Ben Van Kerkwyk argues that ancient Egyptian sites like the Great Pyramid and pre-dynastic rose granite vases encode Earth's dimensions and utilize precision down to five thousandths of an inch, implying lost technologies such as five-axis CNC milling or ultrasonic cutting. He critiques orthodox timelines by highlighting impossible construction speeds without pulleys, spiral drill cores penetrating granite 500 times faster than modern drills, and mathematical algorithms like the "radial traversal pattern" embedded in artifacts. Ultimately, this evidence suggests a sophisticated pre-dynastic civilization or inherited knowledge from a lost era, challenging mainstream Egyptology's view of ancient capabilities. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Homecoming and Ancient Earthquakes00:04:14
Welcome back, Ben.
This is your homecoming.
Good to be back, Danny.
Cheers, man.
Thanks for the invite.
It was about a year ago I had you in here.
And then since then, you've been on Joe Rogan, you've been on Flagrant.
What other podcasts have you been on?
There have been a few.
I think those were mostly the big in studio ones.
Yeah.
It was Rogan and Andrew Schultz's Flagrant, which was hilarious, actually.
That was a lot of fun.
And I was on Rogan with Jimmy.
That was a great opportunity.
I enjoyed that, although it's a bit of a blur in my head at this point.
I've been on a few others, just like Zoom and the remote style ones.
So, yeah.
Been getting a lot of fun.
So, you were the first guy to.
First in studio podcast.
Well, cool, man.
I'm happy to inspire those guys to discover you.
I mean, I'm sure they already.
I know Rogan already knew about you.
He'd already seen videos of your stuff.
I think so, yeah.
But you've been all over the place, too.
You just got back from Turkey, I think, recently.
Well, Turkey earlier this year and then England.
I came back from England a couple of weeks back.
First chance to visit sort of the megalithic structures there, the stone circles, the museums.
Things like that.
I mean, you could spend months in the British Isles.
There's so much to see there.
I definitely want to go back.
Yeah.
But Turkey early in the year.
So, what were you doing in Turkey?
Where'd you go?
You went to Gobekli Tepe?
We did.
So, we did a couple of weeks in southeastern Turkey.
So, in that Gobekli Tepe region, it's all centered around the city of Shenlurfa, which is the biblical Edessa.
It's the city of prophets.
It's a city that goes back thousands of years.
I mean, there's been occupation there since Neolithic times.
It's a really interesting.
It's sort of Abrahamic traditions there.
A lot of the legends from books of the faith that now are like, you know, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
A lot of the events that happen in those religions are all centered in that area.
It was part of like the Silk Road, the northern ish end of what was Mesopotamia back in the day.
So it's an ancient place.
Really interesting city.
A lot of fun.
I wasn't sure what to expect.
It was my first time in Turkey and different to Egypt, I'd say.
It was a really nice place.
And I.
The timing was it's.
I don't know what happens with me and travel, man.
Trying to even get over here, we had the yeah, we had that, we had the hurricane, but man, it just I have the worst luck with travel because they had obviously they had the earthquakes earlier in this year, those big earthquakes that and it, yeah, they killed a lot of people.
Like, at least I mean, I think the government estimates they said something like 50,000 people.
The guys that I knew on the ground there who were out, like, my my my guy there, Ramazan, who we did the tour with, lost his home, like, his home fell down.
He was living out of his car, but within the next.
Day or two is out helping in the villages trying to help people to sort of recover from it.
But he said it was probably more like 250,000 people that might have died in that, just from if you include Syria, because it's just right next to the Syrian border and there was a lot of Syria that was affected as well.
But yeah, so that happened, and they're like, man, we okay.
So the city itself of Shenlofa wasn't the infrastructure was still up, the roads were okay, like a few buildings fell down.
Some of the other cities were much impacted much more.
And then they had these rains.
They had these floods, which were almost unprecedented floods in that region.
It just poured down.
And, you know, there were people that died in Shalurfit purely because they didn't have anywhere to live and they were in these tents and they got sort of washed into these alcoves and carried away in these floods and a bunch of people died.
So I was like, man, and all this happened within, you know, the couple weeks and I guess around the month leading up to it.
So we were like, geez, are we going to do it?
And he was like, yeah, we can do it.
And we sort of reassured the people that were coming with us.
We can.
We can make it happen.
And we did.
Unfortunately, obviously, places like the museum, they have this wonderful museum in Shenlurfa where a lot of the artifacts from Gobekli Tepe, Karahan Tepe, like all of the recent archaeological finds there, are housed in this museum.
But it was, they had to evacuate it because of the floods.
They basically boxed up, I don't know, like 100,000 artifacts or something and shipped them off so we couldn't get into the museum.
But also, as a consequence, it did make the place green.
Like normally, if you see pictures of that region, it's brown, but we were there.
It was just.
Discovering Gobekli Tepe Pillars00:13:11
Breathtakingly beautiful.
These limestone hills were just breaking out in wildflowers and grass, and everywhere we went, it was just gorgeous.
And of course, the sites there are just incredible.
They go back forever.
There's Gobekli Tepe, which was everyone, I think, who is interested in this field should know something about Gobekli Tepe.
It's the site that was, I mean, it was originally discovered in the 1950s, I think.
There were some farmers, they saw the tops of what it turned out to be these big T pillars sticking out of the ground on this side of a hill.
I think it translates to pot bellied hill.
In that language.
And they sort of dismissed it as being, they thought, well, no, this is a relatively modern cemetery or something.
Like it's not a, you know, it's not, the stonework was too good to be considered very ancient.
And it wasn't until the mid 1990s when the German Archaeological Institute and Klaus Schmidt, who sadly has passed away since then, began to excavate at Gobekli Tepe.
And that's when they found, okay, yeah, so this is actually tremendously ancient.
It does have some very unique stonework, including megalithic work.
You've got You know, T pillars that are 18 feet tall and 20 plus tons.
And it's a very large site.
It's all of these stone circles, these pillars that are encompassed by more of a loose or rough stone walls.
And it spreads out.
It's quite large.
There's a number of them.
They've only excavated maybe 10% of that site.
And it shook the world up because they, based on some of the material that they found in that dig, they pretty much conclusively dated that thing to about 11,000 years old, which is much older than any.
Previously recorded evidence of civilization or of this type of occupation.
So, going there was a really interesting experience.
People have said for a long time that it was deliberately buried.
The work and the research and the science on this is slowly changing.
They're starting to move away from this idea that it was deliberately buried.
It may just have been layers of sediment that have built up over time.
There might have been some periods of burying.
In fact, if you tried to bury it deliberately, it would have taken years and years and years.
It's a huge site.
But what was interesting to me, you know, researching this site is that if you look at the picture of it, this is a good picture of it.
I have some photos too, but this works.
Is that you have two styles of architecture here.
You have the megalithic work, the T pillars, and it's not just the pillars here.
They would actually cut down to the bedrock.
You see that area around the T pillars?
When you go there, it looks like cement.
It's not cement, it's actually the, I believe, limestone bedrock that they've lapped down to be flat.
So, you have these huge, big, flat areas, and they inset these stones into them, or some of them are set up on pedestals, like that central one.
And these T pillars are a lot of them, they're not all complete.
Some of them are broken.
They have the most amazing high relief artwork on them.
By that, it means you're carving away the negative space to make the figures and the symbols pop out at you.
Right, right, right.
Yeah.
And see, and that's a good example of that image there of that one stone.
Yeah, if you look at that.
So, you see how the walls.
The walls around it kind of encompass those stones.
Like they actually cover up some of the features.
And you can clearly tell the walls seem like they've been built to reinforce these stone circles, to sort of preserve them almost.
And looking at the walls, and this is also true at another site we'll talk about, Karahan Tepe, inside the walls, there's actually pieces of broken pillars that have been used as material in the building of the walls.
And the material or the organic matter that they've used to date the site to give it that 11,000 year old age came from inside these walls.
So it's like, to me, I look at that, it's two different architectural styles.
I think it is potentially indicative of two entirely different periods of occupation and building because these walls are quite primitive.
It's local stone, and they're actually using pieces of broken pillars, which means that those pillars could have been there for who knows how long, actually fallen over.
Some of them might have broken, and they've been encompassed and used in these walls that were then used to sort of resurrect or renew or renovate the site and protect these pillars.
So it's.
Do we know if it's 11,000 years old?
I think that's kind of the earliest date for it.
It's the youngest date.
It could be vastly older than that.
We really don't know.
And you said there's a bunch of this that's still under the ground?
Heaps of it, yeah.
So they've kind of excavated on one side of a hill, and that's where the UNESCO, like the World Heritage Site, is now.
They've put a big cover over the top of it.
It's actually great.
Like, yeah, see the walkway there?
There's this big cover.
They want to keep the rain off it.
I think when it does rain, if they left it out in the weather, it'd just get really muddy.
You know, it'd just wash away a lot of the sediment.
It's a great way to view the site.
It'd be lovely to get down in there, but they get a lot of traffic.
Like, this has become a major tourist attraction for that part of Turkey now.
A lot of people want to see this.
And they've built a big visitor center.
And yeah, so it's a nice way to view the site.
And if you have a camera with a zoom lens, you can kind of see a lot of the detail.
Oh, wow, that's incredible.
That negative relief.
Yeah, the high relief.
And there's, you know, lots of interesting studies that have been done on Gobekli Tepe.
Martin Swetman, who I've talked about, he was presenting at the Cosmic Summit recently as well.
I've Talk with him on my channel.
He wrote a book called Prehistory Decoded, and he contends that Gobekli Tepe is something of a celestial calendar.
He uses a method of statistical analysis that shows that it's extremely likely that's what it is.
He's looking at the figures relating to procession and constellations in the sky, and that when looked at through his analysis, it seems to mark interesting events that we know sort of happened, like periods like the Younger Dries, because this site.
Dates back to the younger Dryas, and had there been this comet or these impacts or these fragments of things coming from the sky, that's probably something they would have noticed.
He wrote a whole book on this.
It's a very interesting theory.
He gets attacked pretty hard on the basis of it, I think, from a lot of people that don't really understand the nature of statistics and how that works.
He actually wrote a peer reviewed paper that you can read if you're interested in kind of diving into his research or his detail.
There's other studies that have been done also that are interesting on the geometry of the site.
So there's.
Not only do you have these stone circles, which the circles themselves, and this is true also at Karan Tepe, have interesting alignment.
So they align to, you know, a lot of them may well have been used as solar observatories or potentially lunar observatories.
So there's, you know, there's alignments on the site that point to significant periods like solstices, equinoxes, lunar events.
But there's actually a geometric arrangement between the circles themselves at Gobekli Tepe.
So they form like equilateral triangles, I think.
There's been some studies done that shows there was a very deliberate.
Planned of how these stone circles were formed.
So it was fascinating.
And not, you know, so Gobekli Tepe was obviously a highlight, but what I didn't know on this trip was the fact that, okay, I knew about Karahan Tepe.
So that's another site that's nearby.
It's actually pretty close.
There was a site that was very recently discovered.
It's an active archaeological site now.
I believe the University of Istanbul is excavating there.
It's another stone circle site.
It's similar architecture to Gobekli Tepe.
You have huge.
T pillars, but it's something like 10 times larger than Gobekli Tepe.
And they've only just sort of scratched the surface at Karahan.
They're still digging, and we had special permission to go in there and look around the site.
And you can literally walk, look at these beautiful hills with flowers on them, and just poking up everywhere are the tops of T pillars.
You just see this tiny little top of it, and you can clearly see it's a T pillar, and there's something buried under here.
And there might be as many as a thousand T pillars on this site.
It's at least five times or more, I think, larger than Gobekli Tepe.
And it's at least 500 years older based on the dating of material that they found so far.
Which is kind of funny because when they built the visitor center at Gobekli Tepe, they called it like the zero point in history.
This was the brand name that it gave you.
You go in these big light shows and these big wall to wall sort of cinematic experiences to look at the site.
But it's like, well, I guess that makes Karahan Tepe zero point minus 500 or something like this.
Wow.
It's even older.
And I actually was out there like three, four times during the two weeks.
It's a wonderful site.
I could probably even pull up images if we want to see them, but it's, yeah, they're just starting to excavate.
And you see a similar thing.
In fact, at Karahan, there's evidence of domicile.
So this gets one of the controversies about Gobekli Tepe is this civilization, right?
Because technically, if you go look at, and I guess this is more along the orthodox line of thinking, the date for civilization hasn't really changed.
We're still saying, well, 6,000 years ago, you know, Sumerians and Mesopotamia.
That was the start.
But when I look at a place like Gobekli Tepe or Karahan Tepe, that screams civilization to me.
The theory is, oh, it's purely ceremonial.
It was what happened, and this sort of came out with the Michael Shermer, Graham Hancock, and Randall Carlson podcast on JRE.
It's a well known one.
I mean, they've essentially just changed the definition of hunter gatherers to now not just be, well, no, we're not just out hunter and gathering, but on the weekends, I guess, when the The men want to get away from the women and the kids or something.
They like to, you know, participate in a little bit of megalithic stone building and things like this and, you know, building these 20 ton T pillars.
It's insane.
But, you know, there's infrastructure on these sites.
They're massive.
There's cisterns, there's quarries, there are other structures at Karahan Tepe.
There's actually evidence for domiciles and permanent housing, which is another indication of sort of settlement and civilization.
And I just look at the scale and scope of what.
Is on these sites, and it's like you that's not something you do on the side.
Like, this is a this requires specialization, right?
So, for people to be able to specialize in doing this type of stonework, this type of a logistical endeavor, the artwork that's required to carve these things, you need to have infrastructure around you that means there's other people collecting food, there's other people doing things.
Like, it's that organization that essentially defines civilization.
I think just the scale and scope of the work requires that.
So, it's I Think it's kind of ridiculous that we don't consider this civilization.
And the nail in the coffin for me, and this is something I learned on that trip, is that it's not only the Karahan and Gobekli Tepe, but there's between 40 and 80 more sites that they've discovered just like that.
Around that area?
Around that area in southeastern Turkey.
Yeah.
I mean, there's a lot of other well known sites, Sogmatar and other places, but these tepes and these T pillared stone circles, they're doing a lot of ground penetrating radar and that type of thing.
And they've discovered somewhere between 40 and 80, and I think they want to open up like 15 of them for tourism.
And that's like.
At that point, you know, it's a huge civilization.
That's a, that's a, that's a, it requires a big population of people.
And it's civilization.
I mean, it's like a lost chapter of human civilization that we really know nothing about.
Like, we've got some artifacts and we've got some indication, but it's, it's a, yeah, I mean, it's, it's to me, it's just a whole lost chapter of our history in this region.
Who are the organizations involved in doing some of this ground penetrating radar and like discovering more of these sites?
Well, a lot of it is happening locally with the universities in Turkey.
Oh, okay.
Istanbul, I mean, they're excavating.
I believe it's the University of Istanbul is excavating at Karahan.
Who was doing Gobekli?
Well, the German Archaeological Institute was the one working at Gobekli Tepe.
It's, you know, the way these projects get dealt out and the way that digs happen and sort of institutions get involved is no regular process.
It's like a negotiation process, I assume.
It's, you know, some academic institution somewhere in the world wants to go and dig somewhere and it's a negotiation with the government to get the permissions and then they kind of get to.
To run the side, and then at places like Gobekli Tepe, when UNESCO gets involved, that's a whole other set of things.
You see the same thing in Egypt.
Like, there's various, you have the British in one area, you have the French in another area, you have the Germans in another area, you have the Egyptians themselves doing a lot of work in different areas.
Descending Into Pyramid Voids00:08:31
So it's a case by case basis almost about who actually does the work and then publishes.
Certainly in Egypt, any publishing of findings has to be done in.
In close concert with the Department of Antiquities, formerly the Supreme Council of Antiquities.
So, you would, they essentially control the release of information.
So, people that have seen things like the recent, you know, Scan Pyramids project and that sort of data, when they found that new chamber in the Great Pyramid and stuck a, you know, like a little camera in there to take a look, that was all released by the Department of Antiquities in Egypt in partnership with the people that were actually doing the work.
When did they find a new chamber in the Great Pyramid?
Oh, you haven't?
Well, it's been going on for a couple of years now.
So, there's been a.
The Scan Pyramids Project is what it's called.
They're essentially using muon cosmology, or it's basically cosmic ray detection.
So, they put all these sensors, and I've seen them a bunch of times because I've been into the pyramid over this period of time several times.
And down in the subterranean chamber, there's like a rack full of gear, and there's these boxes up on the Grand Gallery and in the Queen's Chamber, like the parts that you can't normally get to that average tourist.
Won't be able to get to you, need like a book, a special permission to see.
There's a lot of this infrastructure, and so what they're doing is there's these you know, cosmic rays and muons in this case are passing through you know, they pass through material, they pass through stone, and everything like that.
But there is a sort of a very slight difference when they pass through material versus a void.
So they put these detectors in there and they leave them for a couple of years, and they've got them on the outside as well.
So they're measuring it kind of from all these different angles, and putting all that data together and crunching it has let them.
Kind of put together a rough picture of where they think there are voids inside the pyramid.
So these are like empty spaces.
And one of them was a small empty space behind, above the main entrance.
So the main entrance is above where we go in today.
So today, when you visit the pyramid, you go up on that north side and you enter in through what's known as Al Mamun's Hole or Mamun's Hole.
It's supposedly been hammered by the Caliph Al Mamun, and he sort of hammered through the limestone superstructure of the pyramid and he hit the junction between the ascending and descending passageway.
Okay.
But up above that, and you can see that in those chevron blocks.
So the actual, the descending passageway actually goes all the way up to a doorway that's below those two triangle shaped chevron blocks in that center top picture.
Yeah, that one.
So there's a doorway there that's considered the original main entrance to the pyramid.
Now, this was all in antiquity still cased over.
So this wasn't visible.
At some point, it was certainly opened in antiquity.
It was, Alma Moon wasn't the first one in there.
But it's actually where the void is, is above that sort of behind those chevrons.
There's a small chamber, and they either drilled a hole or they found a space where they could stick a little tube in and then put one of those little snake cameras in there.
And they had a look around, and sure enough, there's this space.
And it was a big, yeah, this scientist reveal hidden corridor.
I mean, this is this little chamber, and it's got these chevron blocks.
It's like those chevron blocks keep going back into the superstructure of the pyramid, and it doesn't seem to go anywhere.
We don't know that because often some of these passages would be blocked up.
That was certainly the case with the ascending passageway that comes off, the descending passageway has these big granite plug blocks in it.
But the really interesting part of this scanned pyramids project is that they found a massive void in the pyramid, a really large void.
Like this is a tiny little space that they've looked at, but in what, if you've seen the layout of the pyramid in the area above the grand gallery, it's kind of above and I think a little bit to the right.
They've found an indication for what is just a huge chamber.
Now, it's something like 40 meters long.
Which one is the grand gallery there?
So, it's that large angled piece on the right.
See, it's the one that's just to the right of the king's chamber.
It's the angled down, like all the walls.
Oh, I see it.
Okay, towards the top.
Yeah, yeah.
So, it connects the descending passageway is the passageway that goes down to.
That kind of isn't to scale that picture.
Right, okay.
It's not even actually.
I don't know.
That's not the architecture for the pyramid.
That's Pharaoh Oz.
Osmosis, that's a completely sort of diff.
Yeah, that's not the actual pyramid.
Okay.
That's like, there's a lot of chambers that aren't there on that map.
But it's a huge.
Yeah, that's probably a sick diagram.
Yeah, this is probably a little closer to reality.
I probably have a picture too, but.
There you go.
Is it obvious to you when you go in the pyramids that these things were made for people to walk through?
No, not at all.
It doesn't feel at all that way.
I actually think it.
I don't think they were made for humans, put it that way.
And I don't think they were tombs either.
I don't.
They certainly.
I mean.
This is not a, this would not have been an easy space to take some sort of formal procession of Pharaoh's body into these places.
It's ridiculously difficult to move around in them today.
And we've added steps and handrails.
You know, it's a difficult exercise for anyone.
Just the, you know, the passages are like three and a half feet high and feet square.
So you do this pyramid crouch thing.
They're on a pretty steep angle going up and down.
The longest passage is like 300 feet or something, the descending passageway that goes down to the subterranean chamber.
And it's quite an exercise getting out of there.
Um, And, you know, I can only imagine how difficult that might have been without the modern steps and handrails that we put in there to help people.
It's not an easy task at all.
And then you get into spaces like the Grand Gallery.
I mean, that thing looks, there's so many indications in there that that had some sort of function.
It's outrageous.
There's all these slots on the side of the walls.
It's as if there was a mechanism moving up and down.
I know there's architects and proposals that suggest this was almost like a sliding lever room that they would use to haul blocks up and do things like this.
I'm not convinced.
Chris Dunn has his theories about that those slots might have been used to house like series of Heimholz resonators that were part of this whole pyramid machine.
That he proposes.
I'm interested in any functional take on it.
I don't have one personally.
I just, I get the indication from being in there that it feels like a machine, man.
It feels like you're walking around in the guts of a machine.
It's just what it feels like.
It doesn't feel like it's meant for humans.
You can see the stairs and the handrails on this, but this is the Grand Gallery.
Oh, wow.
It's like.
How big is that?
