theosophist. I don't want to say I'm a theosophist. But reading theosophical works on top of everything else allowed me, I think, to expand my horizons and to see that maybe the dogma of the day is just that, the dogma of the day, that there are other possibilities. And not that we accept something

just because someone said it or because it's old or because it's this religion or that religion or that's supposed to be ancient culture. But no, you keep everything open. You look at the evidence. And that's really where I was coming from. But my point is that even in the late 1980s, early 1990s, when I first got involved with this, if I looked at it critically, the evidence was not that definitive for the age of the Sphinx. So I was going in with open-minded possibilities. So I was going in with open-minded possibilities. But honestly, when I first went to Egypt with John Anthony West in 1990, I thought before I got off the plane that this would be simple open and shut case. I would prove him wrong in the sense of his assertions that maybe the Sphinx was older. I had no doubt at the time that my colleagues in Egyptology must know what they're talking about. And all of that changed literally

within 30, without exaggerating, 30 to 120 seconds of first seeing the Sphinx. Yeah, it really did. What was your first impression? Because my first impression of the Sphinx was now that I saw it on the ground in person, there was something wrong with the Egyptological dating. Because when you look at the Sphinx as a geologist with a geological eye, this was not weathered by wind and sand. This was not desert erosion and weathering that I saw on the Sphinx, the body of the Sphinx, which is very difficult to tell because it's been heavily repaired and reworked, but particularly on the walls of what are known as the Sphinx enclosure. The Sphinx enclosure is important because it

preserves a lot of the details. And if you haven't, if the audience has not been to Egypt, they should realize that when they carved the Sphinx, it's all solid bedrock. Only the head initially was above the ground surface. They carved down into the rock to free up the body, what I call the core body of the Sphinx. And it's that core body and the walls of the enclosure, more or less the quarry around it, if you want to use that term, that show these ancient weathering, precipitation, erosional features that are incompatible with the last 5,000 years of climatic history on the eastern edge of the Sahara. So immediately I knew there was something wrong geologically, had to figure that out. Either this was a weird geological anomaly or something else was going on and the Sphinx might go back to an earlier period. Also, I want to point out that when you look at the Sphinx and other geologists have looked at this as well, they did not just chip away

at the rock to carve the body. More or less, you could have chipped away at the rock with pickaxes and that type of thing, shoveled out chips of rock in baskets. That would have been the easy way. What they did is they carved out huge blocks of stone. And when I say huge, we're talking multi-ton, tens of tons, some of them maybe over 50 tons or more of limestone. They moved those due east of the Sphinx and built what is now known as the Sphinx Temple, which is still there in ruinous condition, and the Valley Temple. So you had these two huge temples. And what is interesting, a lot of people don't realize this or they don't think about, I think those constructions, which are contemporary with the oldest portion of the Sphinx, in some ways are more impressive, if you think about the technology and what went into

constructing them, than the age of the Sphinx itself. So it's not just the Sphinx, it's also these limestone temples that are associated with it and were built contemporaneously. So Jamie pulled up two photos here. The first one that he pulled up was a computer image that showed the Sphinx and showed— Okay, I'm looking at it now, yes. And in this image, what you can see, that's a computer image that's actually from Mystery of the Sphinx. And then there's an inset that's an aerial photograph, the real thing, and that shows how when they were carving the body, they cut out

huge blocks and then put them in position to make what's known as the Sphinx Temple due east of the Sphinx. And the second image is the Sphinx Temple? Okay, and you look at this, it says the Sphinx Temple. Okay, and you look at this, it says the Sphinx faces due east, the rising sun, and right in front of it is the Sphinx Temple. So this is a humongous temple made out of these huge blocks of stone, which were carved out when they carved the body of the Sphinx. And here you see in this image, another picture of the Sphinx Temple. And so these erosion features that you're looking at here. You can see how big they are. They're enormous. Okay. These erosion features on the blocks, don't worry about them for the moment. Let's go back to the Sphinx enclosure itself. It's a Sphinx enclosure where you see the rolling, undulating profile, the erosional features. Here you see it in that picture the vertical fissures

and i know you're familiar with this personally because i've heard you talk about it with john anthony west that can only be caused by precipitation the rocks are like a layer cake so it takes out the softer layers it recedes um the softer, some of the harder layers stick out further, but the water also finds its way down crevices and cracks, natural features that are slightly softer, and it forms these vertical fissures. I want to make the point, because a lot of people get confused. They say, couldn't it be rising Nile floods? No. Nile floods. No. Geologically, that would give a very different signature on the rock. It's not floods coming up from the bottom. It's actually precipitation and rainfall runoff coming from above. And rainfall for thousands of years? Well, there's two aspects here. It could be thousands of years. It could be much stronger rainfall, you know, huge flash floods, that type of thing. And part of the story that I hope we'll get to is that initially, I'm jumping around here a little bit, but initially,

I was thinking 5,000 to 7,000 BC. That was very conservative based on the geological data, based on the seismic, which we have to get to also. But now I believe we're talking prior to 9700 BC for the original construction of the Sphinx, and we can talk about why the dating. And at 9700 BC, we have the end of the Younger Dryas, the end of the Glacial Epoch, the end of the last ice age, I have now put together the story based on evidence. And whenever I say, if I say I believe something, or I think something, it's always based on evidence that I've been piecing together, that what we had ending the Younger Dryas, ending the last ice age, was a huge eruption from the sun, a huge solar outburst, huge climatic

changes, which put, among other things, a lot of precipitation, a lot of moisture into the air, which came down as precipitation with huge floods, huge essentially thunderstorms, etc. And I think a lot of the initial erosion that we still see on the walls of the Sphinx enclosure go back to that period. So you had the situation where you would get this incredible weathering and erosion. And then it continued for thousands of years after that and was reinforced until you had the Sahara coming in in relatively recent times, in geologically holistic times. The Sahara Desert. The Sahara Desert, yes. So before that, it was some sort of a rainforest.

It's savanna to rainforest. It actually varied over time. And before that, it was very fertile savanna, lots of plants there. People have seen it even in popular movies and whatnot, how the Sahara at one point had water and all kinds of animals. That's before the end of the last ice age, before these incredible changes that we have at 9700 BC. So that's where the Sphinx, I think the original Sphinx goes back to that time period. And that's what the Egyptians called Zeptepe. This was a first time for them, or what I call an earlier cycle of civilization. The last cycle, the one

that we're still part of, in my terminology, is the last 5,000 years. So civilization arising, re-emerging, I should say, about 3,000 to 4,000 BC, coming into really what we have now, high technology, et cetera. But before that, there had been an earlier cycle of civilization that was essentially snuffed out or brought to its knees, if you would, by the end of the last Ice Age. And just to map this out, a period from about 9700 BC, this is what I'm reconstructing now, to about 4000 to 3000 BC, where we have civilization re-emerging between that period. So thousands of years, 9700 BC to say 3700 BC for round numbers, 6,000 years, we have essentially a dark period. And what I've been now calling SIDA, solar-induced dark age, sort of ironic.

The sun would induce a dark age because it brought civilization back to an earlier stage, if you would. I'm not sure I follow that. How did the sun do this? Solar outbursts. Essentially, coronal mass ejection, huge eruption, bigger than anything we've ever seen on Earth. And so that's what caused these massive thundershowers. Exactly. Nothing in modern history has any record.

Nothing in modern history is even close to this. But we do have isotope data, et cetera, that indicates this has happened in the past at the end of the last ice age. And I'm sure it's happened many times over. And you have a lot of markers that indicate this. You have vitrification of rock. In fact, a lot of the markers, and I don't want to be debating the issue necessarily, but a lot of the markers that people have used for a comet at the Younger Dryas or during the Younger Dryas, really most of them are at the beginning at the Younger Dryas or during the Younger Dryas.

Really, most of them are at the beginning of the Younger Dryas. That's what they're claiming. But a lot of the dating is very, very iffy. I found it interesting, for instance, someone will use something as a marker for the Younger Dryas and it will give a date of 12,000 plus or minus 4,000 years. So, you know, this is just the way geology is. But I remember, and I can't remember his name. You had a guest on one of your shows. He was when- Randall Carlson?

Not Randall Carlson. I know Randall very well. He was on with Carlson and Shermer, but he came on by Skype. Yes. Malcolm, Malcolm? I do not remember his name. Okay. But anyway, he was one of the people that was, quote, comet proponent. And he started pointing out a lot of the evidence, microspherules, glassy spheres, nanodiamonds. I don't think he mentioned, but I'll mention shocked quartz,

et cetera. And everyone has been assuming this has to be from a physical impact in the sense of something coming down, like a comet or asteroid, that type of thing. But the problem is you don't necessarily find craters. You don't necessarily find the pieces of the comet. You should find some physical remains. And he mentioned, and I found it very interesting, he mentioned in passing what I've been working on now for a number of years that no— and I was once on the comet bandwagon, I'll put it that way, and I'm not trying to knock good research. But when you look at the evidence, what is not being considered by a lot of people, and he mentioned this in passing, he said, well, you know, something else that could cause is lightning. But you wouldn't have lightning. You know, that's very localized.

We think of this as very localized. Right. major solar outbursts, major coronal mass ejections. And an astrophysicist who's now deceased, he was at Cornell, Thomas Gold, who did a lot of really good, in fact, prize-winning work in astrophysics, first pointed out in the 1960s that if you have a major solar outburst, major coronal mass ejection, you would get essentially huge, what would be like huge lightning strikes over incredible areas of the Earth simultaneously. This would cause vitrification. It would cause all these features. And just as within the last year, there's been more work done showing that fulgurites, where lightning strikes in modern times,

even small lightning strikes like that can cause, can create things like shocked quartz, other, quote, impact features that people have always said, well, it must be a comet or an asteroid. But you're not finding the craters. You're not finding other things. So what I'm finding in my own research is I'm coming to conclude that it wasn't a physical object that hit us. It was a solar outburst. That's a general term I use. Is it possible that it was both? Actually, it's quite possible that it could have been both.

Yeah, there could have been fragments of both. I can address that. And there's a couple of aspects to both. Yeah, there could have been fragments of both. I can address that. And there's a couple of aspects to both. When you say both, there is indications that comets diving into the sun actually cause coronal mass ejections that correlate it with disturbing the sun. So in some cases, you'll have the, I'll call it the comet group, talking about how we go through these comet streams periodically. I agree 100%. In fact, I talk about this in some of my early books because I really was into comets at the time, voyages of the pyramid builders. For instance, I talk about how comets might have begun and ended the Younger Dryas.

But I wasn't thinking about solar activity at that time, seriously, as no one else was. But we now find that comets diving into the sun when we go through comet streams, that can set off solar activity. So, in fact, I think it could be both, but it could be that the comets are affecting the sun, which is then affecting the earth, rather than directly, if that makes sense. Yes, okay. And the other thing is that people have to understand there's a couple of things going on.

The Younger Dryas, 10,900 BC, when it first begins is a cooling period. It's not as dramatic a climate change as you have at 9,700 BC, when all of a sudden we go from deep ice age climatic regime to modern, or even a little bit warmer initially, modern changes. So this is it up here? Oh, there, yeah. There we have some isotope data. And what we have at 9700 BC, and this is based

on sediment cores and ice cores. We also have lunar data that supports this. At 9700 BC, we have incredible climatic change going from, you know, deep ice age to modern warming. And this literally now based on what they call microstratigraphy from Greenland ice cores can be dated within, get this, weeks to days. Wow. So this happened literally, you know, we're talking virtually overnight. When I was a graduate student, we thought things happened suddenly. We were talking thousands of years or decades. Oh, God. Decades for something to happen geologically. That would be crazy.

Right. Now we're talking literally weeks to days. That's incredible. Yeah. So I think this ties in our support that there was a massive solar event in 9700 BC. What we had just a slide a minute ago when I saw it out the side of my eye was a graph of based on isotope data is what they call proxies of solar activity, again, based on primarily ice course, sediment course, and the sun was incredibly active in 9700 BC and shortly after there, and it had huge, if you think of it anthropomorphically, mood swings, where it would be very active then, would go very still, then very active again, very still.

And this happened for some thousands of years, and then it evened out, the sun sort of became quiescent. It was during this quiescence period that tying back into human civilization, civilization was able to re-emerge, redevelop again, and we've had incredibly good conditions, should we say, for the last 5,000 years, quiet conditions, stable conditions on Earth for the last 5,000 years, quiet conditions, stable conditions on Earth for civilization to reemerge, tying it back into that theme. But recently, the sun has become very active again, and we have to be very careful. I'm not a doomsayer or scaremonger. I'm not trying to sell people on being preppers. But the reality is the sun has started to become active again just as it was at the end of the last ice age.

And I think this makes perfect sense because the sun is a star. It goes through cycles like other stars do. And we're a little planet orbiting it. And we're, like all the other planets, affected by the sun. It's fascinating, though, that we have this incredible need to keep things exactly the way they are to the point where we're in denial about any potential change. Even if you're studying things, everybody's like, oh, it'll be fine. We're so inclined to dismiss. We're so inclined to do that. It's very Aristotelian.

And, in fact, I forget who it was. One of the astrophysicists some decades ago said about the sun, it was sort of the last vestige of Aristotelianism in modern science. Everyone assumed the sun is stable, essentially perfect. Yes, it goes through little sun cycles of 11 and 22 years and maybe some bigger ones of a few centuries. But no one wanted to think of it as what it is, just a plain old star that goes through

periods of the equilibrium. We've been in relative solar equilibrium for thousands of years now, but it goes through disequilibrium and has, we'll call it hiccups and spurts and has to recalibrate itself, if you would. And we feel the effects on Earth. And so at the end of the last ice age, we had this massive solar event, solar outbursts, what they call solar proton events. It would have messed up the ionosphere, caused all kinds of geomagnetic storms. This ties in with earthquake activity that we see at the end of the last ice age because we now have lots of evidence that solar activity upsets the magnetosphere and the magnetic fields on the earth. The electrical currents in the earth will trigger earthquakes that are about to happen anyway, not unlike, I was talking to Katie, my wife, on the right here, and a good analogy is when you have an avalanche that's just about ready to go, you can clap your hands in some cases, and it sets off this huge avalanche. Really?

Yeah. So solar activity is tied in with earth activity, earthquake activity, for instance, volcanic activity. with earth activity, earthquake activity, for instance, volcanic activity. So we see volcanic activity, increased volcanic activity. There was a major super volcano that went off just at the end of the last ice age. Well, why? Probably, this is me speaking, because of the solar activity that set it off. So when you start getting things like platinum and iridium and osmium spikes, that's not necessarily extraterrestrial. That could be from terrestrial volcanic activity that was occurring at that period. So yes, there's extraterrestrial causes,

but I think that there's a very strong case to be made that this is solar, that this is the sun influencing us, which is really important too. Fast forward to today. Here we are. We're on Skype. We're using all these electronic media. What could be more vulnerable to a solar outburst? That kind of stuff.