It's huge.
It's probably about 40 meters long and.
God, it must be four or five meters tall at the very top.
It's chevron.
It, you know, it steps up.
It has that.
It has that stepped sort of, it narrows as it goes taller.
And along the edges of the walls, you have these slots.
At the very bottom of it, you go straight, and that goes to the chamber known as the Queen's Chamber.
And at the top, you go straight through an antechamber and then into the granite structure known as the King's Chamber.
So the void that they found, however, is actually above this, and it's equivalent in size.
So, more or less equivalent.
It's something like 40 meters long, four meters wide, and potentially four meters tall.
They're not quite sure if it's angled or if it's straight, but it's a.
And they kind of proved their mechanism and their procedure with the first void.
Like they did their scans and they said, there's probably a void right here, and this one's right near the front entrance.
And sure enough, they drill a hole in there, they stick their little camera in there, and like, there it is.
We found this void.
So there's a very, very high likelihood that there's a void there.
There's undiscovered chambers inside the Great Pyramid.
So who knows what that will reveal.
And I very much hope that.
If it is explored or plumbed, or they drill into it to take a look, that it's data that's shared with everybody because it feels like this is, you know, everybody's history in this monument.
Now, when you were at Gobekli Tepe in Turkey and some of these other sites, Karahan Tepe, are there any rocks or stones that show any of these machining marks that you found in Egypt?
The Three Pyramids of Sneferu00:14:40
For all the time that we have been alive, the US dollar has been the primary currency, but that may not be the case for much longer.
China is set to dethrone the dollar, and possibly much sooner than you think.
And even the world's biggest economies are already ditching the dollar for the yen, collapsing the US currency, causing unprecedented inflation and crashing markets.
And if that wasn't enough, this paves the way for the government to take total control over all of your money with a new digital dollar.
Now is the time to take total control of your money and not let your life savings become a casualty of the currency wars.
And you can do it using the only precious metal dealer that I trust American Hartford Gold.
They will show you how to protect your savings and retirement accounts by diversifying your wealth portfolio into physical gold and silver with the finest products, amazing customer service, and a buyback commitment.
But you don't have to take my word for it.
American Hartford Gold has a five star rating from thousands of reviews and an A from the Better Business Bureau.
American Hartford Gold supports content like this that is committed to bringing you the truth.
And if you tell them I sent you, they will give you $5,000 in free silver on your first order.
So call them now.
855 679 1326.
That's 855 679 1326 or text concrete, K O N C R E T E, to 655 32.
Again, the phone number is 855 679 1326 or text concrete to 655 32.
Now back to the show.
Not at those sites that I've seen, no.
It's definitely, I mean, you don't see the same sort of advanced, what I would term the signs of advanced technology that you see in places like Egypt and Peru, for that matter, and in other areas, Baalbek.
But I didn't see that on these sites.
There's certainly some very.
Significant achievements, but it is, in my estimation, all things that can be done with primitive methodologies.
I mean, at Karahan Tepe, there's still a stone that's in a quarry.
It's a T pillar that's been cut out.
It probably weighs around 30 tons.
I mean, so that's doable.
Then there's flint everywhere.
That's the other thing.
When you're looking around on the ground, there's flint chips everywhere.
I can probably pull up some pictures of it.
Yeah, we would just, on the site, particularly at Karahan, you can find all of these chippings and little flint, either arrowheads or their pieces that have come off.
You know, flint chisels or blades, and it's all worked flint.
You can tell it's all been napped.
Found dozens of them and just pick them up, take a photo, throw them down.
But yeah, there's a big T pillar still in a quarry that's attached.
I mean, it's a difficult thing to do, but logistically, sure, you can move, you know, 30 ton loads.
That said, there are other sites in Turkey that do.
I have not visited them yet.
I think there's one called, I think it's Zanaki Tepe.
It's kind of hard to say, but it looks very much.
Classical sort of megalithic matches the stuff in Egypt.
I've seen photos of tube drills and other indications, and it would take more investigation to see well, is this specifically something that needs some sort of advanced tech to do?
I'm pretty careful about specifically what I say is like, well, this can or can't be done with primitive methodologies.
It's very specific signatures in stone, it's particular achievements, and it's things like precision that we've measured, not just eyeballed, stuff like that.
And I'd I also classify like the massive logistical challenges over, like, say, 250, 400, 1,000 tons.
I don't think we've answered the question or satisfied the statement that that can all be done with primitive methods.
Like, you know, I think you can do that, and people have demonstrated moving large loads up to 100, 150 tons, maybe even 200 tons.
I don't know.
But at some point, there's a line.
I don't know if it's at like 300 or 400.
I mean, anything above, for sure, above 400 tons.
I'm like, I'm really starting to question.
That this can be done with purely primitive methodologies, particularly those attributed to the dynastic Egyptians in this case, because, you know, the Romans could do a lot of things, but the Romans used pulleys and capstans and they had metal, they had steel, they had a lot more capability than what we know the dynastic Egyptians had.
Remember, in the Old Kingdom, and for a lot of that civilization, they had no use of the wheel.
There's no evidence for pulleys use.
They didn't use capstans, they didn't use force multipliers.
They literally had like wooden levers, sleds, ropes, and human horsepower.
There's no evidence they even used animals to haul stuff around.
So that's a very much a different challenge when you're talking about gigantic, you know, single piece objects that weigh a thousand tons or more, of which there is evidence for many.
And in fact, I think there's evidence that stones of this size were even being removed from quarries prior to the pre dynastic civilization.
I think there's strong evidence for that at the Aswan Quarry.
It's a new area of it that I. When was the pre dynastic?
When was pre dynastic?
So the.
Give us like the rough timeline.
Well, here, I can actually show it to you.
Okay, perfect.
And Cleopatra was in the most recent.
She was the last.
She was the last, right.
And I think, I don't remember where I saw this, but Cleopatra is actually closer to us than to the building of the Great Pyramid.
The building of the Great Pyramid.
Yeah, so this here gives you an idea.
So, you know, you're talking about a little earlier than 3000 BC.
So around 3150 is more or less the date where you have Menes, the first pharaoh of the first dynasty.
So like 5000 years ago.
Yeah.
Yeah, a little more even.
That was, so anything prior to that is what you would call pre dynastic times.
Okay.
And there's a few cultures that we associate with that the Nadak culture, several others.
It's a very interesting time because we get a lot of very interesting artifacts that come from that time.
Things like precision made stone vases, which we can talk about.
Yeah.
But that's the early period, it's what's known as the early period, the first couple of dynasties.
Then, sort of 2700 BC or thereabouts, we get into what's known as the Old Kingdom.
This is the famous period.
I love studying this period, probably my favorite period.
This is where the mega pyramids come in.
This is the huge granite works of.
You know, the valley temple, the sphinx is in here, all of this stuff happens in the old kingdom.
This is where mainstream archaeologists believe that this is when they believe the pyramids and the sinks were made.
Yeah, they date this.
So the pyramids were all dated to a reign of, or a family.
In fact, the people don't realize this.
It's like the great, the stone pyramids, the massive stone pyramids, all of them.
I mean, just in Giza alone, those three pyramids supposedly were built in a period less than 100 years together.
Like with success, because you had, this is the Orthodox time frame, you had Khufu, then you had his son.
Possibly his brother, I think, Khafre built the middle pyramid, and then Menkara, who might have been his son.
So you've got these successive generations that apparently built these pyramids.
And if you go back a little bit to include the other massive, massive stone pyramids that are attributed to one guy, Sneferu, who was the first pharaoh, I think, of the fourth dynasty, he has three pyramids.
He has the massive pyramid, there's at Maidum, which is just a huge structure.
There's the bent pyramid, which is, I mean, probably the best preserved, at least the exterior structure of.
Is the bent pyramid the casing stones are all locked together and then most of them are still in place?
And then the red pyramid, so the bent pyramid and the red pyramid are at a place called Dashur, and they're about the same size as the middle pyramid.
So, very close, these are the same sort of achievements.
So, if you take all of those stone pyramids, it they were all supposedly built in just like a 150 year period, according to the orthodox timeline.
It's it's kind of silly.
And if you in Sneferu alone, I have a video on Sneferu.
What I mean, it's there's so many questions like they never found him, they didn't find any burials.
This is the same story, right?
No inscriptions, no burials, no remains in the.
Pyramids and why does a pharaoh need three pyramids?
They kind of say, Well, you know, he kind of stuffed up on the bent pyramid and he didn't get it right, so you know, it has this angle change to it, which was a mistake, which is complete nonsense.
You don't make these things aren't made up as they go along.
And then they go, Well, it's uh, then he did the red pyramid, he was probably buried in the red pyramid.
It's like, Why does he need three pyramids?
And if he did build all three pyramids, I think I did the math at one point, it's in the video, I think it was like over a 25 or even 40 year period, I think you had to have.
Cut and installed more than 350 tons of stone every day for that entire period to build those three.
That's finished in 40 years.
In 40 years, I think, something like that.
You have the similar logistical challenges with the Great Pyramid, right?
And in a period of 25 years, because you have to.
This explanation for how these things were built is constrained by the fact that they have a rough idea of how long the kings they associate to them lived or ruled.
And of course, you want to build your pyramid while you're alive, you want to be buried in it.
The next guy to come along may not finish that for you.
He might take it off you.
Who knows what, right?
So they go for Khufu, for example, the Great Pyramid, roughly 25 years.
The math works out with that thing with, you know, two and a half million stones, more or less making it up.
And it's something like, you know, five to six million tons.
It's one block, quarried, cut, transported, dressed, finished, put in place, complete every five minutes.
24 hours a day, seven days a week, every day of the year.
What's the average weight of those blocks?
About two and a half tons.
With blocks ranging up to like 60, 70, 70 plus tons, like the granite blocks in its core.
A good example, I love this story.
I use it in one of the videos that I have on looking at this sort of absurd timeline of these pyramids.
So in France, there's a well known article.
This was shown in the Revelations of the Pyramids, a documentary made by a good friend of mine, Patrice Poyard.
Fantastic film.
But there was a quarry in France.
Like they dug this hole, basically.
They quarried out a stone or something like this, this big pit, and it was roughly the same volume as the Great Pyramid of Giza.
And they used it as this big hole in the ground.
And they're like, all right, well, we finished quarrying or we finished doing this.
So we just use this for a dump for like material, like rock or whatever from these building sites.
So they would literally just dump truck, like dump trucks that just back up with this, you know, whatever, dirt, digging material from other sites and just dump into it.
24 hours a day, it was just this one operation when all these construction projects, they just Drive trucks up and just dump into it.
It took them 12 years to fill it by dumping into it with modern dump trucks 24 hours a day, all the time.
12 years just to fill that space.
And you're trying to tell me that in 25 years, you're building what is still one of the most precisely made structures on the planet in terms of alignment, the incredible precision that is exhibited in the stonework on the inside, the whole orientation of the entire structure you've got.
And not included in that figure, by the way, is not for nothing.
The bedrock, I mean, you've probably got years of planning, right, just to survey it and plan and design this thing.
Then they actually had to level the bedrock and they had to get down to a point.
They didn't level it entirely.
There is a primordial mound sort of thing in the middle, which is another interesting fact that relates to a lot of other sites.
But it sits on tiles.
There are foundation tiles around this pyramid, some of them weighing 200 to 250 tons.
A lot of people walk up and look at the pyramid, but make sure you look down at your feet.
You're walking on something that was constructed before they ever laid the first stone down.
To build the pyramids.
All of that's probably taken years as well.
And then you've got to go through this process of actually constructing the thing and finishing it because, you know, the inside, they definitely use mortar and there's, you know, it's not a, you wouldn't call it like super precise, most of the superstructure, but the exterior casing stones were incredibly well made, as was a lot of the structures on the inside.
The whole massive granite structure that's in the center that is the King's Chamber is part of and is what is above it.
There's like five or six chambers above it, all made out of granite.
So, yeah, all of this happens in the Old Kingdom.
So, you go from there, you have these intermediate periods.
They're essentially periods when there's civil unrest or there's a disconnection between Upper and Lower Egypt.
There's something that happens to disrupt the unity of Egypt.
The Middle Kingdom runs from dynasties 11 to 14.
Another intermediate period, the New Kingdom.
That's a relatively famous period.
You have guys like Ramses II, Meron Pattar, Seti I. Notorious pharaohs, and this is actually an age of great power for the dynastic Egyptian civilization.
They were very rich, very powerful during this period.
Another third intermediate pyramid period, you have a late period, then you have what's called the Ptolemaic period, which is essentially the Greek Roman period.
And then the civilization, as we know it, comes to an end with Cleopatra, who famously commits suicide around 30 BCE.
So, yeah, that statement that she's closer to us than to the building of the Great Pyramids is true.
Like, it's, you know, it's what, just under 2,000 years since Cleopatra killed herself, but you have to go back, you know, two and a half plus, like, 2,700 years almost to the building of the pyramids.
So, To the official building.
And that's, yeah, the official date of the pyramids.
Right.
Which people have speculated, you've speculated that it's been a lot, it was a lot earlier than that, right?
Yeah, I would, I question the dating of the pyramids.
I think, I mean, it's a difficult thing to say purely because you're looking at the skeletal remains of something that's probably been worked on and renovated and reused and just, just, I mean, I'm sure the dynastic Egyptians were working on these things.
They did things to them.
They used them.
They became part of their culture.
My problem with the pyramid, particularly the Great Pyramid, because that's the one we studied the most, but actually most of them, obviously you have the logistical issues with the timeline that I talked about.
I think these were multi generational projects.
They almost have to be.
We've got tons of examples of that type of thing in our own time.
How long it takes us to build the Panama Canal or these giant projects, they're infrastructure projects, they take a long time.
Measuring the Cosmic Perimeter00:04:03
The problem I have with them is the precision and the knowledge that's encoded in them.
I think any honest analysis of the pyramids leaves you in a position where you have no choice but to reevaluate and rewrite history.
You either end up, if you go, okay, the dynastic Egyptians built them, right?
Fine.
In that case, they had far more capability and far more knowledge than we've ever attributed to them, right?
I think I've talked before about the fact that you have the dimensions of the Earth encoded into the pyramid, right?
It's essentially a scale model of the northern hemisphere.
There seems to be specific information about the fact that the Earth's an oblate spheroid, that it's longer around the equatorial circumference than it is the polar circumference, right?
The grid of latitude and longitude, like that ratio, the fact that we're slightly longer east to west than we are north to south, that ratio, if you knock it out on like a A grid of latitude and longitude, those squares, they're not really squares, they're rectangular.
Um, because the way the earth's shaped, the latitude lines are shorter than the longitudinal lines.
So, if you take a square unit basically out of the earth starting at the equator, it would be wider than it is tall.
And if you scale it down, it is like within inches, the exact size.
I have it here.
I uh, let me let me grab it uh, here.
Pyramid stuff, it's actually called.
This is it here.
So it's, it's, um, so it kind of, it kind of starts here.
This is where that ratio is encoded.
It's in something called the sockle.
Yes.
Which is essentially a cubit high.
Uh, it's like a little, think of it as like a little platform the pyramid sits on, which gives you two ways to measure its perimeter, right?
You can measure the perimeter based on the perimeter of the sockle or the perimeter of the actual pyramid.
And, and then, so this is your, uh, this is exactly what you're talking about.
So one quarter of one minute of latitude at the equator on the earth.
Is 3022.9 feet.
A quarter of a minute of longitude is slightly longer at 30, 43.5 feet.
And then so the perimeter length of the pyramid without the sockle is 30.
It's like what, 0.2 of a foot off.
And this is 0.1 of a foot off, being exactly that same ratio.
So, you have latitude and longitude.
You have the dimensionality of the planet.
This, this, which is, we, again, you know, Randall mentioned this the other day.
It's, we, we, we didn't really get a good, an accurate understanding of that until we had satellite surveys and we did space observations in the 1980s.
And it turns out, because we had a much different idea of this before that time.
And the more accurate we became, the closer we got to the pyramid numbers.
You know what I'm saying?
Like, we, started to learn actually the pyramid very accurately encodes this data.
Um, You know, you have to have some other things on the pyramid, like it has that ratio of 432.
This is one of those cosmically significant numbers.
It's in that pantheon of very interesting astronomical numbers.
And it's at a scale of 43,200.
It essentially replicates the Earth.
You multiply the height of the Great Pyramid by 43,200, you get the polar radius of the Earth.
You multiply the base perimeter of it by 43,200, you get the equatorial circumference of the Earth.
This was coming up a lot yesterday with Randall when he was explaining this plasmoid generator type thing and how the dimensions of the tubes and the sphere and the thunderbolt generator are, it starts at.
Four inches, then it goes to three, then it goes to two.
That is used like throughout that whole mechanism, which is.
Yeah, there's a lot of these numbers tend to repeat in lots of different ways, and Randall's a complete master at showing it all.
But that's so that's why I say that I think, and you know, other people have argued that the speed of light's encoded in it, and there's obviously all this precision stonework in the pyramid.
So, you know, and it's a logistical achievement like no other that wasn't equaled until relatively modern times.
I mean, so I think.
Mud Bricks and Primitive Versions00:04:26
Under either case, so either the dynastic Egyptians built it or they didn't, right?
So you have to, it's either one or the other.
But if you go with they did, then we need to reevaluate and rewrite history based on what it means and what information they have and their capabilities.
And we've got to, we vastly underestimated the dynastic Egyptians.
They were far more capable and they, where did they get this data from and how did they know it?
Like that's a rewrite of history.
And if they didn't make it, like they for sure worked on it, but if there was something else here and this inspired them, then.
That's another picture.
Who did then?
So that's where you get to this concept of inheritance.
And this is why I'm a supporter of the lost ancient civilization hypothesis, I think the vast majority of evidence favors that answer.
I just think there is so much evidence of renovation and reuse and imitation.
I'd look at dynastic Egypt, and I think this idea of them being basically a giant cargo cult, the world's most advanced cargo cult, Makes a lot of sense because you got to imagine the other problem with the pyramids is that you know, these are the first pyramids that were ever made, right?
They're like that's at the very pointy end.
It's the first ones were the best ones, the first ones were the best ones, yeah.
You can the step pyramid's another story, I think that is dynastic, but then immediately after the step pyramid, you have these mighty, gigantic stone pyramids that were supposedly constructed, but they kept making pyramids after that.
I mean, take a look at this, like so.
You know, it's it's to me, it's why I get this term a tale of two industries.
You have the Earliest pyramids are these giant stone structures that are still standing today.
They kept building pyramids right through the middle kingdom, but they were making them from mud brick and they were much smaller and they were much less sophisticated.
And they're today eroding away slowly because they were this is how they were made.
It's like this technology just disappeared if they had it.
And then they were trying to imitate these other pieces of these other works with mud bricks.
And in fact, this is also supported, this primitive methodology is supported by scenes on the wall.
Like there is a scene of pyramid building, like.
But it's mud bricks.
It's literally, it's in the tomb of the nobles on the west bank of the Nile.
How did they make the mud bricks?
Well, they'd put together these mud, they'd bake them in the sun, or they might have baked them in ovens and they'd make these big mud bricks and then they'd transport them to, you know, it's like straw or hay and mud.
And, you know, you bake it and you stick it in a mold and you cook it.
Geopolymer people, it's probably what it is.
It's a form of geopolymer.
And then they'd stack them up and they'd build it that way.
And that's so, it's a process that continues to this day, people doing stuff that way.
But that's how they built them.
And so, what's interesting to me is that this concept that, you know, there's an advanced version of.
Of a particular thing, pyramids is one of them, and a primitive version of a particular thing that matches the tools and techniques that we know about, right?
We know that they were relatively primitive.
They didn't use the wheel, they used manpower, they used primitive tools like flint chisels and pounding stones and, you know, wooden implements for this sort of stuff.
That, and there's scenes on the wall that support it, right?
So we have, they showed us how they did it.
That exact set of circumstances exists not only for pyramids, but it exists for, For vases, for columns, for boxes, for slabs.
There's an advanced and then there's a primitive version of that.
And I've been slowly trying to document that in detail over the last couple of years and look at each category of these and say, okay, so what matches what they, the tools that we know they could use and the techniques that we know that they used and the stuff they drew on the walls that showed us how they did it versus the stuff that isn't explainable via those mechanisms.
And so that's why I think there's, when you look at these advanced things, And you look at what the dynastic Egyptians were doing, and you look at their own history and what they say about their past.
All of a sudden, this idea of inheritance, you know, and a longer timeline, the fact that maybe they got a kickstart, you know, when they finally came out of that Neolithic or Mesolithic Stone Age and they began civilization, they had enough people and they could organize and they started, they might have started with all of these artifacts and objects.
And that's actually what they say too.
Like they trace their own history back some 36,000 years.
Their origin stories with the time of Zeptepi when the gods walked the earth.
Atlantis Connections and King Lists00:05:36
They talk about the time of the Shemsu Hor, these mythical, you know, demigod like people with magical powers, all of these rulers.
They have a king's list that goes back nearly, like I said, over 36,000 years, I think.
And then it gets to the dynastic civilization at the end.
Who came up with the king's list?
Well, there's a couple different sources.
There was an Egyptian priest called Mennaeus that talked about it.
Probably the most, the primary source for that is something called the Turin Papyrus.