Yeah. Our power grid. Power grids. Power grids will be fried. There was a – and I think we're seeing the beginning of this or we saw the beginning of this because, again, I'm a geologist. So I think in broad terms, a few hundred years is nothing. 1859, are you aware of the Carrington event? There was a major solar outburst from a human perspective, major solar outburst. From an astrophysical perspective, it was nothing.

But it was a coronal mass ejection, actually two in a row, that hit us in 1859. It's known as the Carrington event after Richard Carrington, who first saw the solar flares, the really bright solar flares that were associated with it. It was picked up on the primitive magnetometers of the time that they had, for instance, in London, etc., studied by the physicists of the time. And 1859, there were electronics around. It was called the telegraph system. The telegraph system acted as huge antenna that picked up the changing magnetic fields, generated electricity along it, burnt out the telegraph lines, literally set telegraph places where the telegraph operators worked on fire, telegraph stations on fire, that type of thing. If we had a Carrington-level event now, which is really quite minor from an astrophysical perspective,

orders of magnitude less than what happened at the end of the last ice age, it would fry our grid lines. It would knock out all the huge transformers. It would, before it did that, as it's coming in, it would probably knock out all the satellites, the GPS systems, communications. I mean, it would really bring us to our knees. Is this an article, Jamie? From 1859? Yeah, yeah. The auroral display in Boston is another display of auroral. Yeah.

So bright. Yeah, there you go. Brilliant at 1 o'clock. Ordinary print can be read by the light. Exactly. Because one thing you get is these bright auroras, these bright what people think of as northern, southern lights. But in 1859, they saw them around the world. Back at the end of the last Ice Age, because they were so powerful, when they become more intense, they take on very discrete structures in the sky. Here's some what are known as, again, northern lights, rural displays.

But see how it starts to take on a discrete structure on the right there. And to describe it to the audience, do you see how it sort of looks like a person with their hands up in the air? They start to take on more and more discrete structures. Some of them look like people with their hands up in the air and little legs. And some of them take on birds' heads. And what exactly is this phenomenon? This is basically the high-charge particles, electrons and protons and whatnot, interacting

with the atmosphere. And they form these figures. It's an electrical phenomenon. And they will ultimately come down, if you have a tense enough one, as you did at the end of the last ice age, it will look like if you were there living, you know, 12,000 years ago, 10,000, 11,700 years ago, at the end of the last ice age, and you saw this, you would see these things in the sky. Oh, they look like gods.

They look like stick figure humans in the sky. You would see huge lightning bolts hitting parts of the surface of the earth. Oh, that image is fascinating because that image that's in hieroglyphics and all sorts of it. Exactly. You find this around the world. And Anthony Peratt, who's a lot- Explain what we're looking at because a lot of people are just listening.

What we're looking at- Plasma discharge formation. Yeah, this is plasma discharge formation. Plasma is essentially, think of it as electrically charged particles, electrons, protons, that type of thing. As it comes off the sun, in this case, think of a coronal mass ejection, a huge ball of charged gas is one way to describe it. Hitting the atmosphere, driving down into the atmosphere, causing these like northern lights on steroids, if you want to put it that way. But it takes on very specific images that look like stick figures.

So these are things you would see in the sky, except in many cases they're spinning electrically. You wouldn't notice that they were spinning necessarily. Go back to me. And they look sort of like, because we tend to anthropomorphize. We tend to look at like even clouds or rocks formations, and we make them look like what we think they look like. So they look sort of like stick figure men. And is any of this an actual photograph or are these just graphic illustrations?

These are graphic illustrations, but what we can show... Do we have? No, because we haven't experienced this, fortunately, and since photography. But what we do have are petroglyphs dating back to the end of last ice age where people were seeing this in the sky and they were drawing it on the walls of caves on the walls of rocks and globally globally anthony parat who's a los alamos plasma physicist he is the world's expert on this type of high energy plasma physics these are some of the illustrations. Go back. Go back, Jamie.

Look at this from all over the world. Look at this. Exactly. Amazing. All over the world. Arizona, Italy. It's all the same thing. It's all the same thing. And notice, too, that see how they look like stick figures,

but they have little weird dots on their side, donuts? Real humans don't have that. Right. But they're seeing this around the world in the sky and recording it. Also, the motif of when these take on certain forms, they take on what look like bird's heads. So the bird-headed man, a motif that you see around the world going back. And I believe it all goes back to the end of the last ice age and what people were experiencing, what they were seeing, if you want to call it gods in the sky or whatever. But they were seeing this, and it was having a real effect on their life.

What is causing that very specific pattern, that very specific shape that you're seeing with the two gods? The way I would say – the best way to say it is you've got this – this is simplistic, but you've got these huge electrical charges coming down. They sort of focus like a tornado focuses. Or if you think of running water out of a spigot, if you play with it, you can sort of squeeze it and make it form different shapes. That's sort of my analogy to it. And it's the magnetic and electric fields interacting with each other. Sometimes they sort of spin around each other like a rope. And in that illustration here you see, how do you say his name, Peratt?

Peratt, yeah. Dr. Peratt's experiments where he essentially reproduced that shape over and over and over again. That's right, exactly. Wow. He reproduced that. And then it gets even more fascinating, and this is something that ties in actually with Katie, my wife, Catherine Ulysses, and Peratt's team has confirmed it. On Easter Island, you have the Rongo Rongo script, which also duplicates this and seems to be a record. You know, the modern Rongo Rongo are only a few hundred years old, but just like any manuscript or anything, it was copied over and over and seems to go back to it too.

And if you look at some of the rongo-rongo, and I know a lot of your audience can't see this, but you look at some of them, they're even more definitive. You know, showing what Peratt was able to reproduce experimentally, and there they have it. Wow. Recorded from ancient times. So when you're talking about this event that happened at the end of the Younger Dryas, put it in perspective. Are we talking about a hurricane times a thousand? What would this be like with these thunderstorms? A million.

Yeah, like huge thunderstorms yeah i mean literally impossible to comprehend impossible to comprehend from our point of view from our perspective yeah our perspective and there's more to it than that you would have incredible radiation levels at the surface of the earth paula violetta a physicist i know and he's published on this has talked about how during an event like this, you have levels of radiation that were so high that large mammals, we are large mammals, large mammals, if they couldn't protect themselves, they could die within, you know, three to six, seven days, a week or so. How do you protect yourself? You go underground, you go into caves, you go into places because rock will protect you from the surface radiation under these circumstances. Now, you don't need to stay there forever. You can, you know, because these solar events probably

came. Now, this is hypothetical because we've not experienced a huge one like this, but they probably came and then it would back off a little bit, but then maybe another one would come. Again, I'm a geologist, so think of a huge earthquake and then aftershocks, aftershocks that can actually last centuries or millennia in some cases, you know, smaller ones. So something that was happening, and you see this around the world too, is that where people survived, I believe in part because they had access to natural caves initially, then they built underground structures for when they came again, and it also encouraged or developed this whole tradition, should we say,

of having a place to go, even if it's not occurring at the moment. They knew that these things do occur, at least for some thousands of years, and were aware of this. So we're being prepared. And now, G.I. would use this during the Cold War here. What did a lot of people build in their backyards? Bunkers. Bunkers. So they were doing this also. So you get areas here. I see there's a slide of India up at the moment. Cappadocia region is very well known for this. How do they know to get underground? How do they know to get into caves? Oh, I think initially, I mean, you've got literally fire coming down from the sky. Think of the lightning bolts fire. I mean, if you've got a cave there, you go into it.

It's the only thing that's going to protect you. Yeah, it protects you. TPs and houses are useless. Oh, yeah. all that burns. I mean, you've got literally fire coming down. Think of this fire, lightning. Yes. That is going to set things on fire. And you're talking about- Literally incinerate. But just lightning everywhere. Yeah. Almost like rainfall. Yes, yes, yes. Wow. In certain areas. And that's why you have huge sheets of glass in some cases. Wow. So that's – wow. Yeah. And so you're incinerating everything.

Where it hits ice, it's flash vaporizing it. It's hitting water. It's vaporizing it. So this is causing massive flooding. So it's causing massive flooding. It's dumping all the ice ultimately into the oceans, which is causing rising sea levels. But more importantly, it's causing massive precipitation, massive flash floods. And what kind of population loss are we talking about in terms of human beings?

I think incredible. Because, for instance, we can document linguistically, and this is other people's work, but I think it ties right in. They haven't been able to explain it cogently otherwise, that there is, for instance, in Turkey, Middle East, there is a constriction of the population to the Anatolia region, Cappadocia, where you have these underground shelters. You have geology that was easy to go into and escape. And linguistically, we can map back Indo-European languages to a small pocket that survived there at the end of the last ice age.

Wow. So, you know, I think there was a massive – around the world you would have had populations being constricted and then they spread out again. And when they were constricted, there's – I see the slide there for the linguistic data. When you constrict down in one area, of course, you lose a lot of the technology. You lose a lot of the high culture, if you will. You go back to a much more primitive stage, and that's what we find. So we find, for instance, in Anatolia, western Turkey, near Asia, as it was called. In ancient times, you find not only, of course, you know, things like Quebec-Les-Tapes, which goes back before this huge catastrophe with the monumental stone megaliths, etc.

But what you find there 2,000 years later in the same general area, you find, for instance, Çatalhöyük, which is a bunch of mud brick houses all clustered together. It's gone down. It's gone into what I call, Katie and I call Sida, this solar-induced dark age where they lost a lot of it. Not unlike an analogy. I think it's easy for people to understand analogies. I think it's easy for people to understand analogies. The end of the Roman Empire and everything that was lost there and then going into a much more primitive state with the Dark Ages, the European Dark Ages in this case.

You look at the technology. It was much higher during the Roman Empire until maybe 1000 or 1200 AD again in many realms. Same thing here. Although this was such a mighty throwback. It took thousands of years for people to reemerge and at least start to get up to the status where they had been before. Now, have you presented this in front of other scholars? Yes, yes. And how are they? Well, there's a lot of resistance.

Look, I'm an academic. I don't want to sound the wrong way. I'm not looking for sympathy. But going out on limbs like this, going just beginning with the redating of the Sphinx, and that's what we didn't even finish with that yet. Right. But that's okay. We'll get back to that. We've got plenty of time.

Yeah. We didn't even finish with that yet. Right. But that's okay. We'll get back to that. We've got plenty of time. Yeah. There's a lot of resistance to anything that's new, any concepts, new ideas. Textbooks have already been written.

Textbooks have been written. People have staked their rep. PhDs have been given out. Yeah. Yeah. They've staked their reputation on it. And I understand that. And I try not to be that myself you

know though this is my pet theory but I do try to look at the evidence I think that slowly we're building up more and more interest more and more at least people looking at objectively mm-hmm and I do see changes occurring. One thing I'll mention right now is as of relatively recently, now it's still very, very small, but at Boston University I've been allowed to found what is called the ISOC, the Institute for the Study of the Origins of Civilization, which is really just me at the moment. But I want to build it up, and I'd like to get, I'm not trying to sound the wrong way, but I'd like to get people to donate to it, et cetera, et cetera. Also, I've found it with some colleagues of mine, including some

academic colleagues, Oracle, which stands for the Organization for the Research of Ancient Cultures. So we're bringing it into the mainstream, both as a private, not-for-profit foundation, as an institute through Boston University, to really be looking at these things in a, when I say professional way, what I mean by that is, you know, evidence-based way, but also looking outside the standard dogmas, the standard boxes, standard paradigms, and the standard vested interest. Because so much science, you know, people say to me all the time, they think science is supposed to be objective.

Well, maybe it is supposed to be objective, but who are the scientists doing it? They have all their subjective biases and notions and vested interest. I'm not trying to knock anyone, but... But it's a fact. It's just a human fact. Yeah, we're all humans. And one of the things that happened in that documentary from 1993 that I was kind of stunned by was the reaction by the conventional Egyptologist when you brought up this evidence, where he was very dismissive, almost mockingly in this weird sort of a way where he was like, what culture?

Where's this? Where's the evidence of this culture? Absolutely. And that- It's kind of gross. It is. It is. Because that really should not have any place in science.

It was mocking. Right. He was mocking. With mocking and being called, I mean, I've been called a pseudoscientist. Yes. Look, again, I don't want to sound the wrong way, but I think I'm as well credentialed as anyone. Yes. I mean, among my academic colleagues, you know.

Well, that's why I appreciate that you have stuck your neck out for so long doing this research. But since that time. Have I been punished? Yes. Yeah, I'm sure. Yeah. I mean, you know, let's. No, I'll be honest.. Yeah, I'm sure. and advancements going up through the academic ladder, if you would, with no problems, if I just stuck to some little specialty that no one really cared about.

But you've had an impact, a gigantic impact on people like me that are really fascinated by this stuff. Oh, if I had continued to work on, for instance, one of my specialties as a graduate student was Paleocene EEocene mammal evolution. Would I be talking to you about that now? Maybe. If it's interesting. Maybe, if it was interesting. But less likely. Right.

Less likely. Although from seeing your skeletons and whatnot and skulls, I might be. You might be. Yeah. Now, when you were doing that, and you were talking to that guy, one of the things that he was saying in this dismissive way is where is the evidence of this culture? Well, now we have Gobekli Tepe. Oh, absolutely. And that is the evidence.

Because that was an American Association for Advancement of Science debate on the Sphinx, which turned out, I thought I was going in for a real debate. I thought it was going to be a great debate. We were really going to discuss the evidence back and forth. I brought all my data, the seismic data, which is very, very important, which we haven't even touched on yet. Other types of data we haven't touched on. Because I want to make the point

it's much more than a little bit of weathering on the Sphinx. And I've heard so many critics, even to my face, they say, well, you don't redate civilization based on a weathering profile. No, I've got lots more than weathering profile. The weathering profile and erosion is the easiest thing to explain. And yes, it's what I saw initially in that first 30 to 120 seconds, because that's before I brought in equipment and worked with Tom DeBecke to do seismic work,

to do other types of more detailed analysis. I would not be talking to you today if it was just erosional profile. For my own self, I wouldn't put enough stock in that. But when it ties in with everything else, we have a cogent picture. But getting back to someone being dismissive like that, that was 1992. Gobekli Tepe had technically been discovered back in the 1960s, but they misdated it completely. They thought it was maybe 1,000 or 2,000 years old, Byzantine or Roman, Greco-Roman period, not end of the last ice age, not 12,000 years years old and how did they make the distinction

that it was 12 000 years old it's based on the soil samples that was that was klaus schmidt klaus schmidt went back to it in about 1994 95 so a couple of years after that dismissive comment from the egyptologist mark laner who i think is the specific person you're referring to, at the American Association for the Advancement of Science debate, which I just went to make the comment, I went into that thinking that was going to be a debate. I came out of it realizing that they were just trying to set me up to put me down and shut me up forever, which they were not successful in doing. Why do you think that they're so reluctant to just listen to the evidence

and look at the information and consider the possibility that maybe there had been an ancient civilization? Because it upsets the standard timeline, the standard story, and it also upsets a lot of people's concept of progression. And this is something John Anthony West liked to talk about. He called it the church of progress, that we've gotten better and better and better. And I talk to so many people that think that we are the end all and be all. We're the best that there ever has been.

Well, maybe we are in terms of certain types of technology. And I'm not making any claim that people in the past could ever do what we're doing now, doing a podcast with all the electronics. But as I pointed out, that also makes us really vulnerable to things. But I would argue that there is a not-so-remote possibility that they knew things that we don't know, that they may have understood things that we don't understand. don't know, that they may have understood things that we don't understand. They may have had a worldview that would benefit us to at least have a feel for it. I mean, I don't want to go off on spiritual tangents. I could if I wanted to, or philosophical tangents. But I also have a training as an anthropologist. I have an undergraduate degree in anthropology on top of everything else. And I'm fascinated by human approaches to life and the environment and their situation. And I'm convinced that we do have things to learn from the ancients, whether it's the really remote ancients or the more recent ancients from only 5,000 years ago, even dynastic Egypt,

and that it's not all simply a one-way progress, that there are fits and starts, that there have been high points and low points and high points again. And I'm not frankly convinced that we're at the highest point when it comes to certain aspects. We might be a high point with certain types of technology, but I'm not convinced that we're at a high point when it comes to certain aspects, we might be at a high point with certain types of technology, but I'm not convinced that we're at a high point when it comes to, I don't know. Stone construction. Oh, certainly not with stone construction. So there are types of technology we are not at a high point with,

much less getting into this philosophical or spiritual or whatever you want to call it. And we don't think of it as technology because we think of technology as being something that's electronic. That's right. That's right. There are other technologies. And if you ask me, how did they build the pyramids? I will tell you, I don't know. If you ask me how they constructed the Sphinx temple, they carved out those huge blocks of stone that can weigh 50 or more tons and move them in such tight spaces with such tight tolerances? I don't know. I mean, I'm not going to— Because no one really knows.

No one really knows. And sometimes people say, you know, you bring in thousands of slaves or whatnot. Well, there's no evidence for that. And where would you have them stand when you're building the Sphinx Temple? Right. You know, there's not enough room to get around. Stones are so big, even thousands of slaves struggle to move them. It's not like, nope, just get a couple buddies,

we're going to move this couch. We're not talking about that. No, no, no. And yeah, you can try to hypothesize levers and that type of thing, but it's, this has been said before, and I've seen, I wasn't there in person, but I've seen off-the-record

footage of it when they've tried to just construct a little pyramid with very small blocks, and then they end up using modern machines, and they still weren't very successful. I mean— So they knew a lot. Yeah, they knew a lot. So there's a real resistance, I find, among a lot of my academic colleagues to want to even suggest that people could have known things in the past that we don't know now. Or if they knew something in the past that we don't know now, it was so trivial that it was worth forgetting, worth not worrying about.

So there's that concept. I find it amazing, and I hate to be stereotypic, I'm broad brushing, but many Egyptologists, when I read their works or I listen to them at conferences, et cetera, and I get the impression that they might love Egyptology and studying the ancient Egyptians, but they also have this view that, oh, these guys made wonderful temples and had some fantastic art. But really, you know, they're sort of primitive and ha, ha, ha, isn't that silly? And you see what I mean? It's like the very thing they study, they put down in a sense to build themselves up. And to build up this idea of ultimate progress that we keep going in a linear fashion. Yeah, exactly, Exactly, exactly.

Then you also have in Egyptology, and I want to give you another example of this, not just me bringing in scientific evidence and data and the Egyptologists rejecting it, but just recently in the last couple of years, have you heard about the project on the Great Pyramid, the Big Void? They've been using muography, which is a highly sophisticated technique using muons that come from outer space or come from the atmosphere. They go

through the pyramid. You can set up detectors long-term and pick these up. They're sort of like think of x-rays technology but using muons, which are sort of exotic particle that most people are not aware of because they just pass right through us without interacting.

But when you've got massive stone, massive stone will block some of them. So you can pick up essentially image over a long period of time. So this is really high tech physics, very expensive. A consortium of physicists did work on the Great Pyramid. I think it's still ongoing, but they put up, you know, tens of millions, if not more, worth of high, you know, sophisticated physics equipment, gathered all this data. I've seen the raw data. I have a degree in geophysics, geology and geophysics. I have some ability to evaluate this type of data, whereas I hate to say a lot of the Egyptologists don't.

And I found that with my own data when I shared my own data that not to be nasty, but they didn't know what they were looking at, which is somewhat understandable since it's not their training. So you have with the Great Pyramid, just recently in the last couple of years, published in Nature, a very prestigious journal, they found what they believe is evidence for a huge void above the Grand Gallery that has never been known before. And yeah, there we have a picture of it. The Egyptologists have been so resistant to this saying this is nonsense there can't be we don't basically we there can't be anything new that we

don't know about or if it is it's just trivial it's just some space between the rocks it's nothing important but what i wanted to say what is really important, some Egyptologists actually called for the whole project to be closed down because they don't like the results. And they called it, quote, propaganda. Closed down, but you're dealing— More or less closed down the whole scientific project. Not only do they not want to look at the data, they don't want more data collected that might contradict their standard point of view. That's fascinating that someone would actually call for that because this isn't even their field of study, right? So you're dealing with physical evidence that they're saying is nonsense, but this is not something they studied

in the first place. So this void that we're looking at here in these images, can you explain to people that are just listening what we're seeing? Oh, what you're seeing is they call it a hidden chamber there, but you can see how it's parallel to the Grand Gallery. The Grand Gallery is this huge gallery that goes up to the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid. And that's deep in the pyramid. That's deep in

the pyramid. And this hidden chamber is above that. It's above it, parallels it, is maybe close to the same size of it. It's hard to, parallels it, is maybe close to the same size of it. It's hard to tell with until it gets probed. You know, you'd have to drill into it and maybe put a camera in. But I've seen the raw data. My point is I've seen the raw data. I certainly think it's important. They're interpreting it correctly. Now the proof will be in the pudding, as they say, if they ever enter it or at least put a probe into it.

But my point right now is to just dismiss the data is nonsense. To call for the whole project to be shut down is nonsense, in my opinion. Who is calling for the project to be shut down? Some of the Egyptian Egyptologists close to the ministry. And my point is they've done the same thing to me. to the ministry. And my point is they've done the same thing to me. So for instance, when we did seismic work and we found the chamber under the left paw of the Sphinx, that's never been explored since, at least not to my knowledge. And they just dismiss it and say, we know there's nothing there. And that was despite the fact that we also found a chamber at the rump of the Sphinx,

which I didn't know about at the time, but they already knew about. So it confirmed that our data was good because we were finding something they knew about. But when we find something they don't know about and they don't want to be there, they dismiss it and don't want to pursue it further. They have explored one of those chambers, correct? Did they explore the one that's in the rump? The one in the rump, yes. The one in the rump.

But it turns out they already knew about it. It's probably not super significant. It probably is just maybe a Greco-Roman or late period, you know, burial or some kind of excavation. The one I believe is important is under the left paw of the Sphinx, which I believe is archived. Actually may go back to this very early period because we now have hieroglyphic evidence indicating that. What is the evidence that indicates it's an archive? Okay. So recently, and this gets back to the Sphinx. Yes. Okay. So we started this portion of the discussion with the Sphinx and my initial observations of the Sphinx. And one of my observations was that there's

something going on with the weathering and erosion on the Sphinx. The second observation, this is within the first two minutes at most, was that the head is too small for the body. The head is not eroded the way the core body is. It's not eroded the way the walls of the Sphinx enclosure are. It's not the original head. I hate to say it this way, but I knew immediately that was not the original head. Just from a geological point of view.

And I believe that's now since been fully confirmed that this is not the original head. It was a re-carved head. So for a long time the question has been, in my mind, and we talk about this even on Mystery of the Sphinx, what was the original head of the Sphinx? What was the Sphinx originally? We've speculated, and other people speculate, it might have been a lion, for instance, Leo, because it faces on the equinox the constellation Leo in the sky, not today, but 10,000 BC or so,

more or less at the very end of the last ice age. Now, I've had a lot of colleagues of mine, academic colleagues say that's nonsense. You know, it doesn't mean anything because they weren't even recognizing the constellations back then. We now have plenty of evidence that at least some of the constellations that we recognize today, Leo I would put in that category, Taurus is in that category, Orion is in that category. Some of them we don't have evidence for, but the ones I just mentioned, these are constellations that go back well into the end of the last ice age. We have documents of that. We have mammoth bones where you have Orion carved on it. We have Taurus shown in cave walls. We have Leo shown. So to me, it's fascinating that

some of these constellations that we recognize today were recognized tens of thousands of years ago. So to me, it's not nonsense that they carved a structure 10,000 BC approximately that was facing its own image in the sky. So one suggestion was that maybe it's Leo. But recently, Manu Seifzadeh, Dr. Manu Seifzadeh, another colleague of mine, he recognized initially that there is a title, what's known as a dual title, in dynastic Egypt that goes back to the fourth dynasty and even back to the first dynasty with the earliest writing, and it, when properly translated, basically refers to the Sphinx as the guardian of an archive, and not the Sphinx as we think of it as a lion with a human head, but as a lioness. And there was a name for this lioness, Mehit. She was the goddess Mehit, who guarded an archive. She was the goddess Methit who guarded an archive. And we wrote a paper on that when I say we, Manu Seifzadeh, myself, and Robert Buval, who you may know up from Orion Correlation.

Some of his work ties in with this, the archaeoastronomy. But we've now found that there is this sign, which we named the J-A-W sign in honor of John Anthony West. There it is. There's the J-A-W sign. And what you see here is a lioness methit, which was the Sphinx originally based on our reconstruction and interpretation. And I can't go into all the details now. Actually, people can read the paper. If I could put a plug in. If people go to my website, www.robertshock, and that's R-O-B-E-R-T-S-C-H-O-C-H. The main thing is my name is spelled S-C-H-O-C-H. So www.robertshock.com, they can go. I did a popular summary of the paper, and they can also go and download the original paper in the peer-reviewed journal, Archaeological Discovery, where we argue that what we have here is the lioness methit. She has what looks like a bent rod coming out of her back when people look at the actual image and then above it is uh axe

so that's an axe yeah it's it's a a primitive axe um when i say primitive even for the ancient egyptians in dynastic egypt it would have been sort of a symbolic axe if you would which was a sign of someone who was in charge of things, an overseer, that type of thing. The bent rod, what is that? That's a primitive key. We would now call it a primitive key, but it represents a key. And so it's basically saying that this is the guardian of the archives of Methit, the locked chamber or vault of Methit. And we also have images, I see it up on the board now, if you look at, you've got the lioness with the key, and you also have a lioness, not in that a diagrammatic shape over what looks like a facade. Okay, if you then go to the stela that sits between the paws of the Sphinx, you have the same image, much more artistically rendered, of the Sphinx sitting over a facade, over what looks

like a building. It's not really a building. It's the archive underneath, I believe. So you think there's something underneath there? Oh, I know there's something underneath because long ago, in the early 1990s, Thomas DeBecke and I, when we did seismic work around the Sphinx, we found the chamber under the paws of the Sphinx. And it's, I'm sure, an artificial chamber. It's very regular. And this, I believe, could well be, I'm hypothesizing, and in science, we make hypotheses that are testable. This is perfectly testable. All we have to do is enter that chamber, even if it's just to put a fiber optic down, and we can see, is it an artificial chamber that's an archive? Hopefully there's

still things there, or maybe it was gutted and cleaned out at some point. But here we have the seismic work, one of the seismic maps, I'll call it tomographic data. And what's labeled as anomaly A, under the left paw, that is the chamber we found under the left paw that the Egyptologists have wanted to deny ever since, and they don't want to explore it, and we haven't gotten permission to explore it yet. I mean, that doesn't make any sense to me. Well, I know, but this is...

If there's physical evidence, right? This is politics in Egypt. God, it's so squir to me. Well, I know, but this is— If there's physical evidence, right? This is politics in Egypt. God, it's so squirrely. Yeah, yeah. So now—okay, this is 1991 or so, early 1990s. As of last year, 2017, we have textual evidence, ancient hieroglyphs talking about this chamber, talking about the Sphinx, talking about the Sphinx being a lioness guarding a chamber. And I want to point out that the earliest hieroglyphs that we have that refer to this are about 3,000, 3,100 B.C., which is hundreds of years before the Egyptologists claimed the Sphinx was even thought about being carved.

Which is somewhere around 2,500 B.C.? 2,500 B.C. And that coincides with the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza? claimed the Sphinx was even thought about being carved. Which is somewhere around 2500 BC? 2500 BC. And that coincides with the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza? Okay, well, that's another question. Oh, sorry. We'll come back to that. Because I don't buy the—it's more—can we come back to that? Yes, yes, please.

Yeah. So the Egyptologists claimed that the Sphinx was first carved 2500 BC. Right. Yet there's no mention of the carving of the Sphinx then. They cite the inventory, not the inventory stela, that's another stela. They cite the Thutmose IV dream stela, which is a thousand plus years later, which had at one point a partial cartouche of Khafra, partial cartouche of Khafra, which has since flaked away.

It was there reputedly in the 19th century. There were drawings of it, which we, to put another plug in, just if people are interested in getting more information, Robert Beauval and I wrote a book last year, published last year, called Origins of the Sphinx, where we discuss a lot of this. But Mehit is a more recent discovery. where we discuss a lot of this, but Mehid is a more recent discovery. So there was a partial cartouche of Khafre, which Egyptologists said, aha, this proves that Khafre carved the Sphinx, because the Sphinx sits due east of Khafre's pyramid. Khafre was the pharaoh in 2500 BC, therefore the Sphinx must be 2500 BC.

I contend, and Robert Buval and other people who are in our line of thinking contend, that this Stella that's over a thousand years later does not say that he carved the Sphinx, but that he restored the Sphinx. Just like Thutmose IV, who was putting up the Stella, was restoring the Sphinx, but that he restored the Sphinx. Just like Thutmose IV, who was putting up the stela, was restoring the Sphinx. And when you look at the Sphinx, it has been restored numerous times, including blocks of limestone that were put onto it to restore some of the very ancient weathering that when I asked Zai Hawass, one of my biggest critics, how old those blocks are, he said they were 4th Dynasty.

Now, why would you restore it in the 4th Dynasty when it had just been built, you know, literally a century or two ago? You don't need to restore a meter worth of weathering. His answer, and I'm not trying to make fun of him, is that it's rotten rock, that it wasn't very high-quality rock. Somehow it just crumbled away a meter or so in a couple of hundred years. Well, I saw his debate with Graham Hancock. Yeah, but that's another issue.