There's also a Sumerian king's list that's different.
It goes back 400,000 years or something.
But there's a Turin papyrus, which is where this is written.
And it's actually, I think it's even in Turin.
But it's, yeah, they deciphered it on the back of a piece of parchment.
So we're lucky we've got that much of it because it's quite a long story about how that thing came to be.
It was falling apart and they managed to put most of it back together.
But there's a couple different sources for that king's list.
And not only that, they have.
Cataclysm origin stories.
Like, the story of Atlantis comes to us from Egypt.
That's entirely, the source for that is all in Egypt.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
I mean, that's where, so Plato, in roughly 200 or 300 BC or thereabouts, you know, he talks about it in the Timaeus and Critias dialogues.
That's how we get the story.
That's probably the best account we have of Atlantis that comes from his ancestor Solon, who lived around 600 BC.
And he tells the story of when he was in Egypt at a temple up in the Delta.
This temple doesn't exist anymore, but it was a A priest, an Egyptian priest at one of these structures at this temple in the Delta that told him the story of Atlantis and said this happened 9,000 years ago, which, so Solon's 600 BC, 9600 BC, 11,600 years ago.
That's the end of the Younger Dryas.
It locks right in with Mountwater Pulse 1b when we know the sea levels rose.
So, this is the correlation.
I think Graham Hancock made it.
I don't know if he was the only one or he was the first.
I'm not sure who, but this relates to Atlantis.
And it comes from Egypt.
And not only that, but it's also written on the walls of the Edfu Temple, the primeval Djiba story.
It doesn't specifically say Atlantis, but it tells a story with Toth, who it's one of the few sort of Toth passages.
I've got photographs of it actually.
And they talk about the primeval land being an island that sank, and then they had to go to the homeland and build these primeval mounds that were where all the temples would be.
And beneath these pyramids and a lot of these other structures, you have primeval mounds.
So there's a lot of correlation to this concept of a lost civilization.
Call it Atlantis, call it whatever you want.
But that's why I think all of this evidence makes sense.
So the Egyptians are connected to it, we've got the evidence of the artifacts for it.
And then I think you're also, with the Egyptian iconography, you're looking at that as well, because I do believe there is plenty of evidence that suggests a lot of these statues, not a lot, but certainly several of them, and certainly the very large ones, required significant technology and were beyond the capabilities of what we know about the dynastic Egyptians.
So when I make the case for symmetry and precision in these statues, it's a question I sometimes get.
Well, how come if you think these statues are so old, how come they look like Egyptians or dynastic Egyptians?
And I think it's the other way around.
I really do.
I think the dynastic Egyptians modeled themselves and their culture after the stuff they inherited.
It's that classic iconography of what we look at and we go, that's a pharaoh.
If you had inherited that, there's the poem Ozymandias.
Is it Percy Shelley who wrote it?
It talks about a story of a desert traveler who comes across these two vast and trunkless legs of stone standing in the desert, and nearby he sees a giant visage that's half buried with a sneer of cold command.
Like, you imagine coming along in a desert and seeing these legs and the head of this statue that was probably 1,200 tons and 90 feet tall just broken down, and it's looking at you, and you're like, what the hell is this?
I mean, if you had inherited this iconography, you would, and particularly if your culture was connected to it, like the Egyptians say they were.
These are your gods, man.
Like, these are your gods.
And one thing that doesn't really change is in the actual tombs.
So, with all the beautiful artwork, and you see how the pharaohs depict themselves, that iconography of what they look like doesn't really change over the whole civilization.
It's pretty similar.
And they always depict themselves as being amongst the gods.
Pharaohs were considered god kings, right?
So, it's.
And then, generation after generation after generation, they get more powerful and more arrogant and the hubris of it.
So, they would.
They would start to believe it, I guess, or start to claim these statues.
Now, this is me.
I'm going to write my name on this statue.
I'm going to carve my name into it.
And then, you know, this is kind of what happens.
These artifacts and the iconography become part of that culture and exist for 3,000 years.
It becomes tightly integrated into it.
These places probably became ceremonial places.
So, whether or not places like Giza or Saqqara had a functional purpose, Abu Sia, for that matter, potentially had a functional purpose that had something to do with an advanced civilization, I think that's a possibility.
Carved Cartouches on Marble00:12:54
I think it's worth investigating.
But they would have become ceremonial because the dynastic Egyptians might have had a cultural memory of it, but they had no ability to do anything with it.
So it becomes ceremonial.
And again, you can make it a correlation of that.
So imagine the Younger Dries happens tomorrow, touch wood, it doesn't.
But if it happens tomorrow, within a couple generations, wipes out our civilization, within a couple generations, I mean, we're going to be dancing around campfires, like with black pieces of stone that look like a cell phone, like trying to, oh, yeah, if we dance around the right way around this fire, this black.
Piece of stone is going to tell me everything.
It's going to be able to talk to my ancestors.
I can get all the data.
The technology of yesterday becomes a myth and legend and magic, and you try to capture it through ceremony.
Plasma TVs are a story you tell around a fire at some point.
Right, right.
So, long winded explanation for how I think it's a viable lens through which to try and view our past, in particularly places like Egypt.
I think there's a longer.
Time frame involved here.
And then going back to some of the inscriptions that are made on some of this stuff, like on, especially on the boxes that are inside the pyramids, it's very clear that the hieroglyphs that are carved into those things are much newer than the actual boxes themselves.
And the boxes are perfect precision, the lines are straight, the angles are perfect.
And then you have these sort of roughly cut, roughly chiseled hieroglyphics, or, you know, it looks like they've been vandalized by a much later civilization.
Yeah, that's exactly what I think has happened in a few cases.
And, you know, here's an example.
Like, this is.
Yeah, this is a great example.
Yeah, use of an eye in the Serapium with these, which is a site with, you know, these 100 ton thereabouts, giant granite boxes, 24 of them thereabouts housed in these underground galleries.
Wonderful, wonderful site.
But, you know, these boxes, yeah, I mean, I've looked at them in great detail.
A number of them are pretty perfect.
Like, they've got 90 degree corners, they're flat surfaces, they're straight lines, all these things.
You know, I love this image of it because.
And then another thing to point out is it's not the high relief.
Yeah, it's carved in.
It's carved in.
Although the Egyptians did do high relief carving eventually, and they did good carving as well.
But this is a good demonstration of kind of the point that you're making and that I absolutely agree with.
I love this image because on the corner, it's tough to see with the light there.
But on that corner on the right hand side, you can see it's actually reflecting the light from the hallway in the stone.
It's so smooth.
It's what's smooth and it's polished.
And this isn't a natural property of granite, right?
You've got to work pretty hard to get a mirror finish on it.
Mm hmm.
And then, you know, obviously the people who make it, they can make straight lines, they can make clean corners.
But when you get to look at the writing, it's, you know, there's no straight lines.
It's obviously the work of some dude with a chisel and a hammer.
If you made this box, why would you put this on it?
Yeah, you'd be, if you were the maker of the box, you'd be pissed.
Yes.
You would be upset.
So to me, it's like, it's two different technologies, right?
So the technology used to make the writing is primitive, it's totally achievable with hand tools.
You can knock this out with a hammer and a chisel onto granite.
And in places, it's even, the granite's too smooth where it's skipped over.
There's no straight lines.
And this illustrates one of the issues with a lot of modern or contemporary sort of Egyptology, which is that the writing is the bedrock of Egyptology.
Once we translated hieroglyphs, the Rosetta Stone, and we were able to sort of start to translate, and that's been a huge science, it's wonderful actually, it becomes the bedrock of how we date and relate.
Objects and artifacts because it's whatever was written on them.
It's not the only way, but whatever's written on these things becomes the primary methodology for how we date them.
So, if it is written on them, so you have the name of a guy on an artifact, it's just like, well, the inference is therefore that he probably had this thing made for him and he might have even made the whole site.
It's not the only method that's used, but it is a primary one.
It's probably the first one they'd go to for dating stuff.
And what's interesting, even on this box here, is one of the other issues with this idea is that you actually have an empty Shenring on this box or a cartouche.
Which doesn't have a name in it.
So it's all carved up, and there's an empty Shen ring in here.
And all you'd have to do is imagine that there's a name of a pharaoh in this Shen ring.
And then the history books would say that it was this guy that made this box and probably this whole site.
And that's how the whole story ends up in a history textbook.
But it's empty.
And we don't know whose name was going in here.
I suspect it was whoever was going to pay the priests that ran the place the most because this box was probably being sold for dedication.
Right.
This is the priest around this site.
We know they were dedicated all over the Serapium.
There's, you know, there's little indentations on the walls that have, you know, there were these little limestone or granite steles that you would put in there and have a dedication to yourself.
And this was being a service that was being sold by the priests that were running the place.
Like, it's one of the issues with it.
And, you know, it goes further.
Once you start to see this dichotomy of technology between the artifacts themselves and, you know, and the writing, you start to see it in a lot of places.
And this is a great example I'd like to show people.
Yeah, it's a Hyksos Sphinx, but you can see that the ribs are kind of being shown up by the light almost is being used to the reflection to show that the rib line on this thing.
But then you take a close look at the hieroglyphs and they're just crudely fizzled.
Like it's, you know, you see the hammer marks, you see the fact that it's done by hand.
And here's another key indicator for me the hieroglyphs are never polished, right?
So the rest of the stone is polished.
And there's obviously, it's not all flat surfaces and easy polishing.
There's lots of interesting and tight sort of.
Parts of the stonework that were polished, but the hieroglyphs are never polished.
So, you know, for example, if you look at some of these incredible statues that come from the Old Kingdom, you know, you have the top of the chest, the clavicle here is all beautifully done.
You have the fingernails, the cuticles, the insides of the fingernails.
All of that stonework's polished, right?
This isn't flat surfaces.
So they were capable of polishing stone.
Whoever built this statue could polish stone in whatever form they wanted to.
There's dust all over this statue, but it is polished.
And, you know, you get these beautiful examples of knees.
Like, this is one of the best knees in.
I mean, this is in granodiorite, not for nothing, but incredible musculature and bone structure.
Granodiorite?
Granodiorite.
Granodiorite.
How hard is that stone?
Slightly harder than granite.
It's somewhere, it's like a mixture between granite and diorite.
And what is the hardest stone on earth?
Diamond.
And diorite's how far?
Diorite's like a seven and a half.
So, diamond's a 10 on the most scale of hardness.
You know, things like hardened steel might be a 6.5, and granite and.
Granite can be a 6.5 to a 7.
Some are diorite and flint, and some of the other harder stones, you know, either porphyry or dolerite can go up to like 7.5, 8.
Corundum, topaz, things like this are a 9.
And we have artifacts made from things like corundum that they were shaping with a 9.
I mean, it's and copper and bronze are like 3 and 4.
These are extreme.
Marble's like a 3.
Calcite's like a 3.
This is why a lot of sculpture is done in marble these days.
It's a statue of David.
Is that marble?
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah, marble.
It's much, much, much softer than this stuff.
Like, incredibly.
Yeah, if you're a modern sculptor, you ain't working in granite just because.
Like, it's not a good choice.
Like, you're going to burn your tools out.
It's going to be a nightmare.
And modern sculptors will know this.
But, yeah, the point is that, again, even with decent hieroglyphs like this, you know, it's not polished, right?
Even in the good hieroglyphs that are on the side of this statue, like the interior of the bird, not polished.
The Shen ring around the king's cartouche there, not straight and not polished.
The lotus flower motif below, it is polished.
So it's like, this is a different.
This was done with a different technology, potentially done at an entirely different time.
So it's difficult to say then that the writing is how we can date and relate this artifact into the story of history.
It's entirely possible that this was inherited.
We don't know how old it is.
And then somebody wrote their name on it later and claimed it.
And in fact, we have evidence of that very thing.
In fact, here's one more good example of the polish.
I like this shot because it shows you the polished stone and then that, you know, you can see the chisel marks.
This is.
All these hieroglyphs, they're good, but they're all done by hand.
And we know that the practice of writing of somebody usurping an artifact, Flinders Petrie called Ramses II the great usurper.
People think about him as one of the most powerful kings of ancient Egypt.
But he was notorious for writing his name on stuff.
This is an example here I can show you real quick.
That's the cartouche of Ramses II right here.
This big guy here, it's carved in very deeply into, and I actually love this photograph.
He's carved it deeply into what is a reused section of an obelisk.
But look closely at the end here.
Oh, yeah, that bird?
He's carving over the top of a pre existing inscription.
So you can see it here where he's blending in.
They got quite good at writing over the top and blending in his stuff into a pre existing inscription.
Oh, wow.
And I mean, there's artifacts with two or three or four even different pharaoh's names on them.
And he would, Ramses became notorious.
He would carve his stuff really deeply because he didn't want other people doing to him that he would.
What he was doing to others.
But, you know, what I love about this particular picture is you're actually looking at two or three different reuses of a particular artifact, right?
So this piece of stone was originally probably part of an obelisk, right?
It's a broken piece of an obelisk.
They had a place called Tanis, which literally was forested with obelisks and columns.
And if you've seen obelisks, the ones that have writing on them, the writing's vertical, right?
It's not horizontal.
It's vertical.
Yes.
When the obelisks are standing up.
They're standing up, right?
So the writing on the side.
So this is an original writing.
So not only did this obelisk break, This thing was originally standing up vertically.
Yeah, it's a piece of an obelisk, most likely.
Yeah.
And so it was re, and they were reused.
There's even like these walls that they built at Tanis.
I mean, there's a foot from a thousand ton statue that's been repurposed into a block in a wall.
So they were reusing broken pieces of stones in walls.
So not only did they reuse it once as a block in a wall, then someone wrote something on it the first time.
And then later on, who knows how long later, Ramses II comes along and writes over it again.
So, this thing's been inherited, renovated, and reused like two or three different times.
And it's written on horizontally.
And all the vertical obelisks are written on vertically.
The ones that have writing on them, yes.
So, it's hard to say how can you take this cartouche and say, well, Ramsey's had this block of stone quarried and shipped to the side.
And, you know, we don't know that.
You can't date the stonework.
So, it's just a great example of inheritance and reuse.
What are the people saying that push back against this?
It's football season, baby, and you know what time it is.
Time to gamble all that hard earned money on some sports.
As a better, You demand perfection, and that's where my bookie delivers.
NFL, college football, and a brand new cash out system give you the options to bet and win all season long.
First two legs of your parlay already hit, you can cash it out early and place another bet or sweat it out and let it ride for a chance at an even bigger payday.
Join the MyBookie family for an entire season filled with daily odds boosts, same day parlays, and super contests.
And this season, MyBookie has a no strings attached cash bonus that lets you deposit and withdraw quick.
Use the promo code DJP on a deposit of $50 or more, and you can receive up to $200 cash instantly into your MyBookie account.
Bet your deposit amount once and you're ready to withdraw at any time.
Again, that's promo code DJP to claim your cash deposit bonus.
You can bet anything, anytime, anywhere, only with my bookie.
Like, how do they defend this when confronted with some of this stuff?
Well, I mean, with the inheritance, I mean, the reuse of stuff, it's not really defended.
It's not like trumpeted as a common thing, but it's acknowledged that, yeah, Ramses would.
Would reuse stuff, but it's kind of a weird thing.
Grinding Stone with Copper Saws00:15:22
It's only in certain cases where they have very specific, okay, we've got three names of rulers on this artifact, so therefore this is probably older.
He might have renovated this, but they don't really acknowledge it as a possibility for a lot of the stuff.
And I think it is.
Even the statues, like there's the big statues at Luxor, have the names of two or three different pharaohs on some of them.
They just don't, I mean, one of the problems with, I mean, I hate to use the term, but it's just like mainstream or orthodox.
Egyptology is that they don't really consider the engineering aspects of the stonework.
They don't care about precision or symmetry.
They don't care about the vase scan work, for example, that we've been doing.
It's not really factoring into the decision making.
They look at who's written on it, they look at what scenes are on the wall, they look at the other data they can do to support it and say, well, that's where it is.
I genuinely don't know how they think about this.
I mean, for sure, they.
They'd probably point to the fact, well, you know, where you get the same sort of questions like, where are the tools and, you know, where's all the structures and all that stuff.
I think we're looking at some of the structures.
I think we're looking at, but we're looking through the lens of thousands and thousands of years of renovation, reuse, remodeling, and then thousands and thousands of years of destruction and quarrying.
And, you know, it's a really difficult picture to put together, particularly in Egypt, because it's, you know, the people, even within their own civilization, they were reusing stuff.
But, Who knows when it started, but they kept reusing and rebuilding and changing the sites.
And then for thousands and thousands of years after, they've been used as quarries for stone.
People take the stone and they chop it up, and it's all a great source for granite, you know?
Even during the Egyptian civilization, this was happening.
Ramses II was quarrying granite from the middle pyramid at Giza to go use in some of his other structures at like Lisht and a couple of other places.
And it's written on the wall at the pyramid I'm the quarry master for Ramses II, and we were taking the stone from here because he's the boss, you know?
What was the original stone that was casing the very outer shell of the pyramids?
It was like a very white, shiny stone.
Yeah, so it depends.
The Great Pyramid and most of the Middle Pyramid was something called Tura limestone.
Okay.
Yeah.
In fact, Mount Nemrut in Turkey is also made from Tura.
It's a very hard form of limestone.
And yeah, it's very white and pure.
So it's not a local stone.
They had to get it from a quarry a distance away.
And who stripped all that off?
Well,.
A lot of it was probably done during the, started really with the Persian occupation.
But everybody.
Right.
Anyone that could.
It wasn't in.
So the pyramid, the story goes is that there was a, you know, the pyramid had its casing stones and they were, they're all, they're locked.
Like you couldn't get a bar in there to pry.
And they're huge, you know, they're like three, four.
Some of the casing stones are bigger than the other blocks.
So some of those might have been four or five tons.
Funnily enough, the middle pyramid actually has giant blocks in its construction too.
Even on the outside, like 50, 60 ton blocks.
But the story goes that it was, I think there was an earthquake and I'm probably going to get the date wrong.
400 ish.
AD, there was a big earthquake.
It might have been even earlier than that.
But it shook loose a couple of these casing stones.
So it either tilted them or it busted one out and a big shake up and some stuff fell off.
And then that gave people purchase to like scaffold their way up there and scurry up there and then start prying these things out and then just letting them fall.
And then it went from there.
And, you know, it's a valuable stone.
It's obviously useful for all sorts of purposes, but one of its main purposes was you could grind it up and make like a plaster out of it.
You grind it up, mix it with water, and you make a fine plaster that you can plaster over things and carve into.
And I mean, literally, the only reason we have a few casing stones still left on the pyramid is because of the piles of quarry rubble.
Like there was 50, 60 feet of quarry rubble pushed up against the base of the pyramid from all of the quarrying activity that covered up the few remaining casing stones that were still at the bottom.
Yeah.
Flinders Petrie.
Always decried this and he was always admonishing people for this because he'd said it's literally, it was, and this is literally like 100 to 130, 40 years ago.
At all of these places, he said, Does everyone who's anybody has a headstone made from the stuff, like the stone from the pyramid?
And every day there's just camel trains and camel trains of people taking stone all the time.
And he dug, he actually excavated through the rubble, he found the casing stones, he documented them, and then he reburied them.
He's like, I, If I leave this open, it's gonna be gone.
No, no, no question.
So he reburied it and was like, I'll have to work to get to that.
So, yeah, I mean, it's just people don't care.
Most people just interested in enriching themselves, they're not that worried about taking the stone, but it's human, it's a human nature thing.
Um, but you get to, you know, the middle pyramid, the bottom two courses, maybe the first, maybe also the second, for sure the first was cased in granite.
Like, literally, all of those casing stones were granite.
The bottom layers, like the bottom two layers, it's really cool.
Um, In fact, I have a.
I probably have a picture of it here.
Yeah.
So this is the bottom pyramid here.
So these casing stones are like the same shape as the ones on the other pyramid, but these are granite and they're huge and they're perfect.
If you walk around the middle pyramid, it's littered with these amazing casing stones and you see this dashed line that's in this.
Yeah.
That's an attempt to quarry it.
In fact, they were looking to split this whole face off it and get to this square block behind it.
So this is.
This is, you see this everywhere on these sites, and people are like, What are those dashed lines?
It's quarrying.
It's called a wedge and chisel.
So you'd hammer, you'd use like steel chisels, you'd just hammer away at it, you'd create these divots, and then you'd get wood or something, or you can sometimes use stone too, like flint.
But wood was good because you'd pound wood into it, then you'd wet it, and when wood gets wet, it swells.
So it would provide pressure on the stone, and then you would get a lot of these flint chisels or steel chisels and just hammer into these gaps.
And what you're trying to do is crack the stone along that line and take a piece.
And yeah, I mean, these things were perfect.
You know, these casing stones were perfect with their angle, and they're all polished on the outside, and they're just, I mean, there's tons of it just from quarry rubble.
Talking about the boxes, it's funny, I was reading Chris's book this morning, his first one, the Giza Death Star, or the Giza Power Plant.
And he was saying how he interviewed one of the, or he talked to, like, the guy who ran the biggest granite.
Manufacturing company in the US, and he asked them what it would take, what the resources would be to reproduce one of those massive granite blocks that were basically hollowed out on the inside.