I don't want to get into that. Because let me just say it this way. There was not just science going on there. There was politics going on. There's a lot going on. There's was politics going on. So, you know. There's a lot going on. There's a lot going on. Okay. Exactly, exactly.

I've seen it too, and I've known all these people for— It's very frustrating. Decades, yeah. So I'm trying to keep just to the science right now. Right, right, right. So he himself admits that some of these repairs go back well over 4,000 years, which makes no sense if... It's only 4,500 years old. Exactly, exactly.

And they've always contended there was no inscriptions or anything really referring to the Sphinx until New Kingdom times. We point out in Origins of the Sphinx, Robert Buval and I, that no, you have to know what they were calling the Sphinx. And now with Metit, we have inscriptions. How did they find that? And when did they find this lioness? And when did they

you're saying this is very recent? Yeah, Manu Seifsadeh, my co-author, just discovered that I don't know exactly when he found the inscription, but he first pointed it out to Robert Buval and myself about a year ago.

About a year ago, and we all worked on it and confirmed it and put together the pieces. I mean, he really gets the most credit for it. He knows his hieroglyphics really, really well. And where did they find this hieroglyphic of this lioness? those as hieroglyphics really, really well. Where did they find this hieroglyphic of this lioness? It's shown in several different ancient artifacts. So, for instance, there's a statue of Vizier from the Fourth Dynasty who may have actually overseen the construction of the Great Pyramid, or I would say the reconstruction of the Great Pyramid, or I would say the reconstruction of the Great

Pyramid, because I want to get back to that. I think the Great Pyramid, just like the Sphinx, was being reconstructed, refurbished, if you would, during the Old Kingdom, not constructed de novo. But he was overseeing that. He must have had something to do with the Sphinx. must have had something to do with the Sphinx. He was apparently given the title of being the overseer for the Sphinx, that type of thing. But it turns out this title was something he had in Khufu's time, which is the pharaoh before supposedly when the Sphinx was built to begin with. So that messes up the Egyptological thinking right there. But this title was something that had been held by others before him

back down to about 31 or so 100 BC, you know, 5,000 years ago. Again, 500 or more years before the Sphinx was supposedly built. So now we have this hieroglyphic text that goes back, refutes what the Egyptologists are saying. And not only that, but when you look at the way they write it, this is the earliest writing, so it's not surprising we don't have anything earlier. Maybe eventually we'll find earlier, you know, the precursors. But they are also in the context, it seems abundantly evident, they're referring to it as a very old structure itself. Wow. Now, how do Egyptologists receive this?

It's just making its way into the Egyptological community. We will see how they receive it. So, so far there's been no reaction? No. No. I'll just put it that way. No. Not that I know officially. Well, you've seen it all before.

I've seen it all before. And, you know, it's a classic thing, too, that in some cases, so I'll put it, relate it to the Sphinx and maybe hopefully somewhat analogous. Sphinx, and maybe hopefully somewhat analogous, I pointed out decades ago, and John Anthony West and I working on this, that the Sphinx, the head is not the original head. And I'm not sure if I'm the very first one to ever say that. I'm not going to try to take credit, but it was quite obvious to me when I, as I mentioned, without anyone saying that to me. I had not heard that someone else suggest that. Since then, Egyptologists, with of course, out ever citing me or John Anthony West, have also been suggesting that in some cases, and some have suggested that maybe it was Khufu's face on the Sphinx rather than Khafre's face after we brought in Frank Domingo, who demonstrated that's not Khafre's face. Frank Domingo, if you remember from Mystery of the Sphinx, was a New York City

police officer, forensic expert, who literally would reconstruct faces, compare faces. That was his business, and to present it in court. He analyzed the face of the Sphinx and the face of Khafre, also known as Shefron, the pharaoh. The Egyptologists before our time, before we got involved in this, always said these were the same faces, the face of the Sphinx, the face of Khafre. Frank Domingo came out very definitively that they're not the same face, and they're both competent artists. They're not, frankly, the same ethnicity of face. And for Mark Lehner to publish in National Geographic that the, I'll paraphrase him, the Sphinx came alive when he reconstructed it

with the face of Shefron or face of Khafre is just, that's not science. That's, you know, wish fulfillment or something. He wanted it to be the face of a certain pharaoh. He does a computer reconstruction with it having the face of the pharaoh he wants it to be and then passes that off as somehow, I guess, science. But Egyptology is not necessarily science either. And I'm not saying that in a nasty way, but it's an important point because Egyptology,

a lot of Egyptologists classically come more from an art history background, that type of thing. So tying in with the question you asked before, I literally, it's funny how things work, Tying in with the question you asked before, I literally, it's funny how things work, I literally, when I was in graduate school, took a seminar in sciences and other disciplines. You know, this was because I was being trained as a scientist. And one of the papers we had to read at the time, this was long before I ever thought about going to Egypt, was how Egyptologists are resistant to scientific information and scientific data and how to help, you know, try to overcome that if you're working with Egyptologists, basically, which the answer was it's very difficult. And it's not to put them

down because I have lots of colleagues in other fields that are not sciences. Right. But classically, I would contend Egyptology is not a science. It comes more from art history or from linguistic studies, you know, translating hieroglyphs, historical studies. And those are all very important academic studies. But you do sometimes get people in a certain field and they're resistant to outsiders from another field especially when they think it's a field that's so far apart and so diverse from what they understand what they know their own mindset yeah and their mindset is not geared towards scientific data yeah and i'm not again i'm not trying to be nasty it's just You don't have to explain yourself. Yeah. You're not coming across nasty. Yeah. So when you initially saw these erosion features and you – the first 30 to 90 seconds or whatever you said it was, 120 seconds, when you first looked at it and knew, did you have any idea that your life would take the turn that it's taking?

I mean, did you have any indication you would be thrown into such a shit storm all these years later? Here we are in 2018, you're still fighting the good fight. I know. As John Anthony West once said, introducing me, he ruined my life. 25 years later after that documentary, you're still swinging. I know. I know. And I'm still getting attacked. And I'm still, you know. The answer is no. I was naive. I was incredibly naive at the time.

I still was not that far out of graduate school. You thought you could just present the evidence. It would stand on its own. You just present the evidence. Exactly. This is incredible. Exactly. What a great new discovery.

Exactly. That was it. And I was so naive. And so we first present the evidence at the Geological Society of America annual meeting in 1991, I guess it was. Yeah, 1991. And I want to say bluntly, the vast majority of geologists, you know, hundreds, literally thought, oh, this is amazing. This is great. It may start making some headlines around the world. Literally, there were one or two geologists there that turns out were working for Egyptologists. They didn't think this was so great because they saw the implications for their Egyptological colleagues. And they started,

you know, a little rumbling there. Then the journalists come in back then, you know, no internet like we have it now, just phones, and the journalists start calling Egyptologists that were not there, had not seen the data, etc. Immediately, they were telling the journalists that this has to all be nonsense, that hundreds of Egyptologists have studied this for, you know, two or three centuries, which is total nonsense. It turns out I knew every Egyptologist, because there's so few that have actually studied the Sphinx personally. It's really just two, Mark Lehner and Zaya Hawass. So, yeah, they were just trying to dismiss it. And then the Egyptologists come back and say, we know this is nonsense, essentially. I'm paraphrasing.

We know that the pyramids were not built by aliens, so they start bringing aliens and UFOs to essentially— Just to dismiss you. Dismiss me. And I wasn't talking about— Total trauma. Yeah, I wasn't talking about pyramids, number one. We could talk about that if you want to. And I wasn't talking about aliens.

They hadn't been there. They hadn't seen the data. It was so bizarre in hindsight. And I was so frustrated. Trying to defend their positions. Yeah. And they were just, they were really just attacking. And then in Egypt at one point, they were putting things in the Arabic press.

Little did they know I have enough friends that would read it to me. And they were saying that I wasn't even a faculty member at Boston University, which is an outright lie since I'd just been tenured. So there was no doubt I was a faculty member there. But this was other academics saying this, but they never thought it would get back to me. I mean, really, really mean and nasty. So getting back to me? I mean, really, really mean and nasty. So, getting back to the evidence, so they set up, and this was, I think, unprecedented. Within months, they'd set up this debate at the AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science. And I thought, again, I was so naive, I thought, oh, this is wonderful. Finally, we'll get rid of all this nonsense and this name-calling and the stuff in the popular press that journalists, you can't blame them.

They don't know what's going on necessarily. And we'll really get the evidence out and we'll be able to discuss it sanely and objectively. Turns out that wasn't the case at all. It was just from my perspective, they were just calling me more names and trying to set up straw men. Is this Egyptologist who was in that documentary who dismissed everything? Yeah, that was Mark Lehner. Is he still around? Oh, yeah.

And has he amended his position at all? Not to my knowledge. I haven't spoken with him for years and years and years. Did you ever speak with him off the record personally alone? Yeah. I'll tell you this. He didn't say it was off the record. I guess it was off the record.

I don't think I would have said this years ago but I'll say it now. At that debate, at that debate, AAAS debate, he, I just suddenly found myself

in a hall with him and there was no one else around. So he could totally deny this, but it's true, my perspective at least. He said something to me like, you know, you don't really believe this. I know you don't really believe this. You just want to be on television and, you know, be famous or something like that. He said, I said, no, I really do believe it. Or, you know, I really go by the evidence.

And I do think the evidence says this. And he sort of was telling me that, no, you don't. You know, he was like, I don't know, analyzing me. Hypnotizing you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're getting sleepy. And then what he does is he starts asking me a question, some detailed question about the geology. And, well, if that's the case, how can such and such?

And I think in hindsight it might have been fed to him by some geoarchaeologist, as they call it, someone who does archaeology but knows a little geology. geology. And I realized in hindsight, it was meant to be one of those got you questions, I guess they say nowadays, where I wouldn't be able to answer it. But no, of course, I thought about it. It was, to me as a geologist, very obvious. So I start giving him this detailed explanation as to why that's not the case and why my evidence stands up, blah, blah, blah. And we're standing there face to face. I'm explaining this to him, and I see his face sort of turn, and it goes blank. And I'm in mid-sentence. He just turns around and walks away.

So he realized he couldn't refute what you were saying geologically. No, he couldn't refute what I was saying, and he wasn't really answering. My takeaway is that he wasn't interested in discussing it rationally or answer you know he just wanted to um win the debate or whatever he and when he knew that he wasn't going to with you he just got out of there yeah yeah wow and again you know it was a just a personal thing there was no other witnesses to my knowledge of this. But if he had really wanted to discuss things, I was willing to discuss it with him. That's not what he wanted. It's so disturbing that someone would put their own ego so far above the information that needs

to be distributed to scholars and people and students and all these folks out there that have questions about the history of the human race that someone would put their own reputation and ego above all of that and not have the the the mindset to realize well we have new evidence and what we thought of before we're going to have to apply to this new evidence and create a new timeline it doesn't dismiss all the things they learned in the past no no that's something in fact i'm glad you brought that up because I've long contended that people talk about rewriting history, et cetera. Well, yes, I understand that argument. And I think we do need to rewrite

good chunks of our very early history, but I've never denied dynastic Egypt and the basic chronology for dynastic Egypt. Now, what I say is that we've got a whole new chapter to add to it going back in time, plus, and I want to mention the Great Pyramid here, plus things like the Great Pyramid, the standard dating for the Great Pyramid is, let's say, 2550 BC or so, the pharaoh Khufu, also known as Cheops, just in case people hear those terms. I don't deny that he had something to do with the Great Pyramid,

but when I study it geologically, and I don't want to get into great detail here, when I study it geologically, I think there was an older structure there. I think there was something else there. For instance, the subterranean chamber, I suspect, goes back much earlier than the time of Fourth Dynasty Khufu. So, for instance, to bring in Robert Buval, he has his Orion correlation of the three pyramids to the belt stars of Orion, which correlate very well at about 10,500 BC. So he'll talk, and we talk about this in our joint book, Origins of the Sphinx,

how there was a master plan going back to that period. A lot of people have said, well, that's nonsense. Why would they be following a master plan thousands of years later when they finally got around to building these structures? I don't think that's the case at all. I think there were earlier markers or structures at those spots. The pyramids in this case, those three major pyramids, were built over or enhanced or restored older structures, if that makes sense. So for instance, under the Great Pyramid is what I call the Sacred Mound. It's actually literally a stone outcropping mound. And Jean-Paul Buval, Robert Buval's older brother, is actually an architect. Robert Buval himself was trained as an engineer

they both make the point among other things that if you're building the Great Pyramid I mean this is a humongous structure with incredible weight it's much easier to flatten the plateau at that point and get a nice level base rather than try to build over and around a mound that's to this day incorporated within the Great Pyramid. This takes a lot more energy and work and is a much more difficult engineering feat, but it makes sense if you want to preserve that, if it was sacred to

them or whatever, that older structure. Do we have images of this older structure? You can't see it at this point because it's totally covered, but we have something very analogous. And I know you mentioned this when John Anthony West was on, the Red Pyramid is also built over an older structure. And you can see that to this day in one of the chambers where you have this much older structure. I'm talking geologically now based on the evidence. Then we have some images there where you have this older weathered structure, which I believe goes back, I don't know how much older, but thousands of years older. Let's just leave it at that.

And then they built the pyramid over it and around it, I think marking it, you know, refurbishing a much older structure. And you could tell by the weathering of the stones. The weathering of the stone. The way they're constructed. Exactly. And you can see the sharp divide between the older structure and the newer structure, which is nice, finely cut stone. And that newer structure goes back earlier than the Great Pyramid. I mean, this is Sneferu.

This is even earlier by a generation. So you have this where they're using in dynastic Egypt older structures. They're reappropriating them. You have a case here. I believe you have that with the Great Pyramid. I believe you have that with the Second Pyramid. You have that with the Sphinx most definitely and the Valley Temple and the Sphinx most definitely and the Valley

Temple and the Sphinx Temple. The first piece of evidence that really convinced me that something was going on with the Sphinx. So the first evidence that I saw that made me suspicious, that the Egyptologists did not have it right, was within that first 30 to 120 seconds that I described, the weathering and the heads too small. The first piece of really solid evidence was looking at the walls of the Sphinx and Valley Temple that were constructed from the stones that came out of the Sphinx enclosure. We talked about that.

They are weathered, but then they were cut back a little bit. That weathering was cut back, and they were resurfaced or refaced with granite in dynastic times, it's believed. So what you have is an older structure, and here's a diagram for anyone that's looking at, but what you have is older limestone temples, which are massive, which were then faced with granite. But what they did, they did it the hard way. They preserved as much of the older limestone temple as possible before refacing it with granite. So they actually took the time in some cases to cut the backs of the granite blocks to fit the weathered surface of the limestone. Wow. It would have been much easier. You have plenty of rock there.

Just skim down the limestone totally, make a nice flat surface, and then replaster, so to speak, regrinded it. Wow. So instead of chipping away the old rock, they chipped away the new rock and put it into place. Yes, because I think it was important for them.

It's like if we have a national monument now that goes back to Revolutionary War days. You want to preserve as much of the original structure as possible even if it makes it more difficult to do the restoration. You put the effort into it. Just to clarify, so you feel that this time period of the coronal mass ejections was somewhere around 10,000 BC well 9700 BC and I say that very specifically because based on Greenland ice core data in particular you can literally count back right year by year and the best estimate is about 9,700 BC, you know, take a decade or something. So from that point to 2,500 BC, which is where most conventional Egyptologists date the construction of the pyramid,

you believe that the Great Pyramid was probably built on top of this great mound, which represented an older structure. But these are the people that their civilization was destroyed. That's right. And then thousands of years later were able to somehow or another rebuild these incredible structures. Thousands of years later. Well, I don't know if they were rebuilding a pyramid as it was before or they were building a new pyramid on top of it. They obviously had retained some of the incredible wisdom and knowledge.

Yeah, exactly. Well, think of it to this day. I'll think of Judeo-Christianism. I mean, we still have like the Temple Mound. We have places where we know that there were older structures, Solomon's temple, et cetera, and maybe only a fragment of it is left, but it's still held in high esteem, veneration. Modern structures are built around or over these relics. I think that's somewhat of an analogy of what we're looking at. The Acropolis and the Parthenon.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you have veneration of older, if I could use that, and I'm not necessarily using religious terms. I mean, it could just be respect. Yes. So I think that for all three of the major pyramids on the Giza Plateau, we have evidence that there was something there, whether they were pyramids as we see them now, which is quite a possibility, and they were just refurbished or something else.

We have evidence that goes back to that much earlier period before the demise of high civilization, if I could put it that way, at the end of the last ice age. And then it was reappropriated, reused, rebuilt, restored, whatever term you want to use, in dynastic Egyptian times. I want to give you another example. Have you been to Egypt? No, I have not. I didn't think you had. You need to come. I'm scared. I need to show this to you in person. I would love to go with you You need to come. I'm scared. I need to show this to you in person. I'm a chicken.

I would love to go with you. You're a chicken? I'm a chicken. I'm scared to go to Egypt. I heard it's dangerous. Not with me. Not with me. Oh, you're the boss? You take care of everything? No, no. I have enough contacts. I have enough contacts. Okay. I will go with you. Immediately. We have to do that. We'll make something happen. Yeah. Definitely.

Definitely. I wanted to point something out to just give people a perspective of time that 2,500 years ago, the conventional dating of the construction of the Great Pyramids, Cleopatra is closer to the construction of the iPhone than she is to the construction of the Great Pyramids. That's how long a history you're dealing with when it comes to ancient Egypt. So we're talking about thousands and thousands of years for sure. This is for sure thousands of years. What we absolutely know, forget about all the speculation, just from Cleopatra to the 2500 BC,

which is what almost all the Egyptologists accept, you're dealing with just a giant leap. That's right. We could see it here. That's right. And we are closer to the dynastic Egyptians, even the old kingdom dynastic Egyptians, we are closer to them in time than they were to the end of the last ice age

and the demise of that earlier civilization. Because the dynastic Egyptian, dynastic Egypt arose rough terms 5,000 years ago. That was about 3,000 BC. That was, they arose over 6,000 years after, close to 7,000 years after the end of the last ice age. That's crazy. Yeah. That's hard for people. So we're talking real spans of time here.

And you're looking at, we're looking at a chart right here. Is there anywhere, is there a place where other people can go and see this? Yes, they can go see a chart like this is on my website. In the SIDA article. If you go to my website, Robert Schock, again www.robertschock s-c-h-o-c-h dot com, and go to the

website, you'll see charts like this, but what you should do is go to the main page of the website and then I believe it is research highlights. Go to what's called research highlights. Actually, I think for those on the podcast are seeing here and then go to what's called the SIDA article.

S-I-D-A. And this is what we're looking at. We're looking at it on the website now. Yeah, which stands for solar-induced dark age, SIDA. And again, it's ironic, I think, that the sun, which of course is bright, could induce a dark age. But when you have a major eruption like this, a major outburst from the sun hitting Earth and all the ramifications we were talking about, it's going to bring any civilization down. To its knees.

To its knees. Thousands and thousands of years of rebuilding civilization and rising back up to some still unbelievably incredible technological level so even if they did rebuild the pyramid at 2500 bc it's still this incredible feat oh it's incredible even for 2500 bc before if i could just finish a thought that i started to have i was saying we have to go egypt together okay and i could show you some of this. We could do a podcast there maybe. Oh, snap. Might have to. Yeah. I would take you, among other things, around the second pyramid.

The second pyramid, you can see evidence, I would point out to you, that I interpret as going back to earlier structure. Furthermore, the second pyramid, few people seem to pay attention to this, has a ring of granite around the base. That's significant because they were using granite in many cases, and conventional Egyptologists have confirmed this verbally with me. They would use granite when they were indicating they were restoring an older structure. And there's no question that granite goes back to the fourth dynasty, just like there's no question that the granite on the valley in Sphinx Temple goes back to at least the fourth dynasty, if not earlier, but they're using it to restore.

So we have all of this indication that dynastic Egypt acknowledged that they were restoring older structures. So getting back to where we were just on the Great Pyramid. So no matter how you look at it, to try to build a Great Pyramid today, whether you're talking 2500 BC or earlier, I mean, how were they doing it? How were they doing it? I don't know. I told you. It's amazing. I'm not going to try to get into how they did. They did it.

It's there. You know, have I thought about it a lot? Yes. Whether I'm there in Egypt, on site, or elsewhere, I mean, it's incredible. Is it possible? But I don't have any answer for you. Is it possible that the people in that part of the world somehow or another survived the coronal mass ejection and they came out better than the people in other parts of the world that were really knocked into the Stone Age? No, I don't think there's any evidence for that because we seem to have a huge gap around the world.

Around the world. The Siddha gap. But they still— the historical gap. Now, what they were doing in Egypt is incomparable, one could argue. So it may well be that they found all the right materials, all the right environments. The Nile Valley is in its height, which it's not in its height now. At the end of Sida, let's say, for reemergence, may have just been, I hate to say the Goldilocks words, but just right for everything to come together for this to come together. It's a very fertile area.

It's very easily defended, that type of thing. And also, I do want to tie in with what you were saying. It is, and I've certainly thought about this, it is possible that we are electrical and the fluctuating electric fields and magnetic fields, did they have some influence or if I'm brain development or, you know, that's real speculation, but I wouldn't say it's impossible either. So these people, is it possible that they retained some of the knowledge from thousands? Oh, I think they definitely retain some knowledge, just like we have monasteries in Europe during the dark ages, retaining knowledge. And what's interesting is in some cases you would retain chunks of knowledge that don't even make sense out of context, except that they know they're important. They know they're valuable.

What kind of examples do you have? Well, I think in Europe where you would have pieces of technology that would be retained, but you don't have the whole complex. Or think in literary terms. That's probably the easiest, where you have parts of like a history of Alexander where the whole thing did not survive, but six out of nine chapters or whatever survived. And even though they knew it was an incomplete manuscript, they would make numerous copies of that incomplete manuscript knowing that it was important to keep it. Sort of like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Oh, yeah. There's another example. Although the Dead Sea Scrolls potentially were absolutely complete, or at least most of them were complete when they were buried and put away for storage, a lot of the incomplete list there may be because they degraded, because they were discovered by, you know, locals who then tore them apart and sold pieces here or there. I'm referring more to a situation where you have ancient knowledge or ancient manuscripts, and even though, say, the monks in a monastery knew that this was not a complete manuscript. They knew that even in its incompleteness, it was important to maintain as much of it as possible. It's just stunning that a civilization that was knocked down

like every other civilization, somehow or another 2,500 BC rose to this incredible level of construction that is just unparalleled anywhere else on the planet Earth. Oh, yeah, and it did it very, very quickly. Very quickly, which I think is indicative potentially that they were reusing knowledge that had been passed down and somehow maybe things just clicked together. Maybe it took one genius to start putting things together and that set off a renaissance, if you would. I mean we've seen that historically in much more recent times.

And maybe perhaps the understanding of how it was built and designed is more prevalent amongst the civilization, amongst the community, than maybe it would be today. Yeah. So, I mean, there's still a lot of unanswered questions here, obviously. Yeah, obviously. It's incredible, incredible stuff. But I think we're starting to get more toward an answer or at least getting the broader outlines of what is going on. Wow. It's so fascinating to think that this could potentially happen to us. Wow. It's so fascinating to think that this could potentially happen to us. Well, it's not only fascinating. I hate to use the term. It's scary. And I think we're incredibly vulnerable and people are not addressing this. It's not the type of thing

to address for some reason because a major solar outburst and coronal mass ejection and all the related phenomena, we mentioned this earlier, would bring down modern technology. As we know, it would fry the grid system. You would have high radiation levels. You'd probably have all the flooding. I mean, look what happens now when you have little floods. And I say that as a geologist, not to downplay the horrible disasters we've had. But other factors, for instance, we have nuclear power plants all around the world.

We've seen that with a few isolated instances, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima recently. What happens when you have problems with those? If you cut off power to a nuclear power plant, it's ironic. A lot of people don't realize it. Yes, they generate power, but they need a power supply going into them. If you fry the grid system, you're essentially going to have meltdowns and radiation. You're going to have problems. And on top of everything else, we're going to bring on this artificial radiation around the world. And again, I'm not saying this, I mean, I don't and again, I'm not saying this,

I mean, I don't have anything to sell. You know, sometimes I hear people talk about this because they want to sell their prepping kit and now they're going to say, oh, for so much money, I'll sell you, no. Jim Baker style. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But no, and I hate to even talk about it, except I think it's important.

And I think that one of the things, this gets back to that, it's not just sort of academic to study ancient civilization. It's not just fun and interesting. But I think there are things to learn from this. And one of the things to learn is that they survived incredible. Well, I don't know if they survived, but they were knocked to their knees. But they went through natural catastrophes, which are not unrealistic that we could go through them again and be potentially much more vulnerable than they are, than they were at that time. Because we're so reliant on electronics.

Yeah. Are there any hieroglyphs that are convincing or at least point to some of the construction methods of the pyramid or of any of the other giant structures? Well, you said convincing. I would say no. No. I would say no. And this gets into the problem too, that why would you expect that? I'm serious. Because what we have surviving are generally religious, somewhat literary, things in tombs. Now, I don't buy for a second that the Great

Pyramid was a tomb or initially a tomb. That's like saying a huge cathedral is just a tomb because you find a couple of bodies there. And you've never actually found bodies in the Great Pyramid or any of the major pyramids. And as you know, I know you know this, the pyramid construction goes downhill as you go into later dynastic Egypt. So they seem to have either gotten sloppier or just lost some of the technological finesse they had. So you find in some of the tombs these what almost seem silly pictures of them dragging huge statues on, you know, sledges where they're supposedly pouring

oil or water in front of it to lubricate it. And, you know, the Egyptologists say, aha, this is how they built it all. Well, try doing that in real life. It doesn't really work. So I think some of that may just be sort of artistic license or metaphor, that type of thing.

Do you have any images of that? Well, not that I brought with me. But my point is that you wouldn't even expect them to be leaving detailed construction plans or that we wouldn't necessarily find them. Maybe we'll get lucky, find someday. But put it this way, if they find a bunch of iPhones 12,000 years from now or 5,000 years from now, whichever period we want to talk about, will they know what they are? Will they know what they are? And even if they know what they are, will they find the plans of how to build one and the factory specifications of all the engineering that goes into it? No.

So why would you expect it for the Great Pyramid? Right. But, well – It would be a lucky find if you did. And how much was lost in the – But the odds are against it. And not to throw out too much academia type stuff, but one of the things I studied as a graduate school is I took a series of courses in taphonomy, which is basically how do things get preserved, focusing on fossils. But the principles apply to other things as well. And as you go back in time, what you expect to survive logarithmically drops off. So you go back to

these earlier periods. It's amazing we have much of anything. And what's going to survive? Big, massive stone structures. Not the plans on papyrus or sheepskin or whatever of the details of how to build it. That's why what I found particularly offensive about that Egyptologist saying, where's the evidence of this culture from 10,500 years ago? Like, what do you expect to find? Yeah, exactly. Like, this is, we're talking about, you know. What we find from that earlier period, if you think about our massive stone monumental structure.

Yeah, everything else would be grounded in dust. It was incinerated. It was grounded in dust. Or it was reused in some cases. Sometimes people say, well, how could they do that without metal tools? Well, maybe metallurgy does go back further. Maybe it was lost and then reinvented again. So, again, I don't deny the standard time frame,

but there could be a lot of things going back before that. And if you have metal, and I'm not trying to focus on metal now, and I'm not making any big claims about metallurgy at earlier time, but let's just say, for instance, as a thought experiment, if you had metallurgy much earlier than conventional timeframe says, and you had a natural catastrophe like that, are they just going to leave their metal tools all over the place? No, they collect all the scraps of metal possible and recycle and reuse and reuse.

We do that to this day. I mean, people got, in Massachusetts at least, if you have a warehouse and you're not paying attention to it all the time, it's an old warehouse. There have been cases where people have found someone broke in, not to steal the things in the warehouse, but to steal the copper piping. Right. Yeah, that's very common. Some of the more interesting pieces of evidence that came out of the Great Pyramid and a lot of the other structures of Egypt have been the pottery that's incredibly difficult to reproduce, like those stone vases. Yeah, yeah. Well, you just made a mistake. I'm not criticizing you.

Oh, I said pottery? You said pottery because it's an important distinction. Right. It's not pottery. It's not made out of clay and fired in a kiln. It's carved out of stone. It's literally carved out of really hard stone, which will crack easily if you don't do it just right. So it looks like pottery. And that's—you used the term colloquially.

You put it that way. It looks like pottery because that's how people imagine, you know, it looks like a beautifully shaped pot. But some of these, they go back to the earliest dynastic Egypt and probably much earlier. They are carved out of really hard granites and schists and nice, you know, these really hard stones and to incredible tolerances and incredibly thin, incredibly beautifully carved. And what's importantly too, very small opening. Very small opening. Into a bulbous bottom. Exactly. And how do you do this?

I mean, it's just incredible. When you have to come to Egypt with us. Okay. And when we do, we'll look at some of these on site. There's a bunch in the Karim Museum. There's some at a museum at Saqqara. Here we go. Where are they on? No, that's ceramic. That's not even a the Karu Museum. There's some at a museum at Saqqara. Here we go. Where are they on – that's not even a nice one.

That's a mace. It looks like a mace header or that's a jar. But that's not what we're talking about. That's not – there's much, much nicer. Nicer in the sense of the finesse of how they carved it. What was the material they were carved out of? Did you say marble? Different.

Marble is the easier ones to do. They would carve them out of diorite, granite, gneiss, which is a metamorphic stone, schist. These are really hard stones. How do you spell diorite? D-I-O-R-I-T-E, I believe. Try that because that's what I'm pretty sure I saw one of them that was carved out of that. And so what's the – So what I was saying is that these are really hard to carve.