The guy said it would take at least two thousand dollars just to quarry it.
Not more than it was two hundred thousand.
That's what I meant two hundred thousand.
Yeah, two hundred thousand dollars just to quarry it, another like fifty thousand dollars to transport it.
Easy, and then he was like, It would make no sense for us to hollow it out, hollow out a single piece.
We would just take.
Four or five pieces, and we would bolt them all together.
That's right.
He's like, we would never just hollow it out.
They couldn't.
Well, you'd need to develop the tool.
Like modern granite processing, we cut slabs.
Right, right.
We quarry them out of the quarry in big blocks, and then we cut them into slabs for kitchen counters or whatever use.
You know, when you talk about doing granite sculpture, which happens, people do do complex shapes in granite, it takes very specific tools.
And man, yeah, hollowing out a single piece of granite like that would.
Cost a bomb in the tooling to make that happen.
You burn out half your tools trying to do that's a big volume of space.
But yeah, that's and these and remember these prices are like, I mean, when did he write that book?
The 90s.
I mean, right, you know, so that's got prices probably double that easy since then.
And then the saw cuts too, like the saw cuts, then the errors in the saw cuts.
Like if you take a skill saw and you're trying to cut something and you go into it and you realize, oh, you got the angle wrong, you pull it out real quick.
And then you go back in and make another cut.
There's evidence for this.
Yeah.
But if you're doing it slowly with whatever methods they have, they claim they had to cut those stones, you wouldn't be going the wrong way, then pull back out and then start going the right way.
You would obviously be going so slow that you would be able to make adjustments along the way.
That's right.
And there's plenty of evidence for overcuts and exactly that type of thing is one of the reasons why I think, look, we're seeing evidence for, call them power tools, call them just powerful tools that were cutting incredibly hard stone.
And That's one of the best.
I have.
We can look at some of those images if you like of tooling.
I mean, you know, not just cuts.
You see these cuts all over the place.
I don't know if this is all broken up stone now, but you know, there's these types of things you see all over it.
This is on the basalt pavement.
But one of my favorite ones is actually, I really like the edge of this thing.
It's a slab at Abu Seir.
It's this beautiful slab.
And if you look along the edge, it's been like just finely touched with some sort of powerful.
Tool that's sort of been backed out.
It's got, you know, this thing's got markings all over you.
Have these giant circular saw depressions here and here.
Good lord.
You know, you can look at how many times this thing's been touched on.
What is this made of?
You know, this is, I think it's schist.
I think it's schist or it's blue quartzite, maybe.
It's a very unique piece.
I'm amazed it's still there because a couple people could probably move it.
And it's just a remarkable piece of stone.
Let's see, where else you got?
Yeah.
So, use of.
Pointing out that the big circular sawing station, all the colors come out of it when you wet it.
We usually wet this one and show people.
And it was actually so it was cut right through here at the end and then snapped off.
You can see that on the end here, cut straight through.
You know, here's some other looks at the circular saw marks on this thing.
Absolutely amazing tooling marks in this.
Perfectly straight.
Yeah, and you have, let me look.
I think it's in statues.
I want to show you the overcuts.
Yeah, I mean, you have stuff like this, right?
So this is at Karnak Temple.
I just did a video on this.
This is in an obelisk, and you literally have circular saw overcuts.
And you see them on statues too, but you can literally see on this one here where it was exactly what you were talking about.
Oh, yeah, you see right there?
Yeah.
It was reset.
Like the angle of the cut was reset.
Yep.
And it was some sort of giant circular saw because they start narrow.
You know, they start here and they penetrate and they get deeper and then they peter out at the bottom.
Like, the profile fits a big circular saw.
And in fact, I've, there's some more of these at Karnak and I do this in the video, but I've plumbed them with like a key card where you, you know, you can show the depth increase.
You show the profile of a circular saw cut.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
I mean, it's.
So the depth varies from the middle being the deepest and then it gets shallower towards the ends.
Yeah.
I mean, this is a classic.
Example of a circular saw cut.
You see this here, right?
I mean, it's just, it's hard to.
They had straight saws too.
There's this, I should say that.
It's not all circular saws.
There was absolutely straight saws too.
This piece is very interesting.
This is at a place called Aburawash.
If Chris Dunn does talk about this in his book, a lot of people have talked about this.
I think even maybe Petrie talked about it.
But you see how it's, you clearly can see the orientation of the saw, right?
Here's the crazy thing to think about this piece it's concave.
See this line in the center here?
You can actually see it here.
See this curve?
Yes.
So it's shaped like this.
It's concave.
So it's cut this way and it seems to have been cut this way.
So it's not straight.
So what I think you're looking at is a two stage machining process here where they cut, and this is where that concavity ends here.
Like you can see it gets deeper and then shallows out.
Yep.
So they cut it sideways through this.
And then it's almost as if they ran a circular saw this way and they just pushed the block through like this.
So it was digging out that profile as it went through.
But there's this, it's hard to see in the photos, but it's entirely there.
And again, you see the striations in the stone from the cutting mechanism.
Right, right.
The little grooves.
This is very sophisticated machining in stone.
Like, I don't know what the purpose was for this, whether this was, it could have been part of a box that didn't cut all the way through the stone.
I don't know.
Here's another good, that's just good stuff like this.
Yeah.
Like, you know, I mean, we're blowing Stephen's mind right now.
I mean, this, I've got endless examples of this.
And it, I mean, I like this one too.
But it's, you can see it's just been, and you actually look close to, you can actually see the striations, like the individual cut lines.
So it gets really interesting with this because, you know, these, a lot of these saw marks, the basalt ones, and again, basalt being kind of as hard, if not a little harder than granite, are in these, are in what's this basalt pavement that's to the east of the Great Pyramid.
And it's on the sides because they would, they would finish the top and it was perfectly flat.
In fact, it's a wondrous, Application of stonework, but over the years and millennia, it's been falling apart.
In fact, as they even built a back in the day, they built a road, they had a road over it.
Like they literally put down a road over the top of this basalt pavement.
They've taken the road away now.
But at the sides of this thing where it's falling apart, you can see where they've rough shaping the blocks, right?
There was different types of tools, it seems to me.
The quarry, there was like the scoop marks in the quarry, they were looking to remove stone quickly and they didn't care.
It wasn't precise.
They're like scooping stuff out to get out as much material as possible so they can get the block out.
Then they had the rough shaping of stone where they were cutting out the kind of general dimensions of the block.
And we might be looking at that with this, where they're just cutting on the side and, okay, we want to get this down to this point.
And then there was a capability to just perfectly finish the stone, like fine polishing, fine machining, doing those fine little touches to get those precision surfaces, and then a polish to make it kind of like that mirror finish.
So there's different levels, and these were done in different places.
And what's interesting with the stone cutting.
Is that we don't have a good explanation for this.
It's that there's tube drilling kind of falls under this too, but the stone cutting is like the explanation is that it was grinding with like a copper drag saw, you'd call it.
Like it's like a V shaped copper bar.
You put sand and water and you grind and grind and grind, right?
So you just sit there and grind and grind and grind.
Microscopic Machines and Assemblers00:15:10
And the problem with that is that it doesn't leave.
There's videos of this, right?
Yeah, yeah, trying to do this.
Mark Lehner and it's a good experiment.
There's nothing wrong with the experiment.
So, Mark Laner and a guy named Dennis Stocks.
Mark Laner's a famous Egyptologist.
Dennis Stocks is an experimental Egyptologist who does actually do these sort of experiments.
And it's great because we get some data from his work.
But there's a few problems with it.
One is it doesn't leave the same signature.
Secondly, you don't get overcuts.
You don't get these narrow cuts like these.
Like, you're not going to get this sort of stuff with that because it's V shaped, right?
And based on that data, though, from Dennis and other people, we have data on how long it takes.
To do this, and it's something like two.
Look, let's round it off and say this thing is a little tiny bit over, but about two millimeters per hour, right?
With that grinding technique, yeah.
And that's and that varies based on the length of the cut.
Obviously, the longer the cut, the slower you go.
So, two millimeters, roughly two and a half or whatever millimeters per hour.
It's very, very slow, is the takeaway.
And at the same time, you lose copper like you're the grinding because it's the quartz sand that's doing the cutting.
The copper's kind of you could use horn or potentially even wood, but even using copper, you lose copper at a tremendous rate.
So, you lose almost as much, if not more, copper than you're actually getting from cutting the stone.
And it's a very slow rate.
So, A, with that slow rate, you'd have to grind away for hours to get these sort of overcuts that we see for starters.
So, it's as, and again, as you said, you're probably not going to make that mistake and sit there and keep doing that mistake for hours and hours to get an overcut.
Like, all right, Johnson, you're in trouble.
And secondly, I have yet to do the math, but I really, I plan on, I'd love to do this.
I've said it a few times now, but.
I want to scale this up to see what is the, at an industrial scale, can the stuff, because we know you can kind of calculate how many blocks, how much granite was cut.
You can probably get to a rough figure of how much tonnage of granite, say just at Giza or maybe just on the Middle Pyramid complex.
I don't know.
But, you know, Chris Dunn kind of calculated it, just to give you an example, there's a box inside the Middle Pyramid, right?
It's a box in the room, kind of like the box in the King's Champ.
It's a little bigger, a little longer, like maybe eight feet long and.
You know, three or four feet wide.
And based on Dennis Stocks' experiments, purely to make the primary cuts on that block of granite.
So, assume you quarry the granite, takes God knows how long.
But just to make like the north, south, east, west, top and bottom cuts, right?
To shape the box, using the data that we've got from guys like Dennis Stocks, would take something like 267 days of continuous grinding, 24 hours a day, just to shape that one box.
And that doesn't include hollowing it out.
Because again, it's a single piece box, right?
It's been hollowed out, it's been finished perfectly.
You've got tube drills in it.
It's all shaped and decorated, and there's who knows how much work in doing that as well.
So it's just like, do you really think you could scale up and do like hundreds of thousands of tons worth of granite work using this?
And where's all the copper dust?
Where is it?
Like there's tons and tons and tons and tons of copper must have been to do this.
And yeah.
Didn't they analyze that famous core, Petrie's core?
And I think in Chris's book, I think I read this also, where they took a modern day tube drill and they basically estimated based on the The rings going around the outer edge of the tube, the core that came out, that they estimated that the drill would have been 500 times more powerful than any modern drills.
So, based on, yeah, so in fact, this is Petrie's core.
Where I've got another image of it here.
Let's see, where's the other one?
This, no, that's not it.
This one will do.
It's fine.
Same thing.
Let's go, computer.
Okay.
So, yeah, that's Petrie's core number seven there.
So, it's, it's, yeah, so Petrie, and it's called Petrie's core number seven because Flinders Petrie discovered it when it's.
Exhibit number seven on his, and this is the one that's been studied.
So he calculated, he looked at it and he determined that this spiral groove that's on the stone has a what you'd call a one in 60 penetration rate, right?
So if you take that, if you unwind that spiral travel, you make stick it out in a straight line for every 60 inches of horizontal travel, you're getting an inch of vertical travel, one in 60.
Right.
Okay.
Chris Dunn has since, I think, refined that a bit.
It's not quite as deep, it's not quite, it's a little less than one in 60.
It's in the ballpark.
And yes, so based, and then when you compare that to our modern tools, that's a five, it essentially rounds out to being about 500 times greater penetration rate into stone than we can achieve.
And that's not to say that it may have moved very slowly doing this, or our stuff spins really fast, you know, so it's not penetrating it as fast per, you know, you don't get a one in 60 penetration rate, but it's our stuff can still maybe cut the stone pretty quickly.
But the actual penetration rate based on the motion of the drill isn't anything like what we're seeing in the stone here, which is crazy.
And, you know, there are a number of these cores.
I've talked a lot about this core, as has Chris.
And I'm sure when you get Chris in, he'll talk about it too.
But I consider the case is closed, bro.
They did a latex mold of it, and he has proven without any doubt that it's a spiral groove.
The problem has always been the claim that it's a spiral groove.
That's the one thing that no one in, I guess, mainstream Egyptology will admit, and they've gone to great lengths to try and obfuscate.
This idea that it's a spiral groove, but it has been definitively proved by the Petrie Museum, no less, and Chris Dunn, who were both responsible for the latex core experiment, which is this one.
So they made a latex core of it, right?
So this is this latex mold.
Chris stamped the latex mold with these notches, cut it open with these notches.
And then here's it showing you the notch detail in these blow ups next to these little arrows, right?
So you can draw a straight line between these notches, which is the horizontal line, okay?
The straight lines are the horizontal line between the notches, same spot.
So it goes to the bottom of the notch, it goes to the bottom of the notch, same down here, bottom of the notch.
And then what you're seeing is these dotted lines are tracing the individual spiral or individual grooves.
And in every case that we look at here, it starts above the line and it ends up below the line.
So it is spiral, right?
So it's higher here, it's lower here, it's higher here, it's lower here, et cetera, et cetera.
It's geometrically proves this is a spiral groove.
That said.
And the length between each groove is exactly the same, right?
The width?
Oh, that's what I meant.
Yeah, the width.
Not really.
It seems, well, it's Petrie described as a drunken screw.
There are some crossover.
It seems to have been more than one cutting point.
So there were multiple cutting points.
So there might have been some crossover.
And, you know, people speculate all day about this.
It is.
And the other thing to note about this is that it's actually tapered.
So it's tough to see.
You can kind of see it.
See how it's tapered?
Right.
Yep.
So it narrows down.
And this thing's upside down.
So this is probably where it's fatter at the bottom.
It's upside down.
It snaps off here.
Mm hmm.
And so you got to imagine that the holes that they come out of are straight, right?
And it's tapered.
So it tells us that the tool itself was probably tapered.
Right.
Which means that it's shaped like this.
So as it goes, it's cutting down, it's cutting down, it's cutting down, it's cutting on all surfaces.
And then, so a lot of this is where people say, well, you know, this groove could have been made when they retracted the tool, like it unscrewed itself.
I'm like, that isn't how it would work if it was tapered.
So if it's tapered, it's going to conform to the granite's conforming to the shape of the tool.
And then the second you move it up at all, It loses contact with the stone because it's the angle changes, right?
It's narrower at the top and it's wider at the bottom.
So, once you get down and you're finished, you lift it up a bit, and then all of a sudden, it's the tool's going to be wider right at that point where it when you lift it up.
So, it's not actually touching the stone, it doesn't unscrew, it just lifts out.
It can't, I don't think, I don't think unscrewing it or removing the tool will give you the spiral groove.
Plus, look, it you don't, it takes quite a lot of force to cut into granite like this.
It's not just a simple, you're not scratching granite and leaving a deep groove like we see in these two.
It's not just in the drills, but we see it in these holes too.
You have these deep grooves in the holes.
And you see this all over the place with as many.
Now, is that an example of them doing a core drill used to split a piece of stone?
Well, I don't think it's used to split a piece of stone so much as they were sought out to then split stone.
You know what I'm saying?
Like they, they, they will, I think the people that were quarrying the blocks were looking for these.
And then they would, they would try and split them along the angle of the tube drill.
You know what I'm saying?
Along the axis of the tube drill.
You see it all.
There's lots of complete holes like that haven't been split.
And in fact, you see on the back of the stones, you see that dashed line, which is a, which is a, I mean, that's a technique that started.
I mean, they were the earliest, we know they were using it like the, the New Kingdom, but these tube drill holes go back way further.
And the oldest types, we don't see that.
Quarrying method way back in the day.
It's like the oldest quarrying method seems to be the scoop method at the quarry, which is kind of like an ice cream scoop.
Yeah.
But I think they were looking for them.
Like, for example, here's a giant tube drill, right?
This is a nine inch one at Karnak.
And this stone's been split along its axis.
Right.
So later civilizations found these things and used that to try to split them.
Yeah, because it's a natural weakness in the stone and you could split them.
So you see a lot of tube drills that are, in fact, split, but you see plenty that are whole as well.
And we know they're whole originally because we have the drill cores.
Yeah.
Can we look at some pictures of these scoop marks?
Yeah.
Actually, this is a good point.
I don't know if I have.
Let's just go straight to that.
And also, I forgot to ask you what do you speculate these saw blades could have been made of?
It's less maybe what they were made of than what technology they were using.
I mean, Petrie speculated that it.
Could have been.
He's like, diamond would fit the bill, you know, like, because he was looking, it's a bronze embedded with gemstones or something.
But he's like, there's no evidence for diamond.
And he's right, there's no evidence for diamond use in Egypt.
We see no diamonds.
It's not written about.
Would there be leftover fragments of diamonds?
You'd find something.
There's literally been zero.
And as far as gemstones go, the gymnastic Egyptians sort of prized colored stones.
So diamonds wouldn't have been precious from that perspective.
I mean, who knows?
Maybe they did use them.
We just don't have any evidence for it.
But I don't know what it was using.
It could be any corundum or hardened substance.
But it could have.
I look at the stuff.
I don't think there was pure mechanical force involved.
I think there's something else going on.
Like how, though?
Well,.
That's the speculation.
Were they softening the stones?
Who knows?
Were they changing the molecular properties of the stone?
Were they using ultrasonics?
Were they.
I mean, you have to go back to the legends of plasmoids.
Have you ever heard of plasmoids?
Well, it could have been plasmoids.
I don't know.
I mean, this is where we speculate.
And that's why I think it's interesting to be open minded about what we see on these sites and research it as best we can.
Let's use our best tools.
Let's microscopically analyze the rock.
Let's look at it in being open minded to any possibility because we might learn something.
You know, I think you go back in time, the legend of the Shamir is very interesting.
You ever heard this story?
No.
Like the Solomon's Temple, the Shamir, and all this.
So it's, well, the Shamir, I'm not that well versed in this.
You should really have, you know, Russ and Kyle, the, who are those guys?
Snake Bros.
Oh, the Snake Bros.
Yeah, they would be great to reach out to those guys.
Fantastic.
And Russ really knows this stuff inside out.
So there are stories in, I think it's associated with King Solomon, about the stories of something called a Shamir, which essentially, think of it as like a lightsaber that just cuts through stone.
Lets people cut through very hard stone.
It's oft sometimes described as a worm.
But there's this consistent story of this artifact called a Shamir that is like allegedly would let you, yeah.
I like to think of it as like this lightsaber that just cuts through stone and you could, people could cut really hard stones with it.
It comes out of history.
So it's like, was this left over from these times?
I don't know.
I don't know.
And it's, I try not.
Thinking about it in terms of diamond blades though is like, it's like thinking about it looking in the mirror, like we can't assume that they did shit the way that we do shit, right?
This is what we've been talking about with Randall for the past few days.
Yeah, it is.
I think that's the right approach.
It's a tempting and natural thing to look at a problem.
We look at these challenges and we go, this is how we would do it, fit it into our box.
And again, I just think that there are avenues of technology that we are yet to learn about that we will know more about in time.
And I think it's hard to do, but it's like, here's our perspective and here's everything we know, but some of the answers might be out here.
And that's what being open minded about it and.
And not just dismissing stuff and scoffing at it, and then researching it with some of those possibilities in mind, we might even learn something eventually from it.
That's what I want to do.
People always like, well, what is it and what's the speculation of how it does it?
You can speculate all over the place.
Chris Dunn's new book, if you've got to it, the Serapium chapter.
Yeah, I'm like a quarter of the way through it.
I got to finish it.
I can't.
He does some amazing speculation.
I'm not going to spoil it.
Really?
Oh, God.
I'd love it.
He sent me the Serapium chapter because I'd helped him with some stuff for it.
Before he wrote it, and now I'm writing a recommendation for it.
So I've got the book too.
It comes out early next New Year, January 24, yeah, for people.
Get them salts, baby.
And then, and he does, I just love where he goes with it.
But it's with speculation, you know, the world, it's an imagination at that point.
Does he talk about these lightsabers?
I haven't seen him mention specifically this, Shamir.
He's talking about more about a potential technological application for the boxes.
Oh, a technological application?
Yeah, like what, like, and so that's something I've always thought about too, yeah.
So here's another way to think of it, and I like this idea too, is that, and because this relates to, he does talk about this, and this isn't giving the game away here, but it's like if you consider the idea, you added like the concept of an assembler.
An assembler?
The React Model of Construction00:03:18
Assembler.
Like this is, imagine we get nanotech down to the point, and this is entirely plausible if you just project technology forward, where you create these microscopic machines that can essentially assemble, themselves, or they can, they're almost like a von Neumann probe or something like that, but at the tiniest level, where you can use molecular.
A von Neumann probe.
Yeah, it's like a self replicating probe.
Imagine you send, I mean, some interesting books have been written on that topic.
Yeah, it's like you send a probe out into space, but it has the capability to replicate itself.
Okay.
And just by using the material that it finds and then, you know, project forward a thousand years and see what happens.
But imagine you get to the point where we have these microscopic machines that can, they're assemblers that can take.
Molecular material, even at the atomic level, and assemble things and even replicate themselves.
So you could build anything, but it's being done with technology that's so small you can't see it.
Right?
That's this concept.
It's been proposed by a number of sci fi authors and people that have thought about technology.
Yeah.
And it's like that's one scale of things.
And the other scale of things to think about as well if you go out and you think about Dyson spheres and things like that that are almost galactic in scope or the size of a solar system in terms of a machine that does a particular thing.