They use very narrow openings like you said. Sometimes they put handles on them. So they're not just spinning them on a lathe because how would you get the handles on it because that's not put on separately. It's all carved from one. Look at that. Look at that. There's a nice one. That's one of the stone vessels.

And thousands of these have been found going back to the earliest dynastic times. But what's suggested, yeah, there's how they were carved according probably to the standard Egyptologist. Now, try to do that without cracking it, without making a mistake, et cetera. Well, explain what we're looking at. We're looking at some sort of a it looks like a mace. Yeah, a mace that they would use to then scratch out the inside.

And maybe they did it and just took a long time. Well, what's the speculation other than that? Look at the one right above it, Jamie, that red one. The red one right above your cursor. That one's incredible. Yeah, they're absolutely incredible and we can see these on site. So what's the speculation?

The speculation is that they were doing it the same way they were doing in New Kingdom times. So when you look at them in New Kingdom times, as a general rule, you get things similar to this. New Kingdoms, let's say 1500 BC, just for round numbers. You get similar types of vases and whatnot, but they're actually, to my eye, much cruder generally. They're made out of softer stone, more your calcites and limestones and marbles, that type of thing. They generally are just not, they don't have the same artistic finesse to them, the same perfection to them. And the New Kingdom Egyptians did show diagrams, as we just saw, of how they did it, or supposedly did it. And that may well be how they were doing it. But I

question as a geologist whether that would really work for these beautiful, harder stone, much more perfect in my assessment, older ones that you find going back to the earliest dynasties. And you find in some cases thousands of them. So at Saqqara, the step pyramid, generally considered the oldest pyramid, although I would question that. But it's definitely an old pyramid, even by Egyptological standards. You found thousands of these really well-carved ones from the harder stone, the more artistic ones, if we could call it that, sort of a huge hoard of them. I don't even think they were necessarily carved at that time. I think this may have been a hoard that they had preserved from thousands of years earlier. Wow. Sort of a stockpile or museum, if you would. In fact, what we're finding for many of these, quote, tombs and temples, not temples, tombs and pyramids, that type of thing, is that maybe essentially they were stockpiles.

They were the equivalent of, you know, fallout shelters, if you would, where you stock away supplies, that type of thing. That may have been part of the original structure. Some of these had very long necks, too. Very, very long necks. Bulbous bottoms. Exactly. Insanely difficult. The ones that you pulled up were good, but there's ones that were much more complicated.

Yeah, some of them are insanely difficult. Some of them have all kinds of curves to them. And what you have to be careful, as I was saying, is that you have the really well finessed very ancient ones and then you have ancient ones that are from the new kingdom only three thousand three thousand five hundred years old yeah yeah and then what you have and I could show you one and if it's still on display in the Egyptian Museum I say still on display because they changed displays and they're

building a new Grand Egyptian Museum, as they call it. So it's hard to know. This is in Egypt? Yeah, in Egypt, when we go to Egypt, right? Okay. Now, what's the specter list, please? I can show you one where I'm convinced that it's a very old bowl that was then reused in later times. So you see this cruder hieroglyphic inscription on it, and you just look at it, and you say, someone that could carve that incredible bowl would not have done such a crude inscription on it.

You see what I mean? Right. where they would carve on them later, so reappropriate them in later dynastic times, which is still thousands of years ago, so very ancient from our personal perspective, but they were reusing older structures. Wow. And older artifacts. The whole subject is so fascinating to me, but this bowl thing is very weird because it's almost like one of the crazier pieces of evidence, but it's dismissed.

It's like right under your nose. Oh, it's absolutely dismissed. And it's not unlike – and I only think of this because I know you saw it. If you remember, because I watched recently, to refresh my memory, the podcast where you interviewed John Anthony West. And he showed a picture, which happened to be my hand. But in my hand was a little bead that was found at Quebec Le Tape. And the thing is, remember that little bead had this, it was a very hard, probably volcanic stone, and a little teeny hole drilled all the way through it the long way. So you had a drilling that's,

you know, a centimeter or more long going through. It's not just a little hole punched through, but a little tunnel going through. There it is. And, you know, how do you do that with, quote, primitive technology? That to me is as amazing as the erection of the pillars. Wow. You know, so you have to look at both small-scale and large-scale. And like you say, the bowls may be something you hold in your hand, but they're just as incredible technology. Just like if people were to judge us today, 10,000 years from now, they'd say that iPhone is incredible technology. is incredible technology even this small scale just like i guess they would maybe say if anything survives of them uh some high rise was a incredible and this is gobekli tepe is that what you just

pulled up jamie these images and what are these images of it looks like nail heads or something like that yeah are they they call them ear plugs or ear plugs some people claim that no one really knows exactly what they are ear Earplugs? Yeah. Well, you know, not earplugs and plug your ears. Oh, like posts. Yeah, earrings and things. I don't know exactly what those are supposed to be.

Yeah, they call them buttons there sometimes. What is the speculation on the construction methods of those complicated bowls? What do people believe they did? What, the bowls? The Egyptian ones we're talking about? Is there any speculation? Is there anything that's interesting to you? Well, yeah, the speculation is that they may have been using some kind of lathe for it,

at least in part. But the problem is you can't turn it and still have the handle sticking out if you do standard work on a spinning lathe type of thing. So there's something else that has to be going on there. I was going to say part of the problem with any of this knowledge being passed down right up until at least the 1600s, early 1700s, you know, there were guild systems where you would retain knowledge of how you do certain technological things. And I think that may go back to very, very ancient times.

But you don't want to just give out the knowledge to anyone. But again, I've heard no good, compelling, in my mind, explanations to how these things were made. Now, one of the things that they found in the king's chamber was what they referred to as, did they call it a sarcophagus? Yeah, they call it a sarcophagus. I prefer the term coffer, and it's made out of granite, aswan granite. Coffer, meaning almost like a treasure chest? Yeah, a treasure chest or a big chest or box, that type of thing.

It's missing its lid. And a sarcophagus represents something you put a body in. Yeah. You don't think that's correct? No, correct. That's why I don't like lid and the sarcophagus represents something you put a body in yeah you don't think that's correct no correct that's why i don't like calling it sarcophagus coffer is more um generic should we say right and doesn't the the king's chamber has some of the more complicated stones right larger oh it has it's lined with granite yeah so the the primary construction The primary construction material for the Great Pyramid is limestone. Right.

Some of the limestone was quarried pretty much on site, and you can still see the quarries there. Other high-quality limestone, known as Tura limestone, was brought from across the Nile. And you can still see the Tura limestone quarries. And then granite was used for parts of the construction, particularly to line the king's chamber. And this granite was brought from southern Egypt, brought up, brought down the Nile, I should say, from the south to the north. The Nile flows from the south to the north. And itile flows from the south to the north. And it's Aswan granite, and you're talking about huge blocks of stone. Up to 90 tons or so have been the estimates for those particular stones in the king's chamber. So when you go into the king's chamber, it's totally lined with this beautiful red Aswan granite.

You've got this big coffer there that, you know, if they give you permission, you can lie in, and it's a neat feeling to lie in, and a lot of people have, you know, all kinds of experiences, et cetera. It's just really incredible. But it is these, this lining is so perfect and so well fit together, and you have this, you know, all the sides, the roof, the ceiling, the roof, our ceiling of it, the walls of it, the floor of it, the coffer there. And then

you have what they know called star shafts or air shafts that go out to the north and south. That's what Robert Beauvoir has worked on in part. And then above the king's chamber, you have the so-called relief chambers or relieving chambers, which you can't get into normally. I've been in there a few times. But you have to get special permission. They have to put a ladder up from the Grand Gallery, and you go through this little snake hole, so to speak, to get up there. But there's these chambers above it which seem to serve no function. That's why they're called relief chambers or relieving chambers because there was early speculation that somehow they helped distribute the weight of the Great Pyramid.

But from an engineering point of view, they don't seem to work. Or it doesn't seem to make any difference. I mean, the rest of the pyramid is solid and other pyramids are solid and don't collapse without why do they call the king's chamber it's called the king's chamber basically the arabs called it that because their concept was if i remember correctly that men would have a chamber with a flat ceiling on it the queen chamber, which is lower down in the pyramid, has an inverted V-shaped ceiling to it. And they thought that was for the queen, that would be female. The king's chamber would be for the male. It's also the more impressive chamber. Right, but it's purely speculation. Oh, it's purely speculation. Yeah, it's purely speculation. Now, the coffer, this giant stone box, one of the things that I read was that the way it was built,

they believed that it was possible that cores were drilled out. Yeah, yeah, probably the core. And we have good evidence for that going back to earliest dynastic times, if not earlier, that they, I forget what you call it in modern times, but you have a drill bit that is circular in shape and it drills out a core. So, you know, they were drilling granite. Again, if it's still on display, I could show you in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, sarcophagi, which probably really were sarcophagi, or at least big granite boxes, where they were sawing the granite.

In fact, not only were they sawing it, it looks like they were using high-speed saws because in some cases they would make a little mistake and then have to back off and then go at it again. You don't do that if you're, in my opinion, if you're doing it by hand, you know, back and forth with. Right. So you think there's some sort of machinery involved? There's some kind of machining they were using in very ancient times. Once you open your eyes to it, you see it, where you see it seems to be high-speed machinery. But there's no speculation as to how they were doing it? Oh, there's lots of speculation.

I mean, some people say they had electric motors and electricity and all that type of thing. I like how you say some people, though. Yeah, some people. I don't go there because I want real evidence. So I see real evidence that they were doing things that seem really unbelievable

from a standard status quo conventional point of view, say the standard Egyptological point of view of how, quote, how primitive they were. Right. But I'm not into speculating inordinately as to, well, what kind of technology they might have had. I just don't know at this point. Yeah. So are there images of the inside of the sarcophagus?

Like we could get a look at what that looks like? Oh, it's not very impressive. I'm sure he could probably, I don't know if you can see the drill marks easily. No. But, you know, they're there. You can see other places. So for instance, when we go into the Valley Temple next to it, there's one of the doors that was on huge hinges. And I don't think you're going to find pictures of this on the Internet because it's very hard to photograph. But when you look at that in person, you can see how they drilled out, you know, the hinge several inches in diameter and did a core drill. Because you can still see, if I remember there, you can still see the sort of the stub where it broke off. Oh, wow. Yeah, you can see how they

were using sophisticated techniques to do this. But no idea whatsoever about how they were doing that. Well, put it this way. I'm not speculating that they had such things, but you can tell in modern times that someone used a power saw or a power drill or this type of tool or that type of tool. Thousands of years from now, you might be able to still see that. Like this table. Yeah, and like be able to interpret it. But you don't have a single example of the tool that was actually used for it. Right, right, right. You know, I mean, these guys, I sometimes almost find it silly when people say,

well, you know, how could, oh, yeah, there, that's a nice example of it. Okay, there we go. That's a good example. Yeah, that's actually probably the one I was just talking about. So this is a borehole. Yeah, a borehole.

And you can see how it was spinning. You can see how they were cutting down quite a bit in each turn. Wow. So I almost find it—I don't almost find it, I do find it silly sometimes when people say to me, the critics, the skeptics, oh, you know, if they were doing all this stuff, well, where's examples of their tools? well I mean how many guys just leave you know they walk away from a site and they leave their toolbox there you know or even or forget I mean all the

mechanics I've ever known and people like that they're very careful to pick up every tool and put it back and make sure they've got all their equipment before they leave the site well go to the Empire State Building and try to find a hammer yeah exactly no that completely makes sense but man Well, go to the Empire State Building and try to find a hammer. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah.

No, that completely makes sense. But, man, I would just like to know, like, what were they doing? Like, how did they make that hole? That's a massive, massive mystery right in front of everyone's face. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And what's the standard Egyptologist explanation. They don't have one? They don't really have one.

They just shrug their shoulders. Oh, we see that all the time. Well, great. You see it all the time. But it reminds me of this is maybe silly, but I'm going to say it anyway. No, I don't know. Well, I'll say it anyway.

Supposedly, analogy, you know, if you're used to something i'll put it this way if you're used to seeing something on a regular basis you start you stop questioning it just becomes um common yes to you but you don't really question it it's like technology today how many people could explain how even the most rudimentary sense how some of the technology works that we have today? The Egyptologists seem to – they just get immune to it.

They see all this fabulous stuff and they just forget that, well, this was made somehow. We don't really know how it was made. made then they again go back to the simplistic explanations of oh you know on some new kingdom or late period we have this illustration this must be how they did it and i'm not convinced that that's always how they did it what is the illustration it could be almost just like a little cartoon right do they have any illustrations oh yeah i remember where they they would have a drill and some stones around it as weights to keep it spinning. No, I haven't seen that. Maybe I have.

Yeah, you might have had. Yeah. Yeah. So you think that's just purely speculation? Yeah. Or it could be sort of the equivalent of modern cartoons of, you know, simple explanation of how something works. of, you know, simple explanation of how something works. And a lot of that is really more to say, okay, if you're a watchmaker,

let's say 200 years ago you're a watchmaker, you might have some sign that indicates you're a watchmaker, but don't try to take that sign as a blueprint of how you actually made watches. Right, right. If that makes sense. No, it does. It does. So when they constructed that coffer, they somehow or another bored? Yeah, they probably bored down, maybe bored in the quarters, bored down, broke out pieces. This is speculation now.

And broke it out. And then once you've got it roughed out, then polish the surfaces, that type of thing. roughed out, then polished the surfaces, that type of thing. So, you know, if you leave any traces of how it was actually constructed, that's not as good as if there are no traces, more or less, you know, it's not as good a job. You look at something like the statue of Khafra, or Shefron. This is an incredible statue in the Egyptian Museum again. It's the one that has the face of the pharaoh that supposedly was the face of the sphinx, which they don't match up at all. It has the hawk on its shoulders.

It has the hawk on its shoulders. That statue is absolutely incredible. It's so smoothly polished, et cetera. You have to look very hard to find any tool marks or evidence of how it was carved because, you know, a really good workmanship, you remove all that ultimately. So that's part of the problem with some of this really high-quality Egyptian work is that they would remove the traces. Yeah, there it is. They would remove the traces of how it was made. And in that image, on the side of it, you see that sort of plasma formation. Yes, absolutely, because this ties in.

This is why I brought an image of this, because it ties in with that whole scenario. And it has the circles as well. It has the circles as well, exactly. Very observant. And think about the bird-headed man, the hawk. And this incredible statue, if you view it face on, you don't see the bird. From the side, you see the bird. God, it's incredible. all this stuff is so fascinating

so I think it really all goes back to this very early formative period if you would, this really important period for humanity and what was happening, there's a head on view and there you don't see the bird at all of course

but incredible and to have me carve something like that today you don't see the bird at all of course but incredible and i mean carve something like that today i don't know what it would cost who you could pay i've heard you know this is anecdotal but i've talked to stone cutters and that type of thing and you know to try to duplicate some of what they see in e, I mean, it just would take them so long and so much work and it would be so expensive. With modern power tools. With modern power tools that they basically say, you know, who could do it? Do you have any fear that this information is going to be lost? I mean, you're so far down this track of sort of explaining these things and these revolutionary theories about what happened.

And I don't, this is, I mean, I've been studying this for a long time, and this is the first time I'm hearing it. So that's why you need to be on your show, right? I'm so glad you're here. To get the sound to the public, yeah. You're so far down this road. Is there anyone else that's doing the same kind of work? Is there anybody else that's with you on this? Well, I think I'm the one that's doing this right now, but I think there are a lot of other pieces that tie in. So Dr. Peratt's work, but he's sort of been, you know, he had some health issues and other things, and he's older.

and other things when he's older. The Electric Universe, there's what's known as the Electric Universe community, which ties in with this, that electrical phenomena and plasma discharges are more important. There is a whole group now that I think are starting to think about what if we had another Carrington event in the near future?

How would that affect our grid systems? So what I'm saying is I think there are a lot of little pieces that are starting to come together. And, you know, starting to come together, weaving this together. But what I'm trying to do right now is to paint the broad picture, the broad strokes. And I think it goes back to the end of the last ice age and what was happening then right up until now and what the implications are. And how is this being received? Are people picking up on this? I think people are picking up on it. And sometimes you know people are picking up on it when, how did they say it? The sincerest, was it copying someone or is it a sincerest form

of flattery? That type of thing. Imitation. Imitation, that's it, imitation. And I do find, and I sometimes get a little annoyed. Of course. But yeah, people are starting to talk about a lot of these things, especially the plasma and the sun and solar events. And all of a sudden, by chance, they're talking about it, not necessarily mentioning me, but I think, you know, I know they attended a lecture or they maybe read my book. But yeah, these things take time. And I'm not asking for a lot of, you know, oh, everyone has to acknowledge me. But I think it's important to get the information out. And I think as we have things like your podcast and people read the books and I'm able to talk at conferences, we slowly get

this out. You know, it takes time. It all takes time. And put it this way, Copernicus, and I'm not comparing myself to Copernicus, but Copernicus and the heliocentric view, you know, he publishes that on his deathbed. That was a view that actually went back to, there were processors in ancient times, of course, but he publishes that on his deathbed. And, you know, a couple of generations later, they're still persecuting Galileo for supporting it. So these things, yeah, things go quicker now. Yeah. But it still takes some time.

I see a big difference now than I do in the 1990s for even the redating of the Sphinx. Do you think it's because of the Internet? I think it's not necessarily. Yes, the internet helps. I have mixed feelings about the internet because the problem with the internet is you can disseminate information. You get information out, but it doesn't mean it's good information. Right. So you get the naysayers, the critics, the skeptics, they have access to it too. Fake news. Fake news and genuine fake news versus real fake news. And it seems that so many times they're flipped. Yeah, it's very confusing.

So it's very confusing. So one of the problems I see with all this information and misinformation and all these factoids out there is it's very confusing for many people if they're not involved in something. And again, I'm not trying to claim you have to go to experts and authorities, because that's part of the problem too, when you have the pseudo authorities who just are pushing their own agendas and frankly don't know what they're talking about. And I see too many of that among, we'll say certain academics and skeptics, that type of thing. But it's also confusing when you only take information and you don't know how to put it all together. So I teach, you know, I teach in a university. I teach college at Boston University.

And what I find with students, and I'm not picking on them. I'm saying this with all due respect. They have so much access to facts and factoids. We'll use that term. But they have to understand the bigger picture. They have to be able to understand critically and think critically about it to put things together. And how does it all fit together? And that's so important.

And that's not something I think you get just from surfing the internet quickly. Or watching a couple of YouTube videos by someone that's not necessarily reliable. That's a problem, right? How much misinformation has been spread through YouTube? More than good information, probably. Yeah, I mean, we could put on some fake lab coats right now and just make some nonsense video and get 100,000 views by the end of the year. Exactly.

And see, I've had the problem too in my business. You know, what I'm talking about is that they say you can't please everyone all the time. But it seems like in some cases in my career in this field, I've been able to displease everyone because I'll come out with positions sometimes. Sorry, I'm losing my headset. I'll come out with positions sometimes where I'm not pleasing my academic colleagues, but I'm not extreme enough for the, should we say, other side. You know, so I'm like caught in the middle because I'm going by the evidence I actually have. And it's not jiving with

so to speak the tinfoil hat brigade yeah so what how is that received by the people that i mean there are those ancient aliens type folks that really want everything they want everything to be ancient aliens and i've been accused of how could i not accept this or that you know me too because you get mad at yeah they get really mad at me. They're the nastiest. Yeah, they're nastiest. And they'll even tell me, well, this supports everything you've been saying. I don't care if it supports everything I've been saying.

If it's not real, it's not real. If the evidence isn't there, it's not, you know. It is fascinating that they do dig up these ancient structures and the Machu Picchu and all these different places where, like, wow, these construction methods are really pretty impressive. Incredible. What was going on back then, but they always want to tie it to aliens. They always want to tie it to aliens, which I think is a, I hate to use this term, but sort of a cop out.

Yeah. Well, it's a business. It's a business. Well, that's what it gets down to. A lot of this is business. People want to sell their books. They want to sell their conferences. They want to sell their DVDs. They want to sell their books. They want to sell their conferences. They want to sell their DVDs.

They want to sell their YouTube videos. In some cases, they want to sell for money. In some cases, they want to sell for promotion, self-promotion. They want to be famous. I told you, I was accused of that back in the early 90s. Oh, I'm just doing this because I want to be famous. No, I'm not that type of person, actually. People love those shows, those UFO and ancient alien type shows.

And they love those conferences. They go to those conferences and they all just mentally masturbate together. It's very bizarre. It's like, but they're all like, there's nothing to support what they're saying. But I think it does fill a void for some people. And one thing I'm trying to do is to fill that void with something real. Right. Something important, something that has evidence to back it up.

Because there are a lot of questions. There are a lot of mysteries. And I will admit I've been on the Ancient Aliens show, but I've never proposed Ancient Aliens. I've never supported that. I've always been clear if people actually listen to me. But they asked me to be on it. And a number of other academics have, too. Do they use you out of context a little bit?

Well, yeah. The context is not necessarily— Yeah, slippery. But the point is that there are real mysteries to this day, things that we don't really understand that you and I have been discussing about, and there's so many more we could discuss. But those are real. And so many people that I know that watch shows like that, when I talk to them, and I'm talking academics who would never admit that they watch it. They watch it because they find it entertaining, number one. They don't quite say it this way, but I think it fills a void. And it does raise issues that if

they're perceptive, then they might become aware of and realize that these are real issues. No ancient aliens or some other easy answer is not the way to go, but they are real things that need to be looked into. So even when I speak at a conference like that, there are so many very intelligent people that are there besides the other. But, you know, there are different types of people. But I know many people, they'll have PhDs and stuff, and they'll go to it for sort of between entertainment, sort of between entertainment, but also to get exposed to things they're not going to be exposed to by the standard academic community. You're not going to get exposed to a lot of these types of questions if you just go to the standard closed academic conferences. They're going to be washed over. So, you know, in part, what I'm trying to do with Oracle, the Organization for the Research of Ancient Cultures, which is not just me.

I want to be clear on that. In fact, our president is actually, I guess, heavy metal guitar player. He's Berkeley trained. He's excellent. Yeah, no, I mean, seriously. But he's a really bright guy, and he's fascinated by these things. We have people like Jocelyn Godwin from Colgate University, who's a world-renowned scholar on the advisory board. But what we're trying to do with things

like Oracle, and I would encourage people to actually look at it because we've got a website up. You can go through my website, www.robertshock.com, to get there. Or go directly to www.oracleonline.org. Online, you know, all one word,.org. And what we're trying to do with this, and also through the Institute for the Study of the Origins of Civilization, ISOC, which I'm trying to do at Boston University, is to have a forum where we can look at these real topics, these topics seriously, These topics, these topics seriously using evidence, but not, but also not be dismissive just because we have to uphold the standard dogma. So I don't want to go with just a nonsense, you know, flippant or easy out to sell someone's book that, you know, this crazy book or, you know, I'm not being nasty about anyone. Or, you know, just stick to the standard paradigm, but thinking out of the box, but as they say, but thinking out of the box using real evidence and using real logic and using real rationality to look at a number of these issues.

Is there more resistance towards redating Egypt and Egyptology, particularly ancient Egypt, versus other cultures like Gobekli Tepe and some other ancient structures that they're finding? Well, I would say Gobekli Tepe, the beauty of Gobekli Tepe is that the dating… There's no civilization attached to it. Dating of Quebec-Litepé is the dating. That is based on hard stratigraphy, radiocarbon dates, German Archaeological Institute. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's because it was purposely covered. It was purposefully covered 10,000 plus years ago. And in that case, this ties back to our bigger picture. You have evidence.

We have evidence of catastrophe at Quebec-Litepé. We have evidence that the pillars were knocked down and hastily re-erected. And you can see that in the pillars. They built these. There we have a picture up there. If you can see the pillar on the far, on the right side, that is not an archaeological reconstruction. That pillar was knocked down. It was put back into position, but you can see how it was put back into position crudely using fragments of another pillar. Then they built these crude walls to sort of hold the pillars up.

They abutted against it. Well, to me, this is happening, and the dating confirms it, in the aftermath of the initial solar outburst at the end of the last ice age, when you had all this tumultuous, you know, things happening, earthquakes and the precipitation, the rain, the fire coming down, the thunder. thunder. So you have this incredible situation where we have captured at Quebec-Litepe the catastrophe that was going on and how they were trying to reconstruct it. And I think, I don't want to say they gave up, but for whatever reason, it was probably just so much, they ended up covering the whole thing artificially, maybe to preserve it, maybe they intended to go back to it, maybe for posterity. I don't know what their thinking was. We could speculate about that.

But tying in with what you were just asking, Gobekli Tepe is not tied to some other later civilization as is dynastic Egypt. So there's not a lot of dogma involved. Correct. The dogma there is involved how sophisticated it is, is Quebec-Litepé. And, you know, those that want to uphold the standard story saying, well, yeah, it's pretty, but it's not that sophisticated. Yeah, it's very dismissive. They're trying to say it's hunter-gatherers.

Yeah, they call it hunter-gatherers. And they say, oh, hunter-gatherers are thereby primitive. And therefore they, you know, they just try to wave their arms and say – it's sort of like saying it's an anomaly but not much of an anomaly, so we don't need to really worry about it. But they've only – correct me if I'm wrong – they've only uncovered a very small percentage of it. Oh, a very small fragment of it. Yeah, a very, very small fragment of it. So this is an enormous structure, a series of structures. It's an enormous structure, and in that picture that's up, we'll describe it for those that don't see the picture.

But there's pictures like this in my book, Forgotten Civilization. In fact, I think that's right out of my book probably or very similar to one. You can see the pillar in the back on the left. Do you see how that was knocked down? And it's propped up and it has been put back into position. And they built these crude walls against it before they buried the whole thing. So this whole site underwent dramatic catastrophe, was being put together quickly again, and then sort of propped up. And those 3D animals as well.

Oh, yeah. There's one right there. Isn't that beautiful? I call it a feline, sort of feline going down They had to carve the stone around that 3D structure instead of carve it into it. It's so much more complicated. Oh, much more complicated. And when they were carving these originally, taking them out of the quarry to get, say, a 15-ton pillar, I think we're looking... Oh, there we are.

That's so crazy. Isn't that beautiful? I love that. Now, if you saw that in a museum of modern art, it could fit right in. Two points I just wanted to make before I forget them. One, when you're carving these pillars, to get a 10- or 15-ton pillar like that finalized, you have to carve a much bigger chunk of rock initially. Because, of course, you have to leave the rock where you're going to have the animal.

You have to leave the rock because they're not incising these in. They're carving them in relief. So that's a lot more complicated. Cut away all the rock, et cetera. So this is an incredible technological feat. Also, off the record, and this one, if you look at that one, do you see how it's got weathered? It's got wild pig. Pigs and whatnot.

But do you also see the weathered surface? I'm going to teach you a little geology here. Okay. That is an older pillar that was being reused at the end of the last Ice Age, I believe. So some of these structures actually go back earlier. I believe. So some of these structures actually go back earlier. And before Klaus Schmidt passed away unexpectedly, he was talking about this too, that even there, they were maybe reusing some structures that were a little bit earlier, or maybe several thousand years earlier. So this goes back, the origins of Geppec-Leitepe may go back thousands of years earlier when all is said and done, once we get the evidence in, well into the end of the last ice age, stuffed out about 9700 BC.

I was going to say, before I forget it, a lot going on here. Off the record, and of course they would never admit to this, but off the record, I've spoken to archaeologists when, you know, they're in a giddy mood. Getting drunk. And ask them, well, if you just found, say, that animal on the Quebec-Les-Tepes pillar in isolation, or you just found one of these pillars or part of one in isolation, you were just looking at, how old do you think it would be? part of one in isolation, you were just looking at how old do you think it would be? And I've heard the answer 600 BC, 1,000 BC, based on the technological finesse, the beauty of the carving, not 8,000, 9,000 years earlier. Right. But they would never say that on the record.

Right, right, right. Yeah, because it's so complicated. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I've had never say that on the record. Right, right, right. Yeah, because it's so complicated. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I've had them say that. Well, if they just found, say, that little feline type thing on the side of the pillar just broken off in just an isolation, they'd probably say. One told me, yeah, oh, maybe it's 1,000 BC at most. Right, at most. But not 9,700 BC or whatever.

That's crazy. Now, have they identified the quarries where these stones were? Yeah, some of them happen and they're not super far away, the kilometer or a bit more. I mean, there's limestone around there. So it's not a situation as you have in Peru, for instance, where they're dragging this stuff, you know, tens of kilometers away. But i don't think that detracts from no no you know what they were doing it serves yeah still crazy and um you know it's easy for me to say this but once you've quarried a block if you're moving a kilometer it's not that much harder to move at 10 kilometers. It just takes more effort, but it's the same technology. It's really quarrying it, be able to move it to begin with, and then be able to carve it into these beautiful structures. And something I want to point out too is that a lot of times

when I talk about Quebec-Litapé, I'll make the comment about Stonehenge because people are familiar with Stonehenge. But Stonehen stone hinge when you look at the blocks there they're so much cruder yeah than what we have at quebec li tepe and the quebec li tepe stone pillars the central ones particularly they are so beautifully carved but if you look at them they're also very very thin in their smallest dimension. There you can see it, how thin it is. And that one's anthropomorphic with the belt and the hands. And that sure looks like some people would say a metal buckle on it. So that's very similar to like those Easter Island.