It's just an interesting way of thinking and looking at technology.
We look at it and we go, here's a box, and how would we cut this box and make this box?
But it's possible, whether it's plausible or not, I don't know, but it's possible that the answers to some of these questions could be so small we can't see them or so large we can't comprehend them.
Like that's just the nature of technology.
Like we just don't, you know, you can throw simulation theory into that too, the idea that we're all just part of some simulation running on the computers of the future.
But that's, it's all, It's just projections of technology.
And I'm just, this is all pure speculation.
So it's, that's, that's one of the challenges with speculation is that it becomes this, this, this just endless, endless imagination of possibilities.
But I do try to focus on sort of following the evidence and looking at, at what, you know, some of the answers might be based on the, the evidence that we have in front of us.
And, and it's fun to speculate.
And I'm going to, I'm in the process of writing a book too.
And I will speculate, give my speculation in there as well about what it might be.
But I always try to be real.
Clear about when I'm speculating because it's as soon as you speculate, you people are like, Look, he's crazy.
You think, Oh, yeah, the moon's a spaceship or something.
Oh, yeah, we did our last podcast, we were talking about the moon, and somebody uh took a video and made some crazy reaction video about it.
Oh, yeah, yeah, gotta love that react model.
Um, I gotta pee real quick.
All right, he's uh, they've really figured out their construction guys, and is it two guys, Russ and Kyle?
Okay, yeah, they uh, they've really figured out some really cool shit on um, how some of this architecture might have been made because you know, these blocks that go around the corners.
You know how in like Giza the blocks kind of go around the corner, like where they're cut and then they go around.
They're not like cut and just bricks in the corner, they curve around.
But they've sort of worked out how that was probably done.
And they have a really good method for showing people.
They made some really astute observations on like how the pyramids were built and how these big granite structures were built.
Functional Return in Precision Boxes00:05:01
Do those guys go out there a lot?
Go with me.
Yeah, they come with me next year and I've taken them out twice.
Yeah, the two times I've been to Egypt, they went with me.
Yeah.
So I like to tour with them because we also jam.
Oh, do you really?
Yeah, yeah, we play.
Those guys are fantastic.
Particularly Kyle, amazing musician.
I use some of it.
If you watch that Karnak video, the song at the end, did you get to the end of it?
Which video?
The most recent one, Karnak.
Right at the end, there's like a music, there's like a song at the end.
The last 10 minutes of it is like a song.
Yes, I remember that.
That's Kyle's music.
Oh, no shit.
Really?
Okay.
Yeah.
But we jam, and they're good.
They help me to manage the group, and then also, I mean, they're just more social and personable than me most of the time.
Yeah, a bit more serious.
I'm happy to have conversations, but those guys are funny.
Yeah, so it's great.
We work together really well.
Yeah, but one of the things, like getting back to those boxes, I wonder was the technology just so hyper advanced that making something that precise wasn't a big deal?
Like if some culture came along a million years from now and be like, how do they make this bottle so perfect and smooth?
Not because there was a purpose, just because it was easy.
So, like those boxes, was it just really fucking easy to do that?
Or, and the pyramid too, or was it for a specific function?
Like, how can you make that box functional?
Well, I mean, there is a relation, and I have a long video on precision, and there is, and I said this the other day, I think, to you as well, that there's a relationship between precision and function, right?
You don't develop precision.
Developing precision costs money, it costs resources.
You only do that for a functional return.
When you look at the development of precision in the modern world, it kind of stems out of the need for like old naval cannons to shoot straight.
The old days, you would cast a cannon and then fire it while it's hot and go, Well, I guess that's the barrel, and hopefully that thing shoots straight now.
And then they were like, Well, we can make more accurate weapons if we actually, you know, maybe cast it and then carve out and machine it like slowly use a water wheel and turn out, you know, a cannon barrel to make it shoot straight.
Or in that they started to draw that relationship.
Then we needed to make chronographers accurate timepieces.
That helped with navigation.
Like longitude, we talked about longitude earlier, but it's very difficult to measure.
Latitude's okay.
You can use the sun for that.
But longitude, you need accurate timepieces to be able to know where you are on that east west time frame.
And in fact, the way we used to do it, it was you'd go to where you wanted and we'd basically move in right angles.
Like if people would sail to get somewhere based on navigational maps, it was called like running down a Westing or running down an Easting.
You would get to where you wanted on a latitude and then go that way until you hit what you needed to.
Because you knew you could head east or west, but you weren't sure how far you had gone.
And it wasn't until the end of the 17th century, essentially, that we developed accurate enough timepieces to be able to navigate using longitude effectively.
Then, progression or precision progresses into the industrial age and steam engines and the need to create containment vessels for pressure.
And that's now in the modern world, we've got seven.
Seven Newton meter processes that we're developing silicon on, and you're packing millions and millions of transistors in complex logical circuitry into a tiny little footprint.
But that costs billions of dollars to do, and we do it because there's a functional return on it.
So, a long way around of saying that you develop precision when you're chasing a particular functional return.
And I think that's one of the indications to me when you look at some of these precision objects, particularly the regular ones, the boxes are a good example.
I think they were functional, and potentially some of the structures and even the sites were functional.
And I think in order to get that functional return, they needed to make these things with precision.
Now, in terms of the bottle that we looked at and industrial design, once you have a manufacturing system that supports precision, precision is what you get.
Like today, you get to buy a toaster, it's going to be industrial designed on a computer and it's going to be made in a manufacturing system that is just by its nature very precise.
Like it's all, you know, there's no panel gaps on it.
I mean, cars, look at the panel gaps between.
Different panels on cars today versus in the 1960s.
It's much better.
You don't need it, but it's a result of the manufacturing system.
So that's also an explanation that I like to use when it comes to the more abstract artifacts like statues that show tremendous precision, that look like they've been designed and then they've been executed in a manufacturing system that gives you that precision.
Crumbling Stones Underground00:06:19
It gives you that perfect symmetry.
It gives you these features that are kind of hard to explain in isolation.
But I do believe that they developed that capability to.
To get some sort of function, what that function is, I don't know.
Like, that's where the speculation comes in.
Like, what was the function that the boxes did?
This is a crazy correlation of these boxes in these pyramids or these boxes in these underground structures.
Your Serapium is an example, the pyramids are an example.
Even across the Giza Plateau, the Osiris shaft, you see these boxes underground and in these big structures.
I don't know.
But I get the sense they're functional.
There's, There's infrastructure on these sites.
At Saqqara, at Abu Seir, at Dashur, at Giza, we have evidence for very complex systems of what I can only call channeled blocks, these U shaped blocks that are below the floor level.
So you have these floor tiles that might be a couple feet thick.
In some cases, they're even cased on top of that.
But right down beneath that stuff, you have this infrastructure of essentially piping that runs all under these sites.
It's all over the place at Abu Seir.
We see evidence for it.
Giza, Sakara, like all these old kingdom sites, not something you ever see on the later sites.
These are what the oldest of sites have these very strange and complex.
Essentially, either it could have been housing piping, it could have been housing cables, it could have been, we don't know.
But it's, and sometimes it's not all gravity fed.
Like sometimes they'll run all the way down beneath causeways to where there would have been water and then it runs all over the site in complex patterns.
At Abu Seir, it's probably the best example that there's Y joins and all these other things running beneath the Floor and sometimes using fairly exotic stone types like granite or white calcite or alabaster.
And a lot of those stones show evidence for machining.
There's a great example at Saqqara of machined alabaster U shaped channeled blocks that are beneath the floor tiles.
And it's a real mystery.
We don't know why.
I mean, it's like if you ask the explanation for how this white calcite or alabaster was used, it was prized for its white color.
It's an expensive stone to try and use, it's difficult to obtain.
Alabaster and calcite come from extinct and Calcified natural springs.
These are millions of years ago, they were natural springs that calcified over time.
And to get white calcite, you actually have to dig all the way to the source of the natural spring.
So wherever that was, it's not like an easy stone to get to.
Further out from the source, you get yellow calcite and brown calcite, but they were using white calcite.
And Egyptologists say that they prize that stuff for its color, for its clean color, or sometimes it can be transparent.
In that case, what is this stuff doing buried beneath the floor level where it's never going to be seen?
Like it's literally a stone type that gets used in this underground infrastructure that's never seen.
So they must have been using it for some other purpose.
Like, I think some of these stone types that you see, particularly in the really megalithic stone sites, might have had a functional purpose, like choosing particular types of stone, like basalt, granite, limestone, white calcite, even quartzite in some places, and in particular orders.
And there's plenty of other indications that there was something else going on at these sites.
I mean, in my last video I did on Karnak Temple, there's some really interesting areas of Karnak that it's normally off limits again.
We know the right people to get in and see it, and I love showing people this stuff every year.
Is there's a part of Karnak that where the granite's literally crumbling apart?
This ground, it's granite diorite.
It's something's happened to the stone here where it's like oh, yeah, the inside of the stone has swelled or it's like it's undergone a transformation and it's expanded.
And it's almost around the edge of the stone, there's like this a couple of inches of where the stone is in good condition, but because the inside's like transformed and expanded, it's put this pressure on the outside and it's cracked all of the outside.
And in some places, it's like falling apart, like it's cracked it whole blocks apart, and then the inside of the blocks just crumbling.
Crumbling from the inside out.
Yeah, inside out.
So wild.
And then we see that also at Abu Sir and other places where you have like crumbling basalt.
And this happens in nature, right?
But it takes literally millions of years of exposure.
Basalt and these other igneous stones that are formed in the heat of like lava and formed over millions of years of compression and heat.
In the earth.
I mean, you can expose them to millions of years of sunlight, and okay, they're going to erode and degrade over time, but we're talking about cut surfaces of stone that are doing that.
And they're originally finished.
And so at Abyssinia, for example, you have basalt that's been cut and then it was cased in limestone.
So it's like, you know, it was surrounded by limestone, but those mating surfaces are now crumbling and falling apart.
Now, who knows?
It's pure speculation, but was it heat cycling?
Was there something going through it?
I mean, I do have a video where we were playing with a very high voltage electromagnetic sort of field generator device, and we were testing different types of stone, and they have different electromagnetic properties.
Like granite doesn't do anything.
You can get arcs coming off limestone, and then somewhat of an arc coming off basalt.
So they do have different properties under different conditions.
You know, is it possible that those were some of these properties of the stone were things that were being chased by the builders for a functional purpose?
Right.
I love these ideas.
And I know Chris Dunn is exploring some of those in some of his theories and his work.
He certainly knows a lot more about it than I do.
Again, I'm just trying to illustrate that there may be other reasons for that type of stone, and some of those properties might have something to do with a possible purpose.
So it's like, why would we not research that further?
Why would we not apply ourselves and try and see, you know, is there anything here that, that, Could possibly provide an answer or provide a clue for why this was done this way.
Let's look at those scoop marks.
Okay.
Yusuf Hakim and the Sphinx00:15:32
All right.
So, you know what?
Let me just give me a second.
I'll.
Now, when it comes to these scoop marks, is there any sort of idea or explanation on how they were made, either by the Egyptologists that are there or by you guys?
I mean, yeah, the explanation for them is that they were.
That's pounding stones.
This is the pounding stone explanation.
Here's the quarry.
I love the part of one of your videos where you guys are filming that lady with the pounding stone and she's trying to pound the grain.
Yeah, watch out, you'll break it.
Yeah, let me pull up this and then we'll go to.
Yeah.
I also want to talk about Yusuf.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, we'll get into that.
That guy seems super interesting.
In fact, they let him run around there and do guys, guide people and tour and explain all this stuff that goes counter to the narrative.
Yeah, Yusuf's great.
I mean, I love Yusuf in just the fact that he has, you know, he has, yeah, he's just such a knowledgeable guy.
And, dude, he's the greatest.
He's my brother.
He, uh, I sort of hit the jackpot when I met him, and he's a superstar for teaching people.
It's what he does, it is absolutely what he does.
And I will swear to God, I will find these pictures here in a second.
You said Yusuf has lived right there his entire life since he was a kid?
He has.
Yeah, Yusuf's dad was Hakeem El Ayawan.
He's a really famous indigenous wisdom keeper and guide.
He's unfortunately wested since then, or he's passed.
He was the guide that was used by guys like Graham Hancock, Robert Boval.
John Anthony West.
Hakim's well known.
There's lectures you can find from him online.
He's got, I mean, at Yusuf's shop, he's sort of got pictures of Hakim from all over the world.
He met all sorts of interesting figures.
He's kind of been really well known, you know, as a guide and really interesting guy.
So Yusuf kind of followed in his father's footsteps.
He doesn't believe everything that Hakim does.
And if you're interested in Hakim's theories, there's an author named Stephen Mailer who wrote a book, Land of Osiris, I think it is.
And he was Hakim's student.
And he, I mean, Hakim was the founder of this modern, I guess you'd call it chematology, this theory, chemat being the ancient word for Egypt.
And he has a lot of interesting theories, but again, I wouldn't say that Yusuf subscribes to all of them.
He has his own theories, he's done his own work.
Yusuf's a practicing stonemason, so he works with this material.
He's a very talented musician as well, works with this material with his hands.
He's very well versed in traditional Egyptology, like he knows all of the.
The rules he can read hieroglyphs, uh, and yeah, he grew up literally across the street from the Sphinx.
In fact, it's still where his family store is.
It's in Nazlet El Samam, which is a little village that's right near the entrance, the Sphinx entrance to the Giza Plateau.
And yeah, he's the uh, you know, the Awin family store is right there, and his balcony up the top, you're looking straight at the Sphinx and the middle pyramid complex.
It's really cool.
What are some of the theories of that guy that came up with?
Hakim, yeah, Hakim has here we go.
Um, Hakim has uh, has uh, I mean, one of the things I can talk about, he thinks there were acoustical properties to a lot of these sites, that some of these were sound hospitals.
In fact, he even ran one for quite a while.
And they had, I mean, look, anecdotally at least, very good results.
They would take people to these ancient places into some specific areas that have resonant properties.
And they would, I don't know exactly what they were doing in there, but they had people that recovered from illnesses.
And I mean, at least anecdotally, from what I've heard, It worked.
And then, as the story goes, as it's been told to me, Zahi Owas actually shut him down.
He stopped him from doing it.
Who was Zahi Owas again?
Well, Zahi Owas was the long term head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities or the Department of Antiquities and Tourism, I think it's called now.
He's a notorious kind of figure that's.
He had that debate with Graham Hancock where he kind of lost the cool.
He's probably the world's most famous Egyptologist, certainly Egyptian Egyptologist, world famous guy.
Written a bunch of books.
You know, I talked about him a few times.
I've met him a few times.
In fact, with the last trip to Egypt, we ran into him like four times.
Really?
Yeah, yeah.
He was just there.
He was at the.
Is he a nice guy?
He's a charming guy.
He can be a charming guy.
I suspect he probably.
Look, I don't know him personally.
I know he's treated a lot of people very fairly.
He's probably been less fair to others.
You know, I had no problem with him.
I mean, I was just on a tour and he was.
This was the Graham Hancock tour where he was supposedly debating him and we spent a day with him.
Um, And I think he's certainly had a history of being quite.
In the past, it's strange, you know, he really attacks a few of the alternative authors, Graham.
I mean, in particular, Robert Bovall, he doesn't like.
He's pretty fond of saying that, you know, people are just charlatans trying to make money and they're all pyramidiots and stuff like this.
Pyramidious.
But back in the day, though, he was quite friendly.
And in fact, I've seen a picture of like Zahi and John Anthony West and Robert Bovall and Graham Hancock kind of arm in arm.
At the Sphinx enclosure, and he certainly has enabled some interesting research to happen privately a few times.
I had a video about the Sphinx temple that started to get into some of that.
There's an interesting correlation in at least these allegations of connection between him and the Edgar Cayce Foundation.
Do you know who Edgar Cayce is?
The American prophet.
Okay, so this is an interesting story.
So Cayce was a.
Was a profit.
And a lot of people made a lot of money based on his predictions for the stock market back in the day.
And he ended up, he had these visions and wrote a couple books.
And one of his visions entailed the, you've probably heard of the Hall of Records, right?
Yes.
Okay, so a lot of that comes from Casey.
He talks about the fact that there's a Hall of Records in one of the locations.
There's three of them, I think.
And one of them is under the Paw of the Sphinx.
And then there's another one that's supposedly under, I think it was.
I mentioned it earlier.
It's Mount Nemrut, like the Nemrut tumulus pile, which is an insane site that I also saw for the first time this year.
But, you know, so he's that foundation.
It's the ARE, I think it's the Association for Research and Enlightenment, is essentially the Casey Foundation.
Okay.
And they've kind of been involved in private expeditions to Giza.
They've been looking, right?
They're trying to satisfy Casey's.
Prediction about the Hall of Records.
And they have been essentially digging and looking around at Giza and these other places since like the 1970s.
Now, Zahi's very much against anything Atlantis related.
He's like, there's no ancient civilization.
So, in publicly facing, right?
He decries any of that type of thing.
But he did also grant like the Casey Foundation a five year permit to do unlimited essentially digging and excavation on the Giza Plateau, including in the Great Pyramid.
And So, it's on one hand, you're sort of decrying all of this, you know, anything lost civilization.
And then on the other hand, you're enabling essentially an organization whose stated goal is to prove out Atlantis and that there was a hall of records and everything like that.
Not only that, but Edgar Cayce's son, Hugh Lynn Cayce, he wrote a book.
And in that book, he claims, and I will say that Zahiwas has denied this, he claims that the Edgar Cayce Foundation funded his.
Like they paid for his education at Pennsylvania University.
They found, like he literally says in the book, and this isn't me saying it, he found that they found Zahi, who was a site inspector at the time, like not, you know, like lower ranked kind of guy.
But he was pliable and agreeable, and they thought he was someone they could work with.
So they funded his education along with Mark Lainer, who's been a long term partner of Zahi Huas.
And that went through the Pennsylvania University.
They got him his doctorate.
And for sure, it's verified Zahi has had engagements with the ARE plenty of times.
He's gone and spoken at their events.
He's been part of it.
He goes back there and lectures quite often.
So it's just strange to me that he's associated with an organization like the ARE, which has done these secretive digs.
And And there's strong evidence as documented by Robert Boval, which might be one of the reasons that Zahi doesn't like him so much.
He's documented the fact that Zahi's been enabling kind of secret expeditions digging and drilling around the Sphinx since the 1970s.
Like there's kind of one acknowledged drilling effort that they made to look under the Sphinx.
I think it happened in the mid 90s, thereabouts.
And they were drilling under the body of the Sphinx.
And the stated goal was oh, we're checking the integrity of the limestone bedrock given the water tables rising, blah, blah, blah.
But.
There's plenty of evidence for a bunch of other drilling that's happened, like as far back as the late 1970s.
And there's pictures of, you know, Hugh Lynn Casey and Mark Lehner and Zahi Owas from those times, like a young Zahi.
They're all together.
And then in the mid to late 90s, he enabled something called the Shaw Expedition, which was Dr. Joseph Shaw, a couple other people.
Boris Saeed was one of them, but they're all ARE members.
They're all part of the Casey Foundation.
And none of them are Egyptologists or archaeologists, but he gave them a five year permit, open permit, to do whatever they wanted up at the Giza Plateau.
And They did a bunch of stuff.
They did a bunch of excavations around the Sphinx, and Zahi was involved in it.
And they even made a documentary that's never been seen.
So, Boris Saeed, who was a filmmaker, he's also since died.
And I dug into like these old Art Bell radio episodes from the 90s where he was talking about it.
He had a falling out with, I think, Joseph Shaw, the guy that was funding the experiment or the expedition.
Based on this fallout, that the documentary kind of went into limbo and it's never been seen, but apparently it's part of it.
And they had gone in under the Sphinx and looked at chambers.
And Zahi at the time, and Boris said they found chambers beneath the Sphinx, like they 100% found chambers beneath the Sphinx.
By the way, also a claim made by John Anthony West and Dr. Robert Schock when they analyzed the area with ground penetrating radar, they found chambers beneath the Sphinx.
And at the time when they were doing this experiment, Zahi said, Oh, we've got this incredible announcement and discovery.
It's going to shake up the world's history.
It's going to.
We're going to change what we know about the sort of the structure of the Giza Plateau and what's down below the ground.
He was teasing it.
And then this documentary kind of went away, and he's never said anything about it since.
And in fact, to this day, denies that there's any chambers or any structures or things beneath the Sphinx.
Now, if asked, he'll say, well, yeah, they found natural fishes in the rock and there's nothing else, which is nonsense.
I mean, Boris Saeed's on record of saying, no, I've seen them.
Like he's been down there and seen them.
Been in them?
Well, it's kind of what he says, yeah.
And.
But it's very secret.
It's all privately organized and permitted by Tsar Yuas.
And so there's an interesting history.
I think, look, I think if there are chambers down there and if there's anything in them or there was, it's long gone.
I just think it's been pilfered or it's been taken.
It's not public.
I mean, there's also a chance that if there was ever anything in there, the Egyptians or the dynastic Egyptians might have taken it.
There's a couple of people with theories along those lines, like Manu Seif Azada wrote a book, I think, called Beneath the Sphinx.
That talks about the idea that the Hall of Records may well have been there, but it was discovered by the Old Kingdom Egyptians who took it.
And then there's some evidence that they were replicating some of that information and knowledge through a particular cult that persisted through dynastic Egypt.
And it's an interesting story that he puts together.
It is new data, but it seems likely that they're indicating some really interesting information, like the spacing of planets, the relative distance of planets in the solar system, like all this cosmic information that it seems like they didn't really know what to do with, but it was information that they'd gotten from.
You know, this trove of data from a lost ancient civilization.
And it's just they, this, them were replicating it and kind of recording it down in their own way.
And there's all these interpretations of this stuff that seems to match all of what we know about the solar system and the structure of it.
So it's, it kind of goes, there's all these different directions that stuff goes in.
And I'd love, I've been meaning to do a more dedicated sort of deep dive into that shore expedition and the history of secret digs around the Sphinx.
Cause, you know, the Sphinx and the Sphinx temple, it is, uh, It is like it's described as a gateway.
Like, there is a lot of legitimate reasons to think that there's something below that structure in that part of the Giza Plateau.
Like, even the way it's historically depicted and talked about from ancient Egypt, like, they often, when they draw out the Sphinx, I mean, they show it on a pedestal.
Like, if the Sphinx is always depicted in these steles, most of the time on top of a pedestal, and in many of those pedestals, there's a doorway, and then the Sphinx is often described as a doorway or as a guardian.
Guarding a doorway and into the underworld, or something like this.
And when you look at the Sphinx, it's obviously sitting on the bedrock, right?
But you have to imagine there's a structure in front of it that's next to the Valley Temple on the left, looking at the Sphinx.
Then there's the Sphinx Temple in front of the Sphinx, and the Sphinx is behind it.
Now, the Sphinx Temple has been shut for public access for I don't know how long.
Yusuf, I mean, he's in his 40s, he's never been in there.
Until we got to go in there on one trip.
We were probably one of the first groups to ever, and thanks again to the people I know in Egypt who arranged this through the Ministry of Antiquities to finally open up access to the Sphinx Temple as a special permission.
And we went in there.
Very interesting structure.
Amazing.
There's amazing granite cornice blocks and all this stuff.
But if you'd imagine it back in the day with its cornice blocks, which are these curved blocks that would have been around the edge of it, and you'd looked at it from down in the valley towards the Sphinx, it would have looked as if the Sphinx was sitting on top of the temple.
Which makes the Sphinx Temple potentially the location for the pedestal of the Sphinx, which has the doorway to the underworld.
Now, in the Sphinx Temple, when you go in there, there is indeed evidence for shafts that go down.
There's, again, these giant, there's like an 80 ton channeled granite block in the ground beneath the floor tiles that have since been removed that terminates at a shaft that goes down to we don't know where that hasn't been cleared.
Unexplored Trenches at Giza00:10:53
But it obviously goes underground.
And I mean, not only that, but out the front of the Sphinx Temple, if you walk back, if you're standing there at Giza and you're looking at it, it's where the seats are for the sound and light show.
Sort of off in the corner, about 30 or 40 feet in front of the Sphinx Temple, there's a little concrete pad and there's a metal tube sticking out of it, like this, just off the ground, just sort of unobtrusively in the corner.
That's where Zahi Huas himself did a drilling experiment.
So they drilled down like 150 feet.
This is a limestone plateau.
And at like 150 feet or 130, something like that, they hit granite.
This drill hit granite and returned these shards and flakes of red granite from 130 feet below the ground.
And there's not natural granite there.
So, what the hell is down there that deep?
And it's made of granite.
Right?
Whoa.
I mean, half, yeah, it goes on and on.
Like, you go halfway up the causeway, like, connects the Sphinx and the Valley Temple to the middle pyramid complex, right?
It's this big causeway.
It goes up to the pyramid.
Halfway up it is what's known as the Osiris Shaft.
And this is three different levels that you can go into.
Again, as a special permission, there's water at the bottom.
But there's three chambers that go down to about 150 feet, and there's big granite boxes in them.
And then she goes down there, right?
And there's tunnels that literally lead off down the causeway that have never been explored at the bottom level.
They're caved in and stuff, but they've never been explored.
There's footage of when they did pump the water out back in the day when they're exploring it, and it was like a Fox, I think it was on the Fox Channel, and Zahi was down there with a reporter and saying, Oh, this was the tomb of Osiris or whatever.
And she's like, Well, what about these tunnels?
He's like, No, we've never explored them.
We sent a boy in, and he couldn't get very far.
Far, but we've never looked at as to where they go.
So, like, there's definitely underground chambers and infrastructure down there, and we honestly don't know if they've been explored and if, you know, there's anything in there or if, you know, what's happened, which is.
What do you think his motivation would be to change his story on that and keep all this secret excavation secret and all the secret exploration and not to change the narrative?
Like, what sort of motivations would he have?
I don't know.
I mean, I mean, if, you know, the.
I think it's the typical.
If there's any motive, and it's pure speculation, I'm not claiming this all that I know.
And I will probably reiterate that Zahi's denied that he has any connection to the Ari.
For sure, he was involved in these expeditions.
I mean, there's plenty of people who talked about him being involved in these expeditions.
And again, all of this happened like, you know, 30 years ago now.
But yeah, I mean, what motivates people, right?
It's money and it's power and it's all these sort of things.
I don't know.
I don't know.
And I don't like any real conspiratorial angle on these things in terms of.
You know, they find stuff and is it hidden from us because it doesn't conform to the story?
I don't know.
I'd like to think not.
I'd like to think that if they found stuff, they'd talk about it regardless of if it had a significant impact on the story of history.
But doesn't he make money quite literally from people visiting Egypt and exploring?
Yeah, I mean, he's from tourism.
Plenty of money.
I mean, I don't know how directly he's a very powerful figure in Egypt.
I'd say this he's also done a lot for Egyptology.
I mean, he champions the returning of objects to Egypt, which I think is a great cause, particularly if they're in private hands and people can't see them.
The stuff that gets, I mean, Egypt's been pilfered by everybody for so long.
Yeah, you were saying much of the stuff's been found in Israel, right?
Oh, it's all over the place.
Yeah, all over the place.
There's, yeah, I mean, there is stuff that, I mean, you don't have to go back to just Israel, but you go back to the Americans, the French, the English.
I mean, during all the periods of occupation, the last several hundred years, anyone who's been involved in the governance of Egypt.
I mean, you know, I think Matt Sibson just did a video or some, no, Luke Cavins actually did a video talking about how the British Museum is essentially full of artifacts that were stolen from Egypt.
I mean, one of the sticking points is that the original Rosetta Stone is in the British Museum.
It's been there for like 200 years.
But it's, you know, I look, I'm like, if it's in a museum somewhere and people can see it, they have people to understand the scope of artifacts that have been found here too.
There are warehouses absolutely full of this stuff in Egypt.
Like, Some of the tombs in the Valley of the Kings are like they fill them up with all the artifacts they find in other places and lock the doors because it's essentially climate controlled.
And I hope, and I've yet to see it, but they're building a giant new museum, or it should be just about done by now.
The Grand Egyptian Museum, biggest museum in the world, from what I understand, it's going to be.
And I really hope that they have enough space in real estate to show us all of the artifacts that have.
They just haven't had the space to show.
I mean, there's so much stuff in Egypt that's been taken from Egypt.
And even then, even despite all of this, even the Egyptologists and Zahi will say this as well is that it's like 70% of it.
Is still underneath the sands.
Like he thinks that we've only maybe uncovered 20 to 30% of what's out there.
So there was, you know, there's a lot going on.
But yeah, look, I don't know.
It's an interesting sort of story to dive into with the history of some of these excavations.
And like I said, it kind of goes back to my point about the pyramid earlier, where I hope that whatever they do, and I'm sure somebody's planning it, that they're going to go and try and look for this chamber.
I'd love, I would very much hope that it gets shared with the world.
That's all I want.
It's like share that information, let everybody see it.
I mean, it's part of everybody's history.
You know, I don't care who makes money on it or doesn't, but it's just like I think a lot of people would be interested.
What is this right here?
So, this is the obelisk.
Okay.
This is the unfinished obelisk.
And you talk about scoop marks, there's a few of them on top of it.
Oh, wow.
And in fact, you see some of the characteristic pounding stones there as well.
And in fact, Yeah, that's probably a better look.
And some of these scoop marks are, you can see on the right here, on the left of the thing as well.
And then all the way down, the, what do you call it?
The, what is this, man?
Why is my brain not working?
Here.
You seriously need some salt?
The trench.
There you go.
I just needed to look at the smelling stuff.
Yeah, right?
Yeah, so this one is still, this one was never actually pulled out of the quarry, right?
This one started and never completed.
That's right.
Yeah, it's not actually.
In fact, the trench isn't quite deep enough.
Actually, look at some scoop marks.
See them on the right here as well, on the wall.
So, what's interesting about the scoop marks, and I don't know if I have other examples in this particular.
Is there any explanation of how this could happen naturally, those scoop marks, like from degradation?
It's not natural.
It's definitely not natural.
It's not degradation.
So, the explanation for this is that this was the quarrying technique.
You see this.
On the quarries, you see it around the artifacts where they've been quarrying things.
And it's not a natural phenomenon, 100%.
They say it's been made by these dollarite pounding stones, which honestly is one of the silliest theories that's out there.
So they found at the site, though, they found a lot of these dollarites are harder stone than granite.
You know, you will eventually grind away and remove some granite if you pound away hard enough.
And again, studies have been done on kind of the removal rate of stone using.
Dollarite pounders, but, and I cover it in my video, one of my videos about the quarry.
There's a lot that doesn't make sense when it comes to this particular quarry.
And in fact, if I take a look at where's the Isis quarry stumps?
So I have videos here.
I'm sure I've got some.
Okay.
So you can see a number of different quarrying techniques in play at the Aswan quarry, the oldest being.
Now, how far is that obelisk from the Giza Plateau?
About 500 miles.
Okay.
So that's generally the.
So, this is like the general characteristic or layout of it.
And you see these scoop marks all over the place, right?
They're all on the floor where they've been used to move stuff.
You see those other forms of quarrying too.
In higher layers, you'll see chiseling and you'll see wedge and chisel, but you also have these test pits.
Now, I probably have, this is probably not the best example, but.
Holy shit.
So these test pits that go down, some of them 30, 40 feet, they're like cut straight down into the stone.
They're like a.
I don't know if I have a better example here.
Most of my stuff on this is video, but.
Oh, here's one.
So here you go.
So see, this is like a.
They have to put a grate over the top of this.
And this is done using those scoop marks as well, which is.
Which sort of starts to belie the challenge.
Like, how do you get in there and pound, crouch down, and it's barely wide enough or broad enough for a person to stand in there, let alone get down on their, you know, crouch down and pound it on the floor and then remove the material out?
These go straight down.
And what they're probably for is they're probably for testing the quality of the granite, right?
When you're looking for a giant single piece of granite, you're not going to find that at the surface of any granite outcrop.
Because the granite's inferior up there.
It's going to have cracks.
It's going to have defects.
When you cut down into the core of these quarries, this is where the highest quality stone is.
It's got the large quartz crystal inclusions.
And that's where you can find stone of a quality good enough to cut like a single piece block that isn't going to break on you.
Right.
So these test pits would have been dug looking for like how deep do we have to go to get these blocks out, which opens up a whole bunch of other problems because they.
A lot of Egyptologists don't credit the Old Kingdom Egyptians with the ability to quarry granite.
It's sort of ridiculous.
Yeah, and you see tons of.
Let me.
This is more of the test pit here.
These are really cool.
But you can see how it was done.
Good God, dude.
Yeah, the quarry is really, really interesting.
Here's some good scoop marks, actually.
You start to see stuff.
So in some areas, there's really interesting particular block.
I probably have it here.
Do I.
Okay, this is probably the best indication of it.
So it's tough to see.
I don't know if you can see that.
Neanderthals and Genetic Origins00:10:49
Yeah.
So there's an unfinished piece that's not the big one, but there's one on the side.
And it's sort of cut out and it goes in underneath.
It goes in underneath the.
What's your wildest guess on when this was all done?
Oh, I think some of this stuff is done.
Wildest guess is.
I mean, I would open up the range from 50,000, I mean.
I don't think it's necessarily just before the Younger Drys cataclysm, put it that way.
It's a possibility that the civilization that might have done some of this might have been ended by the Younger Drys.
But I actually think, given the extension of the human timeline, given the possibility that it may not have been just us, it might have been other species of hominids potentially involved.
I don't know.
I open up that window to potentially hundreds of thousands of years.
What do you mean, other species of hominids?
Well, Denisovans, Neanderthals, we have a complex genetic history.
So, us ourselves, our species is now out potentially 800,000, 900,000 years old.
That's based on teeth morphology, studies into teeth morphology, studies into when we split from a common ancestor with the Neanderthals, like our DNA train.
From a fossil record, the oldest human remains are like 300,000 years old.
But a couple of recent studies looking at the rates of dental evolution and our DNA put the window much further, like towards a million years, but 800,000, 900,000 years.
We're also finding that our history is more complex.
We have, you know, the discovery of the Denisovans or the Denisovans is a fairly recent thing that gets a whole other species of hominid.
And there's some evidence of tool use and even sophisticated tool use.
There's a jade bracelet that is a Denisovan artifact that has drill holes in it.
And the one other thing that I've learned recently that I always thought that Neanderthals couldn't talk.
I always thought, ah, you know, our studies and what we found of Neanderthals, the larynx and the structure of their throat meant that they couldn't talk.
I think that's recently been reversed.
I think now there's evidence that they could, in fact, talk.
And we don't know anything about the Denisovans.
We literally have a couple bones that we're working from, like a pinky bone and a couple other pieces, I think.
So we don't know if they could talk.
And you kind of need speech.
To organize and for civilization.
At least we do it verbally.
I mean, Graham Hancock might argue that maybe some other communications might have been some other mechanism.
So, just again, in speculation, I don't rule out when you consider the concept of a lost ancient civilization.
I'm not saying aliens, but I think it could certainly have involved other types of humans.
We've got all the elongated skulls as well in South America, that's a real interesting phenomenon.
You know, Graham would.
I've heard him talk about the fact that some of those people may have had other faculties that created or achieved some of this stonework.
I prefer.
What does he say about that?
Well, he gets attacked for this endlessly, but he says that it's possible that they achieved some of the things they did through other mental faculties, not just telepathy, but telekinesis and stuff like that.
I mean, there are stories that just seem to go along those lines.
I prefer to take the technological angle, just given that we have the evidence for some of the tools.
And powerful tools being used and achievements being made, like these thousand plus ton statues.
I mean, God, I think I was telling you at dinner last night that, you know, there's a quarry in Egypt that had they disconnected that one limestone block, it would have been 5,000 tons.
Right.
You know, there's stuff up to that scale that seems like they were working on it.
And it's crazy at the Minya Quarry.
But so I don't rule out the possibility for a lost ancient civilization that it could have involved other species of human, of hominids.
Like, we're one, we're the last humans left, right?
There were other humans.
We killed off the rest of them.
We're the last humans left.
Are you aware of the evidence?
I'm really fuzzy on this, but there's some sort of evidence that was found that basically says that our DNA or the telomere on our DNA, the telomeres have been like capped or something happened where there's evidence that like a pre civilization could have possibly had a lifespan that was like 10 times our lifespan or something.
Yeah, there's some really interesting.
There's like a very stark difference between our DNA and the DNA that was found in what was it compared to?
The DNA in what?
I don't forget what it was.
Probably in chimps and.
In chimps, yeah.
And yeah, other, yeah, our closest relatives.
So there's, I'm not 100% familiar with the telomere thing.
I've heard that.
But I've always been fascinated by the work of guys like Lloyd Pye.
Lloyd Pye, that's the guy.
That's how I heard about this.
Yeah, so Lloyd Pye is interesting.
He, He has a great lecture online called Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong.
He was probably more well known for being the keeper of the Star Child skull, which is this interesting artifact, but he was genuinely interested also.
The Star Child skull.
Oh, that's a whole other rabbit hole.
Okay.
All right.
Let's keep going.
Let's not get you off track.
Interested.
It's interesting.
But he was interested in human origins and human evolution as well.
He wrote a book called Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong.
And I will say that he does do the whole.
An Anarchy thing.
Like he does go down the route of, what's his name, who wrote 10th Planet?
Sitchin.
Zachariah Sitchin.
So he sort of follows that.
But, I mean, and I'm not, I don't think Sitchin is correct, and I'm not really a believer in the Anunnaki stuff.
Oh, really?
No, I think Sitchin was kind of pretty comprehensively kind of debunked with how he translated his deliberate mistranslations.
And it's a long story with Sitchin.
But not to say that you can rule, like that possibility isn't ruled out.
The work that Lloyd Pye did made it interesting from a perspective of a potential intervention theory.
Which means that he was sort of pointing, hinting at the fact that we might have been genetically engineered as a species.
And there's some evidence, at least from a genetic, he was looking at the evidence to support that.
I think we have, I'm going to get this wrong, we have a different number of chromosomes.
Right.
Than other species, than our closest relatives.
Right.
And when you look at the DNA structures, it almost looks like we've been engineered, like they've been tied together and kind of engineered that way.
There's a few genetic oddities about our species that.
Lloyd Pye was suggesting might be indications that we've been engineered.
So he gets into that in detail.
I'm not an expert, it's been a long time since I've read the book.
And this flies in the face of evolution.
It does in a lot of ways, but there are sort of other examples.
I don't know if it's horses or something like that that have a similar chromosomal difference.
It's not the only thing he points at.
We're a weird kind of species with some of the diseases that we have.
I mean, he talks about the fact that we're like.
One of the only species that dies of exposure.
Like, you can't, we're not, it's like we're not well engineered for the planet.
Right, right.
You ever seen a dog just looks at the sun, like its eyeballs?
They're just looking at the sun.
Like, don't look at the nuclear explosion, you'll go blind.
No, they're fine.
We go blind if we look at the sun.
We don't have very good night vision.
We die from exposure if we're left out, you know, without clothing and shelter and all those sort of things.
Yeah.
We have a bunch of really weird genetic diseases that other species don't seem to suffer from.
I mean, there's even some.
Deficiencies in our genome that we're so far away from every other wild animal, it's insane.
It is well, and that's that's always been true.
I mean, the whole missing the missing gap idea is you'd actually need like a dozen missing links, or the missing link you know, the idea that oh, there's a missing link in the chain of evolution to get to humans.
I'm like, you need more than one, like it's the to go from our nearest ancestors and Neanderthals to us is a huge jump.
I mean, and it's actually he points out that in a lot of cases it gets obfuscated by the way they lay out skeletons, like, like, by making.
Skeletons of Neanderthals look more humanoid in terms of, like, you know, they space out the neck and they don't show it like it was where they had no neck and their shoulders were kind of much closer to their head.
There's huge genetic and evolution gaps between us and our nearest relatives, not, you know, in a number of different areas.
So he gets into that and it's an interesting idea.
Like, I don't, but I don't know.
I'm not, I don't, I don't know how to explain it one way or the other.
I do, I do rate the whole intervention theory.
As a possibility.
So, either the OG intervention theory, which is life itself, panspermia, like DNA itself coming to this world by intervention, or by just panspermia as an accident.
Like comets could well be the progenitors of life in the universe.
Like the fact, and we're learning more and more about the fact that there's, you know, the amino acids and the building blocks of life could be contained in cometary material in those icy cores, or even with the, if they're radioactive, they could be liquid cores.
Liquid water could be carried by these things, which could contain the building blocks of life.
And it's really interesting to think that, you know, this is the mystery that's at the origin of life altogether.
And, you know, we're definitely creatures of this planet too.
I'd say that.
Like, we trace our DNA, we're part of the tree of life of this planet.
But it's the one, as far as evolution's gone, from single cell organisms through the dinosaurs to us, the one part of that that's never kind of changed, that's never evolved, is DNA itself.
So, the way that life gets expressed as a technology, the DNA, that's never really changed.
Like, DNA as a technology has not changed.
It's just, it's changed its expression.
Like it's the forms and the life that it creates has changed.
And there's a real mystery at the point of origin of life, like how DNA came to be.
You know, this is an ongoing field of research.
There are people trying to figure this out.
Can you, you know, I mean, I personally think it's quite unlikely that it was a bunch of, you know, proteins and amino acids in some warm water that got hit by lightning and boom, there's DNA.
It's a very complex structure.
Yes.
And even by saying that, oh, okay, so life might have been seeded on this planet, either like, Prometheus style, where the aliens came and said, sprinkled some DNA in the river and away we go, or it just arrived on a planet from somewhere else.
Painted Pottery and Vase Forms00:09:02
All you're really doing is kicking the can down the road.
Like it still had to start somewhere.
But it's a possibility.
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if panspermia was the origin of life on this planet.
Could have been another civilization.
I don't know.
And I think there's some interesting lines of evidence and interesting thinking from people about the idea that it could have been a more direct intervention.
Into evolution later on in time.
I'm not saying I believe that.
I just think it's interesting and it's tough to rule out some of those possibilities based on the evidence.
Especially when you look at some of the stuff that we're looking at here and the stuff that you've discovered.
I mean, I think beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have proved that you and people like you have proved that we're not coming off of a linear timeline of.