It's very similar to Easter Island. I think there are definite connections there. But why shouldn't there be? We were just talking about Rongo Rongo and a horse two ago, and how they were seeing similar things in the sky. But I wanted to point out that when you carve a pillar like that, that's so thin and narrow, that's much more difficult to keep it from snapping, to keep it from breaking. Also, if you see in that pillar how it's set into the bedrock, it's set in just literally very, very shallowly set into the bedrock. Klaus Schmidt commented to me that, and he published this too, that they seem to be using some kind of concrete or cement to help set them into the bedrock, which is untold of at such

an early period. When he first was excavating them before he got down to the bottom, I think he said this to me verbally, he estimated that about a third, at least a third of the pillars should be set into the bedrock just to hold it up, prop it up, not just on the order of centimeters, as you find. And is this a sturdy construction? No, it's not. Does it move? No, no, you can't touch it now. It would fall over.

Touch it and it probably would fall over. They have to do all kinds of supports on it. Now, my suspicion is that initially it was not roofed over, that they were freestanding pillars, and they were very, very carefully set and balanced, and everything was in perfect order. This is total speculation, but like many of the obelisks and whatnot, they may have even had a vibration to them. They may have purposefully vibrated or picked up some kind of frequency. You can see there how shallow it is.

Yeah, how shallow it is. But they were finely tuned, whatever you want to call that. And I'm not trying to claim it's some kind of weird machine, as some people have called, speculated. But I think there was something there. And resonance and audio cues, audio frequencies are historically very important in both modern structures. Usually you think of it as religious, but, you know, it affects your mental thinking and abilities and that type of thing. So something may have been going on there with that. This may also be why they broke so easily during the catastrophe. I shouldn't say easily. It was a huge catastrophe. But they were trying to re-erect them. What is the timeline in terms of the total uncovering of that site?

Oh, in modern times? I mean, what are they trying to do? How much time do you think it's going to take for them to completely uncover? Oh, if they do it carefully, centuries. Centuries. Oh, it could be. It's a huge site. And Klaus Schmidt, when Katie and I were there, I think he waved his arms and he talked about how there's all these other hills out there that probably have more under them. I mean, you're talking a huge complex. And we know that in some cases because you see little fragments sticking up and that type of thing. And also, remember, when you're doing archaeology, and I have training in archaeology despite what some of my cricks will say,

when you're doing archaeology, it's inherently destructive because you can't put it back together. So if you don't do it carefully, you don't do it right, you're destroying evidence. You are inherently destroying evidence. So a lot of people nowadays, professionals, they don't want to excavate an entire site at one time. They want to leave parts unexcavated so that other people have a go at it. As you develop new technology, you can apply that to a different part of the site. Plus, practical things. This is in Turkey. It's close to the Syrian border. And we know how the political situation there is with the Islamic State, et cetera.

They would love to destroy this site, I'm sure. Really? It's very close to Urfa, which is the city of Abraham. It's a very sacred, holy site for Judaism, Christianity, but more than anything else, Islam. Gebekli Tepe is just outside. It's like a half-hour drive by taxi from Urfa. In Urfa, you have the sacred cave of Abraham, you have the pools of Abraham, you have a big mosque there. And I bring this all up because this is a very ancient city. When they excavate in Urfa, not archaeological excavations, but say

they build a new road or they do build a new underground garage, they often hit 12,000-year-old or thereabouts remains. So there's this beautiful statue called Urfa Man, which is now in the museum in Urfa, which also houses lots of artifacts from Gobekli Tepe. And it was found right near the modern pools of Abraham when they were doing some construction project. But it represents an image of the people, supposedly, or at least it's an image of a man or person that dates back to the Bekele-Tepi times. It's about full size. It's about the same size as me, but lacking legs. Very similar, actually has a lot of comparisons to the Moai on Easter Island. You got a picture of this?

I think we do. I think we do. Look, look. Isn't that beautiful? Wow. Look, he's staring at you with obsidian eyes. And he is from Quebec-Lit-Tapé time, but he was found in Urfa. And you're not going to do it.

We're not going to do it. But if you could just wipe out the modern city and excavate there, who knows what you would find. Potentially Urfa, this is me speaking, is one of the oldest inhabited cities on Earth, going back to the late Ice Age.

Well, this is something that goes on in Mexico City as well, right? Yeah, sure. They start building an apartment building, and they dig into the ground, and they stop and find an Aztec temple. Yeah, and in Cairo and other parts of Egypt, there were families that lived for centuries because their little huts or their little community was on the top of ancient ruins,

and they would dig in their basement and pull out a gold statuette or whatever, sell it, and eat for the next six months. So is this Urfa place, is there any consideration to picking isolated spots and starting to dig and- Well, yeah, I think there's some consideration on the part of, you know, archaeologists and Turkish government, that type of thing. But you've also got a very strong religious element. See, religion plays into all of this, of course.

And also, you don't necessarily want to destroy ancient Islamic temples, say, Islamic mosque. I should say a mosque that goes back to, I don't know, I'm just making this up, 800 AD or something, to excavate something that's a few thousand years older or 10,000 years older or more. I mean, again, on the one hand, which am I more interested? It might be one versus the other, but other people are interested in the other. See what I mean? There's all these factors that play into it so it gets very complicated very messy and then of course you have the situation and this ties in where you know i know christians are more

interested in the birth of jesus and where the manger is and we can see in Egypt, if one's interested, the supposed place where the holy family stayed when Jesus went to Egypt, you know, whatever. And you can see things like that in Urfa for Abraham and whatnot, and how do you respect that, but also excavate underneath. And then some people would say excavating underneath is sacrilegious to, you know, what their main interest is. You know, so it gets very, very complicated. I've met PhDs in Egypt. One in particular, just to tell you a quick anecdote, I'm sitting there having breakfast. This was in the 1990s. And it was in a hotel where it's overlooking the pyramid and Sphinx. I'm looking out at them, having a nice breakfast.

A guy comes down and sits with me, joins with me, starts making conversation. Turns out he's at Cairo University, you know, economics. I think he was a professor of economics or whatnot. And he starts telling me, because it's obvious I'm not Egyptian, I'm American, and why am I there? I'm studying the pyramids and sphinx. And he starts telling me his opinion of all this. And his opinion was

that the pyramids should be dismantled, get rid of the sphinx, don't need any of that, use those raw materials on site to build a covered-over, air-conditioned shopping mall bigger than the one in Dubai. And that would really benefit Egypt, economically and otherwise. Who sent this? He was a professor at Cairo University.

He was a professor at Cairo University. I mean, I don't know his name, but I have no question he was genuine and real. And I didn't laugh or anything because he was serious. But where is he coming from in part? Egypt didn't mean anything to him, dynastic Egyptians. A lot of Egyptians do. It means something to them. But there's a lot of Egyptians in Egypt. They're Muslim. If it's pre-Muslim, it's not a big deal. If it's pre-Arab, it's not a big

deal because they're Arabs. They might have been in Egypt for over a thousand years, but the native Egyptians is not their culture. Wow. Well, but it's not. Think about America. How many Native American mounds and graves and whatnot get bulldozed over with that maybe the most preliminary archaeological salvage to build a shopping mall or a new development? It's true. It's the same thing. It's the same thing. It's the same thing.

We think it's really crazy when someone like that would say that about the pyramids and Sphinx, you know, because everyone knows about them. But from his perspective, if I quizzed him, he could have turned around and said, well, look what you do in your country. Well, it's almost human nature across the planet. Yeah. When they're inconsiderate to do something along those lines. So my point is not really to criticize him.

He had a very different perspective. I don't agree with that perspective. Right. But I could understand where he was coming from. He wasn't coming, you know, he wasn't some crazy, he didn't strike me as some crazy fundamentalist or anything like that. He was just thinking in different terms right and for him and he's not the only one i've spoken to in egypt egyptians uh who take that perspective now others will say we have to save all these but not necessarily because they could care less about pyramids and sphinxes and tombs, but because they're good for the economy, because it brings in tourism.

But then there's the counter argument, which I've heard many times, that Egypt has to separate itself from tourism. So you need to— Cut off the nipple. Yes, because I've had Egyptians say to me, in no uncertain terms, Because I've had Egyptians say to me in no uncertain terms and not joking or anything but point out that depending on how you count it, 25% to 60% or more of the Egyptian economy could be based on tourism because it's not just the direct tourism but it's those that supply the people who deal with the tourists, et cetera, et cetera. And when you have a situation that you have something happen in the Middle East, it could be far from Egypt.

But people get excited. You know, Americans all of a sudden tell me, oh, can't go to Egypt. It's dangerous to go to Egypt because something happened in Syria. That's what I heard. And it has nothing to do. No, but think if our country and our economy was dependent upon tourism solely or, you know, not solely, but a major portion of it was tourism. And then something happens in Brazil. And all of a sudden, because something happened in Brazil, no tourists are coming to America and it cripples our economy.

I mean, I can understand that perspective. No, I can completely understand the perspective. What is the perspective in Turkey when they're dealing with Gobekli Tepe? Well, I think it's mixed too. I mean I think they're – in Turkey unfortunately from my perspective, you've got more and more rise of should we say radical Islam and fundamentalism that doesn't really want to worry about such things. But you also have people who see Gobekli Tepe as potentially someday vying with the Sphinx and pyramids for tourist dollars and for a destination. I mean, Turkey is wonderful in my opinion. I love both Turkey and Egypt just to visit them, to travel through them, that type of thing. With any country, you have to know what you're doing.

But if people travel with me, I know what I'm doing. I don't mean that in a nasty way. And I will not take risks. I'll take risks for myself. And I've, as I say, been on the wrong end of a gun, et cetera. What happened? Oh, the worst was Pakistan. But that's another story.

What were you doing in Pakistan? I was collecting fossils. This is when I was a graduate student. And at one point, I was accused of carrying plastic explosives and all of a sudden had four AK-47s. Pointing at your side. Well, not point. I felt them. Touching you.

Yeah, they were touching. And I know enough about small arms. These were loaded and cocked. I mean, their fingers were on the triggers, not on the trigger guards. Yeah, yeah. It turns out I didn't have plastic explosives. And, you know, I'm a mild-mannered guy. And I said, you know, whatever you want.

And I didn't do anything wrong. And I explained and I was carrying back then little bricks, little things of oil-based clay that I guess have the texture and feel of some of the explosives they would use. We would use these when we collected fossils and you find a bunch of fragments to prop it up and put into position as you glue them together. Tough explaining that. Yeah, yeah. I had to explain all that.

And someone came from the Pakistani Geological Survey and explained that, yeah, I really was who I was. But, you know, it's a situation where people get excited. And that was back in the bad old days of, you know, well, I don't know if it's any better in Pakistan now. But, you know, there are tough situations. But if you know how to behave and you know how to deal with it and you know how to avoid it, you'll be okay. And right now I would say Egypt is very, very safe.

It really is. People have all kinds of misconceptions about Egypt. Turkey, we were starting to talk about Turkey. Turkey may be going the other route a little bit. I'm being very honest. But I have no problem going with Turkey. I have no problem taking people to Turkey. But at this point, there are certain areas I might avoid just to be on the safest of safest sides. A little more slippery. Yeah. But I would never endanger anyone else.

In fact, I always err on the side of safety when it comes to anyone else. Not that I want to take great risks with myself either, but sometimes as a geologist, I feel I have to do what I have to do. Do you have any plans on releasing this theory of coronal mass ejections and all the things that we've talked about today into something like a documentary, something that might be a little bit more? I would love to do a documentary, something that John Anthony West and I, we're often talking about a documentary.

We also would like to do a film, a full length feature film if we could get backing and whatnot sort of, how should I say it, semi-popularized, you know, semi-fictionalized but always based on real science, real data, real evidence. So, you know, I've seen so many films

where they're about geological catastrophes, whether it's huge asteroids hitting or you know, San Andreas Fault and they're so fological catastrophes, whether it's huge asteroids hitting or, you know, San Andreas Fault, and they're so faked. Yeah. Because it's not what really happened. It's not really what happened. And what I'm saying is what has happened in the past

and what really will happen in the future if we get hit again, which I hate to say this, but from a geological perspective, there is no doubt. These things are unavoidable. It would be like saying we'll never have another volcanic eruption or earthquake again. Of course we will. Of course we will. So it's better to be aware of it and prepare for it.

So, yeah, I'd love to do a good film. Yeah, I feel like a film would be something that would really catch on. Well, if you could help us. Well, I'll connect you to people. Maybe that could help. That would be excellent. I'm serious. I'm serious.

This is something that Katie and I, Katie, for those that just tuned in, Katie's my wife. And I think you heard when we were talking before, she has some background in, you know, she was a dancer in entertainment and Broadway. But film connections, we really need film connections. So let's put it out there for contact information if someone is in that business and they wanted to get a hold of you. Absolutely. The best way to get a hold of me would be through my website, www.robertshock.com or if they want to email me directly. And this is on the website.

Careful with this thing. You're giving out the email. Well, should I give out the email? It's a contact page. Go to the contact page. There we go. My wife is to my left there, and she said the contact page. She nailed it.

Good move. She said the contact page. Did I say too much? No. No, you're good. Okay. So if people go to www.robertshock.com and then go to the contact page, they'll get my contact information there. I think we have a fairly direct way to contact me. I've also, I believe, got my business

address there, Boston University address? Office, because I really am at Boston University, full-time tenured faculty member. And I'm interested if people want to contact me about film, if they want to go to Egypt with me, I do tours periodically. I'll arrange something if people have enough, you know, if they want a private, if they have enough people that would want to come to make it viable or, you viable. These things cost money. If I were independently wealthy, maybe I'd just take people for fun at my expense, but I don't have that. Well, I guarantee you, you have stimulated a lot of people's imagination. Oh, can I mention one more thing? That chamber, the chamber under the paw of the Sphinx for a quarter century now, I want to continue the serious research on that. I have contacts in Egypt.

I've talked to the Ministry of Antiquities, the actually director, I guess he is, of the Grand Egyptian Museum, the new museum. I think we could make inroads there to actually explore that if someone has money or interest in that. The problem is, and I want to say this bluntly, a lot of people say, oh, well, why don't you just raise money by crowdfunding? It doesn't work for Egypt. You have to have the money up front. They don't want crowdfunding type money. So that's another thing. So my point is that there's film project love to pursue. There's research love to pursue. That's why we've set up the Oracle, the not-for-profit to do this all right and legitimately. That's why I'm setting up the

Institute at BU, Institute for the Study of the Origins of Civilization. So lots of possibilities, and I'm hoping we can make some of this happen. I'm hoping we can, too. I really appreciate you being here, man. It was really awesome to talk to you, and you blew my mind. This whole theory is it scares the shit out of me, but it also, it's very exciting. Well, thank you. Thank you. And again,

I'm not trying to scare anyone, but I think we have to be real, and we have to be realistic, and there's no point in hiding and, you know, closing your eyes to things. And it's just an awesome theory. I mean it's very cool. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. My pleasure. Ladies and gentlemen.