I would agree.
At least technologically.
Yeah, I would agree.
So.
Let's see if I can show this to you.
It's hard to see.
I wish I had these photos.
Maybe I can pull up a video or something.
Which one?
So, is this?
Are you looking at the new 5,000 ton obelisk?
No, no.
If you want to see that, I do have a picture of that.
I would just say that with the quarry discussion, I would finish off the quarry discussion by saying that with the scoop marks, the one other thing I'd just like to point out to people is that these are regular lines.
You actually see it here.
I think it's not a bad example.
They start like these scoop marks start and they're consistent and linear and they go all the way down and they actually go up and underneath this stone.
So this stone's being quarried out, the one in like in the foreground here, and they go all the way up and under.
So it's like this one continuous tool mark.
I have a long video on the scoop marks that gets into the details of why this isn't the pounding stone hypothesis isn't a plausible example.
And I think it's telling also that if you look at the quarrying methods that they will show you in the quarry, okay, there's pounding stones, which is literally, ugh.
With a pound with a stone or rubbing on it with a stone, and then you go up in sophistication to the wedge and chisel approach that I talked about, where you're hammering wood into like you make these grooves and you hammer wood in.
And then the other example is well, you actually have straight chiseling where it's later in time and you've got hardened steel, you've got long steel chisels, and you're banging it in, and you're just like carving the rock and then splitting it.
Yeah, so you can think of that as a sophistication goes up, but but what they're extracting and the stones that they're taking out is the absolute opposite, they're using those other methods to take smaller pieces and little pieces off the sides of things.
But the pounding stone method, the most primitive one, is also the one supposedly responsible for the biggest goddamn pieces you can find.
Like, it doesn't make any sense that the most primitive technology is the one supposedly responsible for the thousand ton artifacts.
And then there's a good example of just how old that is.
If I go back up to my podcast images, we go back to the quarry, it's in this area here, right?
So, this is what's known as the harbor in the quarry.
You can't normally get in here.
I don't know.
One time we wandered down here and we were in here.
And supposedly, this is where they would park the boats.
And they call this the harbor.
And it's not a harbor.
To me, what you're looking at is the remnants of a trench for a giant object.
Right.
So look at this thing.
So this is a piece of stone that was probably extracted from here.
You see the scoop marks along the side.
It's, I think, it's as big, if not bigger, than the unfinished obelisk.
And it's in this lower area.
I'm standing there and it's called the harbour now.
But I think you're looking at what is left after they've taken something out using this scooping technique.
What's interesting about it is that it's got painting on it.
It's got all these paint, these paint, these depictions of ostriches.
Or some people say they're flamingos, and there's all this painting on it.
And what gets even more interesting about that stuff is when you compare, you look at this style of this artwork that's on this area.
See, it keeps going down here, and all of these walls are gone.
The closer wall to us has been quarried out entirely, but this was a big trench, and this huge piece of stone was removed.
That type of artwork, and I've got many more examples than just this, it matches this stuff.
Now, this stuff is a style of painting and artwork that is very much associated with pre dynastic times, right?
So, before the dynastic civilization ever started, the artwork that's on the wall in that quarry matches the pottery and diagrams and drawings that we see on pottery vessels that come from pre dynastic times that have been found in pre dynastic burials.
So, what this infers to me is that the artwork done in that quarry was probably done in pre dynastic times.
It was done using the same art style.
They used a much different art style.
There's other carvings in the quarry where the Egyptians did their thing, you know, the more dynastic, typical kind of hieroglyphic and artwork.
This red ochre paint.
With the style of carving, these birds on this thing match the birds in that.
There's a bunch of other examples of it.
It means that it was done in pre-dynastic times, which also tells you that it was done on the wall that was left after they'd pulled that block out.
So you had to have pulled that block out first to even expose that wall.
Right.
And then it gets painted on.
So how long ago did they pull that block out of there?
And yeah, it's crazy.
Good God.
So I wanted to finish.
I just wanted to make that point about the quarry.
Yeah.
Um, and I have a video that dives into that giant block that's been extracted there and the connection to that artwork.
Let's talk about the vases.
There's a lot of new going on with the vases that you've been looking at.
There is what we talked a lot about the vases on the first podcast we did and the incredible symmetry involved in making those vases and the fact that they're extremely thin.
You can shine a light in them and you can see through them.
They're so goddamn thin and they're made out of some of the hardest rocks that's right on earth.
Um, And they still say that these vases were made during those times with chisels and pounding stones and all that stuff, right?
Yeah, even after you've come out with some of your videos and some of this stuff, no one's acknowledged it officially.
Right, yeah.
I mean, nobody's looked at it, nobody's really said that, you know, there's, I mean, the hypothesis for how they were made, at least in the mainstream, has remained the same, which is, you know, it was people rubbing on them with rocks and banging on them with flint, stuff like that.
So made by hand.
And again, To speed run the vases, it's like they exist in, they go back to well and truly pre dynastic times.
In some cases, there's evidence of them going back to burials as far as 14,500 years ago, right through pre dynastic times.
And then they've been found in times, you know, basically during the Old Kingdom, up to about the fourth and fifth dynasty, most of them.
The majority of them were found beneath the step pyramid, like 40, 50,000 of them, which is a third dynasty structure.
Then they kind of peter out after that.
Like there's a few examples of vases that come from later periods, but we identify them as coming from those periods because they have very poorly scratched hieroglyphs on them.
So, I mean, we talked about that earlier.
But these are incredible.
Class and you know, category of artifacts like made from all sorts of exotic types of stone.
Like I said, we talked about them before perfect symmetry, extremely thin.
Petrie found one that went down to 140th of an inch, which is I think the quote that I've got here from him.
Uh, one of the other things I always like to point out is that they're often found.
We talked about imitation earlier, painting them.
This is where you would find them, and they're ascribed to the same person because they're found in the same burial.
But you have a hard stone vase here next to a hand formed pottery vase that is painted to look like granite.
And not even a, this is not a turned vase.
This is hand formed.
Right.
So, you know, a lot of people, even when you get into the details of arguing about this, the people are like, okay, they made them on a lathe, but it was just a simple lathe.
Because, you know, the idea that you're turning this stone to get these results.
Right.
I'm like, okay, so if they had lathes, why didn't they have the pottery wheel?
The pottery wheel was a much simpler application of the wheel than a lathe is.
But it's just a facetious sort of argument to suggest that these came from the same people.
I think they're inherited and they're older.
But what's happened, and there's lots of evidence, they go way back in time.
Lots of them discovered, they were inscribed.
They were definitely reused and inherited.
You know, there's a depiction of how they were made that was found at Saqqara.
This is what they used to basically say, this is how they were made.
It's basically like bent sticks with weights on the side and flint tips.
This guy's got his hand in the middle of it.
Yeah, he's rubbing at it with a hand.
But what they're showing you here is the vase making industry that happened after.
The third dynasty.
It's the alabaster vases.
It's just white calcite.
It's a three on the Moscow.
It's much softer.
And we have lots and lots of examples of beautiful alabaster vase work, but it's very simple.
It's not simple.
It's awful.
Perfectly Aligned Vase Parts00:16:11
It's not precise.
You don't see the same symmetry.
They're off balance.
They don't have the same properties as the very hard stone vases that seem to come from earlier times.
So, what's happened, though, since I talked to you last, was that we've finally been able to take this analysis to.
A new level.
Like, we've finally been able to get our hands on what is a privately owned pre dynastic rose granite vase and subject it to structured light scanning.
This was the first step we've taken.
This happened at the start of this year of 23, and we've since come a long way since then.
And structured light scanning is a process where you're basically 3D scanning it with lasers and you can get, you can basically create a model of the artifact down to about the accuracy of about a thousandth of an inch.
So, take an inch divided up into a thousand pieces.
A human hair is between two and three thousandths of an inch thick.
A sheet of printer paper, maybe five or six, something like that, thousandths thick.
So, where accuracy is down to less than half the width of a human hair.
So, it creates an extremely accurate model of the vase.
Now, once you've got that model, you can start to do some interesting analysis on it.
You can start to look at, okay, how precisely was this thing made?
And that's exactly what we did.
So, this is the vase.
It's actually only about yay tall.
It's like six inches tall, maybe, a little tiny thing.
And that's it being scanned.
And once we did that, there were a couple of professional metrologists, and these guys work in the aerospace industry.
They make parts for jet engines and turbines and, you know, the space rocket ship stuff.
You know, these are professional engineers that they're professional metrologists, and metrology being the study of the science of measurement.
So, in those fields, you know, you have to use these techniques a lot in those fields, and it's very important, right?
We want to make things precisely.
And this is a good example of.
Precision enabling function.
It's like turbine blade manufacture and stuff like that, like efficiency of jet engines, all that sort of stuff.
These guys work for one of those companies and this is what they do on a day to day basis.
So they analyzed the scan and they ran it through a coordinate measurement system.
And what they found was just astonishing.
Like the results and looking at just how precisely this thing was made, absolutely astonishing.
And in particular, it's not just the precise nature of the surfaces themselves, but it's the interrelation of one surface to another.
So, you know, making the different parts of the vase be perpendicular or parallel or perfectly aligned with other parts of it.
So, the way this works, it's fairly complex, but we can sort of step through it.
The first thing to know is the vase itself is an ellipsoid.
You can't match it to a regular geometric shape, right?
It's not a circle, it's not a sphere, it's not a cone, it's an ellipsoid.
And what you want to be able to do is match geometric shapes or regular shapes to parts of the vase so that then you can.
Do geometry on them.
You can calculate center lines and center points and how perpendicular or parallel are they to other parts of the vase.
So things like this.
So we essentially start by creating an XYZ three dimensional grid, which helps us derive things like center lines, axes, and then we can start to compare the other parts of the vase.
So the way you do this in a CMM system is you match geometric shapes to parts of the vase.
Now, you could do that with five, you could say, like, all right, we're going to match a flat plane to the top of the vase, the lid, and we're going to use five points.
To do it, it's not going to be very accurate.
It's not going to represent that surface very well.
But if you do it with thousands and thousands of points, the more points you use of reference, the more accurately it's representing that surface.
So you'll see in these slides the fact that we're using thousands and thousands of points.
So in this example, there's nearly 4,000 points of reference has been used to match a flat plane to the top of the vase lip, to the top surface.
And then the measurement we're doing is like how close to perfectly flat is this?
It's within three thousandths of an inch.
So it's very flat.
Like that flat, the flatness of that surface is within three thousandths of an inch of being perfectly flat, basically.
So, very close, very, very accurate.
Around the width of a piece of hair.
Yeah, yeah.
That's just the top.
So, then you can go further from that.
Now we can look at, all right, let's look at the vase mouth.
So, this is that round part on the inside of the neck of the vase, if you like.
And so, what we're doing here is we're measuring it with a cylinder.
As you can see that on the left of the vase mouth there, there's a little cylinder icon, and we're using like 10,500 points to match it, which is, which is, A lot.
I mean, this actually has got some damage on the inside of the neck, too, this vase.
And we can match it looking at the cylindricity.
So, how perfectly cylindrical is that?
It's within 13,000ths of an inch of being cylindrical.
But now that we've, this is, I'll speed up a bit on this because now that we've got that top surface, you can think of that as like an x axis.
And if you think of a cylinder sitting in the neck of this vase, we can now, because we've matched the cylinder to the surface, we can say, okay, how perpendicular.
Is that cylinder to the top surface that we just managed?
And we call that the top surface is control surface A. Right?
So you can see like the perpendicular measurement, how perpendicular is it to control surface A?
And it's within one, it's one thousandth of an inch.
One thousandth.
Yes.
So it's basically perfectly perpendicular to the top surface.
Now, top surface is A.
And now we've got this vase neck, the cylinder in the vase neck, and the centerline of that vase neck.
Call that the axis of the vase, and we can call that control surface B.
So now we can measure every other part of the vase relative to the top and the neck.
And that's what we do.
So we go on to measure, like, all right, you can match a sphere to the lower part of the vase body.
And we did that using like nearly 80,000 points of reference.
So it's really accurate.
And then what you can do is you can, with that sphere, this is worth talking about for a minute.
This is the highest number we saw in the whole report.
It's 17,000ths of an inch.
So the center point of that sphere is basically within 17,000ths of an inch from the center line of the vase.
So, it's like a couple sheets of printer paper basically away from it.
Now, it seems like a big number relative to the other numbers, but this is telling you a lot more than just how close is that center line of the sphere.
Spheres are interesting.
If you took a sphere and you deformed it at all, like on the bottom or you pushed or whatever, it's going to shift that center point dramatically, right?
So, what this is telling you is not only is this 17,000 is no joke, that's extremely close.
The exact center point of that sphere is really close to that center line of the vase.
But it's also telling you just how regular that shape is.
Because if it wasn't regular and that part of the vase that matches a sphere, if that was all deformed, it would shift that center point all over the place.
So it's telling you that it's not only is this very close to the center line, extremely close, it's almost perfectly spherical in this section.
So it's a section of a sphere, that blue line, right?
That's the matching of a sphere.
It's very, very regular.
It's regular to the point where you couldn't possibly achieve it with hand tools by.
By hand or by eye.
Like, because you, you know, imagine you're carving on that.
And again, they don't credit the old kingdom or certainly not pre dynastic times with the use of the lathe.
But even if they had a lathe and even if you're using like a tool rest and you're trying to do this by hand, you're going to be a million miles away from this result.
This is genuinely not achievable by hand.
Right.
It's an incredibly regular shape.
It's a phenomenal achievement.
And even though that's the biggest number you see in this report, this represents.
Something that would require some of the very best machinery we have today to replicate, even in other materials like acrylic or stainless steel or aluminium.
And this is in rose granite, which isn't a regular material, right?
The hardness changes microscopically as it goes through the material.
We get other results.
We're the same thing.
We're matching a cone at this point to the vase bottom.
And this is the other end of the vase from the top and the center line.
And we're within five thousandths of an inch of being perfectly perpendicular with the top.
We're within nine thousandths of an inch.
Of being perfectly parallel with the center line using 60,000 points of reference.
Like, this is, it's infinitesimal.
It's so ridiculously well made.
It's not fun, is what we're seeing with this, right?
Jesus, man.
So, this is, it gets interesting here, even with the lug handles.
And this gets into some of the details around how this might have been made.
Because you can imagine, like, turning this on a lathe, you can't really do the lug handles, right?
Right, exactly.
You know, if this thing had lugs on it and you were spinning it this way, you can't.
You know, and you're cutting it as it's spinning, you can't really create the lug handles.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
They add those after in modern times.
Yeah, you'd have to.
Well, these aren't added.
They're a part of one piece.
Exactly.
Yeah.
So you'd probably have to leave a bull nose and come back with a different procedure to make them.
But we can do things like compare the lug, match a cylinder to the lug handles, compare them to A and B, which we're doing here.
And we're within a thousandth of an inch, like one and three thousandths of an inch.
So incredibly accurate relative to these axes of measurement that we're taking.
And then we can compare them to each other.
We can create, like, all right, we can make one of these called reference surface F.
And we can measure the other lug handle relative to it.
And again, we're within, you know, five or six or I think it's seven thousandths of an inch of being perfectly aligned.
What is that?
Parallel with the other lug handle.
Not only that, but it's like the tops of them.
Like there's actually a video of us spinning this thing on a surface and having like one of these precision tolerance gauges that measures in the thousandths of an inch.
And you sort of zero it out on one lug handle and you spin it around and it just zeroes out on top of the other lug handle.
Like they're perfectly aligned.
The same height on the thing.
And that also speaks to the flatness of the bottom because it's turning relative to the flatness of the bottom of the base, which we didn't measure, but that's the fact that you're zeroing out this gauge.
It's in some of the videos.
It's manufacturers and it's hard to explain.
Machinists and people that understand these sort of measurements will understand it better, but they'll get it.
But it's interesting to think all right, so assuming you have to, you've left a bullnose, right, to create these lug handles, you have to come back with a different tool.
And you've got to carve away that area of the vase body between the lug handles.
So, what about that part of the vase?
Because they can't be made on a lathe.
It has to be made with a different process, right?
And so, we looked at that.
We looked at the actual area of the vase between the two handles.
And we found the same level of precision.
And this is truly remarkable.
It's 20,000 points of reference.
We looked at, we matched a cone to look at how close is the center line to the center line of B, like that center line of the neck of the vase.
It's within five thousandths of an inch.
This is.
Really remarkable because in today's manufacturing processes, when you change tools or you change the process, it introduces errors.
Like this is accounted for in our modern manufacturing processes, things like making turbine blades and stuff like that.
We understand that tools and process changes introduce errors, and we don't see that sort of error here.
We're not seeing it.
So it leads you to one of two conclusions.
One, They, whoever made this, was able to handle tool and process changes better than we can, right?
So they could deal with changing the process and the tool and just not have the same degree of error that we'd see.
Or it wasn't made on a lathe, it was made in a single pass, which means that you're talking about five axes of freedom.
It's a mill.
Think about those CNC mills as computerized mills that can carve a complex object with one tooltip.
It's one of those two things.
It has to either be.
Like 3D printing?
Not printing.
No, as far as we know, this is reductive.
Reductive, right?
As in, we're like taking it and carving it away.
Right.
Okay.
Yes.
Obviously.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Geopolymer, the idea that.
I don't mean.
Yeah, right.
That doesn't make sense.
But think about like a CNC mill, like a complex five axes of freedom with an arm.
Yes.
That's computer guided.
Like that's one of those two things that comes out of this analysis.
And the fact that there's no perceivable lack of precision between the vase handles is.
Amazing.
So, and this is just the start of the rabbit hole kind of thing.
Like it got, it got crazy from here.
This is a lot of fun because we made the STL file, like the model available online, and sort of open sourced it.
And there's a cryptographer from Denmark named Mark Kvist, who runs this website called unsigned.io.
Really interesting guy.
I've spoken to him, and he undertook essentially a deep sort of mathematical and geometric analysis of the vase.
And he found some just utterly remarkable aspects of it that I think have some extremely startling conclusions.
And he kind of started by looking for, like, all right, what are the.
Are there geometric patterns that we can see in his vase?
So, what can we see in it?
And so, you know, he kind of started and he found that it actually does encompass some of the sacred geometry that we were talking about with Randall the other day.
The things like the circle of life, there's actually two circle of life grids that are in here, and you can see them this way.
So, if you look at the blue circles that measure at point D, that's a grid based on the maximum internal diameter of the vase.
And you can also see that grid matches the very top of the vase with the point A.
So, it's a It's a circle of life grid that matches the internal diameter, it matches the top of the vase.
And then you have another circle of life grid that matches the, it's based on the external maximum diameter of the vase that also matches other points of it.
And this is kind of where he started.
And he found that it created, not only were these geometric patterns in it, but there's a bunch of these mathematically significant ratios and even algorithms and interrelationships between the shapes in the vase.
To the point where you could define it with a single algorithm.
And the overall point here is he's proving that this vase was designed.
Like these degrees of interrelationship between these features in the vase aren't accidental.
It had to have been designed and then somehow executed in granite with just astonishing precision.
So, one of the base principles that he found is sort of reverse, he's taking the object and he's reverse engineering it.
Like we're looking at it and he's trying to find out what was used, what is the.
What is the philosophy, mechanism, mathematics behind this vase?
And the more you dig, the more you find.
So, one of the fundamental principles he found in the vase is the use of the radian, or particularly the one radian angle.
So, this is a little diagram showing you what a radian is.
It's a simple way to express any angle, right?
You go, you take the radius of a circle, you apply it to the circumference of a circle.
The angle that it forms when you draw lines to it on the inside is one radian.
So, if you, you know, there's a two, you can measure, you could call something a two radian angle.
You could, half a circle is pi radians or 3.14, et cetera, radians.
Right.
And there are two pi radians inside of a circle.
So, it's like a, it's just an elegant way to describe any angle.
The Golden Ratio in Patterns00:06:33
And you can see the use of the one radian angle expressed here.
So, the one radian angle kind of defines the curvature and the angle of the top of the vase.
It, based on that circle of life grid center point, You can see the one radian angle is kind of defining the placement of the handles.
There's a number of different uses of the one radian angle.
And from that, he discovered something else.
He discovered that not only are there radians in this thing, but the radian is the basis for an algorithm that can be used to describe all of the curvatures used in the vase.
Now, this gets a little.
You don't have to understand the mass to understand the significance of this.
The most widely used shape in the vase is the circle.
Like sections of circles are used to describe the.
The curves on the vase, the little tiny curves on the insides of corners and stuff like that.
Now, the radius of these circles, so the size of these circles, is very tightly interrelated with each other.
And it's only these radiuses.
None of these, the size of these circles, are accidental.
They're all tightly related to each other and they can be expressed with a single elegant equation that Mark was calling the radial traversal pattern.
And that's the equation right there.
But what this is telling you is that if there were circles or curves of a different radius, Of a radius that there's none of the there's nothing here that doesn't fit this pattern, so it's only the circles of this size that fit this pattern.
It's based on it's like it's it uses radians, but it's it's it fits this radial traversal pattern, right?
So you can see there's up to like there's like 14 different uh or 12 or 14 different circle radiuses that is radii that are used, they're all related to each other, they're connected to each other through this algorithm.
There's that 432, 432 is here as well.
Um, yeah, and and so this is this is.
The point to take home is that this isn't accidental.
You might be able to find one or two degrees of mathematical interrelationship in an object by accident, but to find 12, like 12 tightly coupled degrees of mathematical interrelationship in an object like this, is not accidental.
Mark actually said in the article, he said it'd be more likely for you to wake up one morning and have an entire new universe, like quantum universe sprouting out of your left nostril, than it would be for this to be an accident.
It's not accidental.
It was designed.
And in order to prove this, he went ahead and said, you know what?
Let's make a model.
We're going to go into CAD.
We're going to build this vase using just this algorithm, using these circles with this algorithm, make it perfect.
And then I'm going to compare the vase model to the CAD model that's built using just the math.
And he did that.
And the median radial deviation, so the difference from the actual model of the scanned vase to the model he built using the maths, was 9%.
Which is 0.3 of a thousandth of an inch.
Like that's the average deviation.
0.3 of a thousandth.
So, like a tenth, it's three ten thousandths of an inch.
Which is at that point, we're talking about degrees where we don't know if it's an imperfection in the scan.
Right.
Or even in the vase.
You can't tell at the limit of resolution at this point.
That's all we can measure.
Yeah.
So, you've got to also remember here that some of these circles we're talking about, they range from about 42 millimeters in size down to 1.1 millimeters at the smallest.
So, you have circles, arcs of circles that fit this pattern that are 1.1 millimeters in radius, which is kind of crazy, right?
Very small.
What was Randall saying when you pulled this up the other day?
He was like kind of freaking out.
He was.
I don't think he's watched all of the videos.
I'd love him to see.
I want to talk.
I haven't had the chance to take him through it yet.
And I'll probably do that in Montana here.
But he was kind of losing his mind when he saw this because he saw something very similar with the radiuses of these circles compared to some of this plasmoid technology that he was talking about.
Yeah.
Yeah, and I think this other stuff was interesting too.
The fact that other than the radial traversal pattern, we also see pi, the golden ratio, the other sacred geometry put in here.
So the image on the left shows you pi to within 0.1 of a degree.
The image on the right shows us the golden ratio squared to within less than 0.1%.
I'm sorry, not degree percent.
Less than 0.01% accuracy with the golden ratio.
There's actually the golden ratio shows up in a number of places.
I've just used a couple of examples here.
It also has encoded pi to within, you know, 0.1%.
Can you explain what the golden ratio is for people who might not know?
So, people don't know.
Golden ratio is the, man, the aspect or the ratio of the universe.
The golden ratio is a fundamental principle of the world.
It seems to be an encoded ratio that is encoded from DNA up to the formation of galaxies.
It's 1.6, et cetera, et cetera.
I can't actually remember exactly what it is, but it's a ratio expressed by living things that also can be found by.
By basic geometry, we went through it with the Randall Carlson podcast about how to define the ratio, but it can be expressed in the human body in terms of how it grows from the length of your hand down to the gap in your wrist here.
And that's one part of the ratio.
The other parts of it is down to here.
The ratio is a line that is dissected where the ratio of the small to the large is exactly the same as the large to the whole, right?
So it's hard to think about, but it's like take a line.
The point where you dissect it, where the ratio of size is of the small piece where you've dissected it, the ratio of that to the larger piece is exactly the same as the ratio of the larger piece to the whole.
So it's like A and B, B to A, A is to A plus B. That's the equation for it.
And it's expressed in life, right?
Everything that grows organic material, the human body, conch shells is the famous one.
It's the Fibonacci sequence is attached to this.
It's, you know, you take a cross section of a DNA molecule, you find the golden ratio.
It's in the spiral helix of the DNA molecule.
It's in the structure of galaxies.
It seems to be a fundamental constant of the universe.
Fibonacci Sequences Everywhere00:15:27
And that's why I think the fact that it gets expressed in these artifacts and it's in, in fact, this sort of geometry, even radians themselves, they're showing us, the builders of this are showing us that there's a language behind this.
They're showing us their capabilities.
This vase is, to me, represents something of almost like a time capsule.
It's like a, it's like a, it's like, It's like something that's sent through time to us that is expressing the degree of knowledge and understanding that its creators had of the universe and of their system, even their system of mathematics.
I actually have a slide on this later, but there was a really.
I had a.
Once.
I want to finish talking about the vase because there's some interesting implications about the maths that we've been going through.
I'm not doing it just for the sake of maths, but come back to that time capsule idea in a minute.
But so when you think about the design of the vase and how it's.
Been made very precisely in rose granite, and there's a mathematical design that's behind it.
Right?
We get to a point where we're like, all right, so the precision, the complexity, the depth of interrelation between the features really rules out random chance.
This artifact was 100% designed.
And it's like, okay, so how could you design this?
Can you design it on paper?
Remember that there are circles that have a radius of one millimeter, basically.
Imagine if you're trying to draw that at Scout, try and draw anyone, I'd challenge anyone, try and draw a circle.
With a compass that's got a radius of a millimeter and see how you go, and then be able to execute that down to the thousandths of an inch.
Remember, it's made extremely precisely.
You might be able to draw it out on a piece of paper that's as big as the room, but then you still have to scale it down somehow.
It's got to find its way to an output somehow.
You've got to be able to carve this thing in granite somehow.
I think the best way, and Mark proved that the best way to design this is mathematically, right?
It's designed with the mass, we can express it with an equation.
Once you've got that equation, you've got that mathematical design, you have to then do the same thing.
You've got to get it to output somehow.
So, how do you take it from a design to an output and into an output of a system that is extremely accurate?
Like this, you know, just be able to make something like this in rose granite would require some of our very best precision lathes or precision mills.
And you're talking about extremely sturdy and firm bearings and rods and turnscrews.
And it is a whole lot of capability in this, right?
It's been made with astonishing precision.
And the fact that it's, we know that because of the area between the vase handles, Right?
It's extremely precise.
Like they didn't lose positional calibration when they changed tools to make the vase handle, or it was made on a five axis mill in a single pass.
And this is kind of where that evidence and logic all leads.
And I like to use this, I like to quote directly from Mark's article where he wrote about this.
And this is what he said, quoting Mark As far as we know, no human beings, trained animals, or naturally occurring phenomena, modern or ancient, take mathematical formulae and equations as input and produce lathe operating motions as outputs.
For all the knowledge and insights we've accumulated over the ages, we know of exactly one and only one category of things capable of such behavior.
The kind of thing that we refer to as a Turing machine, a device capable of taking input, holding state, performing operations on held states according to predetermined principles and producing output.
Now, you can make Turing machines mechanically, pneumatically, electronically, hydraulically, but we call this class of device a computer.
And no plausible way of representing, operating on, or manufacturing the design of this artifact exists without having access to one such.
He's saying that you cannot have made this without the use of a Turing machine, aka a computer, be able to take that design and produce the output to get the result that we see in this.
That's a very interesting statement.
That's a mind fuck.
That's what we like to call a mind fuck.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it did fuck with the mind of.
One of these engineers that did the original analysis of it.
Remember, we talked about the metrology at the start?
One of these aerospace engineer guys?
Yes.
So, Mark does this.
And this guy's name's Nick.
And he called me up.
He's like, Mark puts out his article.
And you sort of, it took me, you know, you got to read this article a few times and figure out the math and try to really digest it and see what it means.
And for me, you know, this is validation.
I'm like, this is magic.
This is confirming some of the things that I've long suspected and I've held this particular worldview for a while that, all right, there was technology in the past.
Nick.
You know, he was amazed by the metrology.
He was like, This thing's incredibly precise, scratching his head, didn't know.
But it wasn't until he really sort of chewed on Mark's article that he's like, He calls me up one day and he's like, Dude, I have to talk to you about this.
This thing is, it's keeping me up at night.
It's like, I wake up in a fucking sweat thinking about this vase because it hit, you could tell it had kind of shattered his worldview.
It had like changed.
He's like, I can't explain this or rationalize it without this type of technology.
What the hell was going on in the past?
And he said something to me that I was like, I put into a slide here, which I thought was really interesting.
Some of the things that I've said that I think this artifact is much more than just a simple vase, right?
It's encoding sacred geometry, which is the very fabric of a universe.
And I think it's telling us a tale of the creator's capabilities, their elegance, their knowledge systems, right?
Even their mathematical systems.
They might have a base radian system rather than a base 10 like we use, which is an elegant mathematical system.
But what Nick said to me is, you know what this reminds me of?
He said, it reminds me of the golden records that are on the Voyager space probes.
So, when these space probes went out in the 1970s, they had these golden records on them.
And it wasn't like we wrote this information on there.
We used mathematical principles, geometric principles.
We even used the radioactive decay of, I think, uranium atoms to provide a launch clock.
We gave them all these clues based on different principles and maths on these vases to try and convey information about our species, about who we were, about what we knew.
And we sent the goddamn things out into space.
I think this vase, it seems to be something like that, but instead of going through space, it's been sent through time.
It's like one of these golden records that's been sent through time to us.
And if we have the eyes to see it and the ability to decode it, there's all this information that we can glean from it and we can learn something about the past from it.
And that's what Nick was telling me.
I was like, that's a fantastic analogy for it.
And that's truly what it is.
The deeper we look, the deeper this rabbit hole goes on this thing.
And.
Yeah.
The crazy thing is, too, this is now, this was the start of the year we did this and we've been working through it, but it's not the only one.
You guys did more vases?
We're doing more vases.
We have literally 20 or 30 more that we're working on now.
Early results, we're seeing similar results for a lot of them, even better in terms of the pure metrology and precision.
Like some of them are zeroing it out on like the thousandth scale.
What?
We're also measuring stuff in CT machines now, which can go down to the micron.
So even like, you know, 25 times more accuracy than the scale.
Structured light scanning, yeah.
I think very interesting.
It's yeah, so this dude you were hanging out with the other day, he has like a ton of these vases.
Do you have that?
Can you show that picture?
Yeah, of you with all these vases.
Yeah, sure.
Is that the first time you put your hands on one?
It's my, it's the first time that I've, um, here's me holding one here.
This one actually is translucent, you can see through the light, but this is the collection that we're some of his that we're working on.
I've been extremely fortunate, and I do want to.
I'm not going to name names, but I'm very grateful to people that have been inspired by this vase work, and they have the means and the ability to go out and collect these things like this because these are artifacts that can be bought on the antiquities market.
And they cost a bomb, obviously.
I can't do it.
But I'm extremely grateful.
Well, some of them, I mean, up to like $70,000, $80,000, $100,000, the more provenance, the better, usually.
Some of them as low as like a few thousand dollars, but mostly the good ones.
You know, you're talking five figures, if not six.
And yeah, I'm very grateful too that they're willing to have them looked at and analyzed.
Of course, the goal is to get into the museums and to look at some of those artifacts that are in there.
We're working on, you know, creating a standardized process that we can then propose to museums.
And we have some very.
Good interactions happening, and we're very hopeful that in the very near future we'll be able to get into some museums that do allow this type of research.
They're willing to work with us, Petrie Museum being one of them.
They've got a number of artifacts that would totally fit within this.
And I think this technology and this technique is not, we don't just have to use it on vases.
I'd love to see it done.
We want to scan those drill cores that we looked at earlier and really define that spiral groove.
We want to be able to, I'd love to see this used on boxes and statues and be able to really do complex geometric modeling.
Analysis for those things.
So, I think we're just on the tip of the iceberg when it comes to learning more about the statues of the Luxor, for example.
Those things were analyzed similar, not obviously under those techniques, but Chris Dunn pointed out that those statues of the Luxor were perfectly symmetrical.
Yeah, perfectly symmetrical.
Yeah, and the way we've done that is with photographic and photogrammetry.
But even the smallest, like the sort of relatively small statues, six foot statues, I think we could scan down to this level of precision and we can define.
Just how precise they are, how regular the curves.
I think there's tremendous things we can learn with this technology.
And I think that's exactly what I'd love, I think we should be doing.
Because who knows what it'll turn out.
And I just think we should be following the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how much it kind of upsets the apple cart in terms of the established story of history.
So, yeah, this is really interesting stuff.
And this has been a huge project this year.
And for people that are waiting for more vase file STLs, they're coming.
The analysis takes time.
Like, this stuff doesn't happen overnight.
So, you know, the process is ongoing.
I know there's some interest in writing a paper.
We were looking for, yeah, I mean, scientific papers probably coming.
But for me, it's the first time I think we've genuinely got some very hard evidence now that is very hard to argue with about significant technology being deployed to make these things.
Because the challenge is out there.
I would love anyone to make one of these.
Like, go make one.
If you think you can even machine it with a tool made out of acrylic.
Go for it.
If you think you can get down to these numbers, and trust me, machinists and people that work in these tolerances understand just how well this thing is made.
I want to see it.
I would love to see people attempt to make it and even come close because I just think that we're light years away from this idea that these things were done by hand at this point.
Right.
And again, remember, these go back to pre dynastic times.
Do you think there will be any sort of like attempts to suppress the kind of stuff that you guys are looking at or like dismiss it?
Or, yeah, there's already people dismissing it.
What are they saying?
What do they say about it?
Well, mostly it's been like, oh, the vase is fake.
It's a fake vase.
Yeah.
Which is, you know, Alex Dunn in the.
So one of the engineers is Chris Dunn's son.
He's in my videos about this.
But he, I mean, that's the only thing they can come up with that I've heard is, oh, the vase is fake.
It's like, you think it was the vase on this, the provenance on this particular vase goes back to the 1980s.
Some of these vases' provenance goes back to where they'll, in terms of they have a known history, go back to the 1800s.
But even in the 1980s, I think you'd be challenged to make something that precise out of rose granite.
And if you think you can make it today that precise with that much of all of that math that's behind it and everything else, try and make it and try and see how much that costs you to make it and then try and justify that by the cost it's going to, whatever you think you can sell it for on the antiquities market.
It's actually damaged.
It's, The thing, it matches almost perfectly, in fact, to the eye exactly, lots of pre dynastic vases that you find in the Cairo Museum.
In my video, I show a bunch of them.
Like, it is the same shape and size as many pre dynastic vases.
Obviously, there's a variety of shapes and sizes when it comes to these artifacts, but I mean, just calling it fake is about the best argument anybody's been able to come up with because they can't handle fake how?
Well, somebody manufactured it, and I mean, things do happen.
Like, people make, try and sell fake artifacts.
But it's like this is, it's ridiculous to think that you could do that cheaply.
Or it's not, look, this is not something that's made in some like backyard workshop in China or India and then, you know, mass produced and sold on the market.
It's ridiculous.
If you think it's fake, try and make one.
See how hard it is and see if you can get anywhere near it and how much it costs you.
I just think it's a facetious argument with nothing behind it more than the desire to dismiss this because it doesn't match their worldview.
No one's arguing with the metrology.
Like nobody can challenge the metrology.
The scan's out there and available.
It's public information.
You want to do it and you want to figure it out for yourself?
The scan's right there.
You can make the same calculations Mark made.
You can measure it for yourself.
You can stick it in a CMM and work out the data for yourself.
So it's all repeatable.
But the best people can come up with is, oh, it's fake, or sacred geometry is woo, is the other thing I've heard, which we talked about in detail with Randall.
Like, sacred geometry is not woo.
Sacred geometry is the universe, it is the fabric of the universe.
And it's, you know, knowledge of that is what essentially comprised the mystery schools.
And, you know, this is like the way you see the world.
Like, the idea that sacred geometry is woo, that's the only other thing I've heard.
It's like, oh, as soon as you see the flower of life, forget about it.
It's crystal peepee nonsense.
Like, it's just people that.
Don't like what it means.
Right.
And they just are seeking any way to try and discredit it, throw shade at me because, oh, the crazy ideas that guy has or whatever.
It's like, I don't care.
And I'm going to, I think all these other vases are going to put proof to all of that nonsense too.
Like there's vases here that are being scanned that had provenance going back to the 1800s.
In fact, funnily enough, one of these vases that happens to be on this table and is owned by this collector and is being scanned and analyzed happens to have been brought up in one of the videos that were made.
Debunking this work as an example of a real vase.
So we'll see what this real vase actually looks like because the dude picked a silly example because turns out this guy owns that vase.
Twitter Drama and Artifact Provenance00:03:54
Its provenance goes back to the 1800s and we are going to scan it because it looks to me like it's going to show some similar provenance.
Which one is it?
It's the back one on the right here, I believe.
The big one?
Yeah, the big one here.
Yeah, this guy.
So the guy made the debunking video about that particular vase.
He used that as an example as a fake vase.
No, as a real vase.
As a real vase.
So assuming the first vase we scanned was.
Fake.
Oh, this is what a real vase is.
I'm like, okay, bro, let's see.
I don't know what results it's going to show.
I will say that not every vase shows these properties.
There are handmade vases.
They did work on it, but there's often a visible difference between the ones that show these sort of precision properties versus the ones that don't.
Most of the handmade stuff is alabaster, but there were still handmade hardstone vases as well.
And you can usually pretty clearly tell the difference.
Yes.
It's a fascinating space.
I mean, I'm just.
And are they all found in Egypt?
There are some actual artifacts from around the world that I'd love to see subjected to some of this process as well.
But in general, yeah, I mean, a lot of this stuff.
I mean, they got.
And I would like to scan other artifacts like Roman things.
And I mean, typically there's not a lot of hard stone artifacts like this that seem to display those levels of precision that come from other cultures.
And obviously the technologies that they were using were getting better too.
But I'd love to scan them and compare them because I. Even primitive lathe made stuff, I don't think is going to come anywhere near the precision of these.
The best, yeah, I don't know of any particular examples outside of these things in Egypt.
This seems to be a pretty common Magna Fuente bowl.
There's maybe a few others that I'd love to see scanned.
But yeah, I think this technology is applicable for lots of different artifacts.
Yeah, they're like time capsules from a previous civilization of aliens trying to teach us something, but what are they trying to teach us, Ben?
They're telling us that they knew, man.
I think a lot of it is an expression of.
I mean, we're not trying to teach whoever the hell reaches, you know, finds the Voyager probes anything.
We're just trying to let them know that we were here.
We were here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And we had it figured out.
Yeah.
Well, bro, you got to catch a flight.
I do at some point.
Yes.
So in about five minutes, you got to get out of here.
So thanks for coming, dude.
We fucking killed it.
We did a whole flurry of podcasts this weekend.
We did.
Very enjoyable, man.
Thanks for bringing me out again.
Always great to see you.
Hell yeah.
Where can people find out more about what you're doing?
Keep up.
Obviously, I mean, sure a lot of people listening already know, but for people that don't, Tell them where they can research you online, read, you know.
I don't know.
Your book's not out yet, right?
No, yeah, I'm working on it.
Another, it's probably going to be a little while for the book.
But yeah, Ben Van Kirkwick's the name if you want to look me up.
But otherwise, unchartedx.com or youtube.com slash C slash Uncharted X. I'm also on Spotify, on Rumble.
You can find all my videos on Spotify.
Like I said, I'm on Rumble.
Wow.
Yeah, no, I'm throwing stuff on Rumble too for now.
But you can, I'm on social media.
I'm not super active on there.
But yeah, Twitter, Instagram, that's all that's linked on the website and pretty much in all of the videos.
But yeah, YouTube's the main place.
Yeah.
Engaging in some of the Twitter drama going on right now.
I don't play that.
Man, I wouldn't be on social media if it wasn't for this stuff.
But yeah, there was some, I did get some enjoyment out of some of the things I saw happen on Twitter yesterday.
It's so funny that people, there's people on Twitter just for that stuff.
And there's people like you who are just on there just to show the stuff you're doing in the real world.
Yeah.
And it's so funny when you see those two worlds collide.
I ain't got no time for social media nonsense.
Honestly, I don't care.
I'm not spending time on social media looking at what people said about what.
Yeah.
You know, I think, yeah, Twitter's meant for.
It's literally engaged for conflict.
It's so stupid.
That's its nature.
It's fine.
Yeah.
Thrills of Handling Real Units00:01:28
Cool, man.
Well, I'll link everything below.
And thanks again.
We got to get you back.
Are you working on anything new right now that's coming out soon?
Or what do you got going on in the pipeline?
I am.
Actually, I'm taking another look at the Serapium here shortly.
I've just got back from England.
We didn't even talk about the Stone Circle stuff, but that's a lot of research involved in that for me as well.
But yeah, new look at the Serapium is coming up.
Plus, I haven't really done a video talking about the Osiris shaft.
I have, like, there's some other structures up there in Giza that are interesting.
South America.
Yeah, I'm always working on things.
There's another vase video coming about the recent scans and some more data coming about those.
Were you filming when you were down there in Sarasota?
Yeah, a lot of pictures.
Yeah, not mean, yes, this was a chance for me to see these things in person, handle them in person.
It was the first time, as we said, that I'd ever got to handle them like full units.
You can get, you can find pieces of them in Egypt and like beneath the step pyramid.
But yeah, the first time I actually can handle them.
Yeah, it was a thrill, man.
I'm really thankful to that guy for letting me play with his toys.
Tell him to at least put a seatbelt around him when he's driving around.
Yeah, one might have fallen off the front seat of his car.
I wasn't there.
He said, It's fine.
It's made of granite.
I mean, the fat ones are probably okay, but there's one in here that's translucently thin.