Randall Carlson and Ben Van Kerkwyk explore ancient catastrophes, starting with Malcolm Bendel's plasma technology and sacred geometry found in pre-dynastic Egyptian vases. They analyze how the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis correlates with Meltwater Pulse 1B, suggesting crustal displacement from ice sheet melting triggered volcanic activity and mass extinctions 12,960 years ago. The discussion critiques flawed climate baselines rooted in the Little Ice Age, arguing that natural forces like solar variability dominate over human influence. Ultimately, they propose that catastrophic geological shifts, rather than gradualism, shaped Earth's history and human civilization. [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
In Person Podcast Return00:03:34
Well, thank you guys for coming back.
It's great.
I don't know if this is the first in person podcast that you guys have both been a part of or not, but it's.
Well, together, yeah.
I think so.
We've done them virtually, but together.
Yeah.
In the same actual room.
That's what I meant.
That's what I meant.
Yeah, in the room.
I know you've been on a bunch of Ben's podcasts before.
Yeah.
We've been in the same room before, but not combining that with a podcast.
We've been in the same room.
We have.
We've done podcasts together.
But this is the first time doing a podcast together in the same room.
I love it.
Now, is this not the room we did last time?
This is the same room.
Yeah.
It is.
Yep.
Same room.
Okay.
So, how's it feel to get censored by Joe Rogan?
It was a relief because, well, it's kind of a long story.
I know he didn't really, people listening, he didn't really get censored by him.
The video, you guys just decided not to publish it for some reasons.
Well, there were a lot of people that were going crazy about that.
Yeah.
A couple of reasons.
One reason was, well, first of all, Let me just give you a little background on this.
I had been on Rogan with Graham Hancock and the question of what kind of energy technology may the ancient cultures have been using, if any.
And I don't remember exactly.
I think maybe Graham or Rogan, Joe, looked at me, kind of deferred to me, and I kind of mentioned offhand that, you know, I had an idea what it may have been.
And.
Before we went in, Graham and I had discussed that we were not going to get into the whole energy dimension of talking about ancient cultures and stuff, because for one thing, that's a little bit outside of Graham's purview.
He's looking at artifacts and, I mean, he's looking at different kinds of evidence, but the question is hovering over always.
And I think it had come up to the question had come up to, you know, the quarrying and transport of these great stones.
And, you know, they.
I mean, Ben will address that, I'm sure, in our conversation today.
The growing evidence that they did have some kind of, our ancients, the ancient peoples did have some kind of a technology that has been lost.
Okay, so I just kind of dropped an offhand remark that, you know, I kind of thought I had some ideas along those lines.
And instantly, Joe honed in on that and insisted I talk about it.
And I didn't intend to talk about it because I felt at the time, What I knew and what I had learned to talk about it would have been premature.
Because that's the way I like to vet things before I start talking about them, like I know what the hell I'm talking about, right?
So, anyways, Joe kind of pressed the issue, and I kind of got into it a little bit.
And then he asked me if I would come back to talk about it in greater detail.
And I said, sure.
And I think I went back in November of last year.
But in the interim, a couple of things happened.
As a result of what I did disclose on Joe's show, I mentioned Malcolm Bendel, the inventor, that I had been having a dialogue with at that point for about seven years while he had been building and testing prototypes and explaining to me the science and ideas behind it, right?
Malcolm's Controversial Background00:02:42
So when I first talked to him, you know, I was like, okay, sounds interesting, but I don't know.
I don't have the command of the science to really.
Determine whether this is legitimate or not.
So, over the course of the years, I learned additional things, and I had a conversation with an Australian author named Roland Perry, also an investigative reporter who actually wrote a book about Malcolm.
He did the probably one of the most famous books is his biography of Mel Gibson.
So, I had a long conversation with him on the phone, and as a result of that, I kind of came away.
Well, it sounds like this is legitimate.
Now, this guy, Malcolm, that I've been talking to, it sounded like he had led a pretty interesting life and was, like a lot of geniuses, somewhat eccentric.
But what I learned was, and I'm not going to get into the specifics of this, is that he got caught up in some scandals in the 90s and early 2000s based upon the fact that he had been a.
His background was in geochemistry and he was an oil prospector and he'd discovered an.
An oil deposit that was coveted by one of the mainstream energy companies, and he held the license to the drilling rights.
They wanted that license.
What they did was embark on a campaign to scare away any potential investors.
They bribed politicians, they bribed journalists to basically concoct a smear campaign.
His background, there was food that they could take and exaggerate and take things out of context, just like they've done to so many.
Like they've done to Graham Hancock.
When he came out with Ancient Apocalypse, I don't know how much you saw in the mainstream a treatment of Ancient Apocalypse that Graham was being portrayed as a white supremacist, a racist, a conspiracy monger, all of this stuff.
This is what they do.
When you step outside the approved narrative, they They start throwing it at you.
You know, they're doing it right now to, you know, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., trying to paint him as a complete nut job because he's questioned the efficacy of vaccines.
And you're not allowed to do that.
If you do.
And the approach is always not looking at specifically what you say and what data, what facts, what evidence you bring forward, but, you know, it's all character assassination.
Tutoring in Science and Tech00:06:15
So there had been this whole slew of this stuff that had come out in the 90s, early 90s, and early 2000s as a result of this.
Whole episode.
The upshot of it was that the board of directors of this particular energy company ended up resigning because they got caught in the scandal.
One of the big oil companies?
One of the big oil companies, yeah.
So, as a result of that, Malcolm was so fed up with the politics and all of that that he decided that he was going to shift gears and go back to what he had been working on literally since he'd been in high school, which was alternative energy based upon.
The control of plasma, which is the fourth state of matter.
After solid, liquid, gas, you have plasma.
And plasma has extremely interesting properties to it.
So the bottom line was this Malcolm actually came to America.
And one of the purposes he came here was amongst several reasons, but one of the reasons was he was going to tutor me in the science and the technology.
Several months.
I worked with my colleague Brad Young, who I've done a lot of, Ben knows him well.
We've been doing research together, traveling, organizing tours, and all this.
And Mike Robertson, who is the CEO of howtube.com, where you will now find a whole lot of this stuff dealing with plasma technology.
So the three of us worked with Malcolm, developed a 243 slide slideshow.
Then Malcolm proceeded to do a lecture series discussing what we had built on this slideshow over something like 10 hours of lectures.
Okay.
Now, this came after.
But so he was here.
I was scheduled to go on to Joe.
Rogan.
And so myself, Brad Young, George Howard, who is the, he's one of the, I would say, primary people in the cosmic research team.
He does the website Cosmic Tusk and he's been in the forefront of studies about the younger, driest catastrophism and all of this.
He wrote out there with us.
Another fellow that kind of is an assistant to me.
We went out there together.
I went on Joe's and Malcolm came with.
Before we went on the show, I asked Joe if he, Because Joe wanted me to talk about the science, and I thought, okay, here I've got the guy himself, and he's going to be able to really get into a much more explicit and accurate discussion of the science than I'm going to be able to.
So I called up Joe before the interview, and I said, just so happens the inventor is here.
What do you think about inviting him on, and we can talk about the technology and the science and what is a plasma and so on?
And he said, sure.
Okay, so now in the interim, Jamie, who's Joe's.
Producer.
He started looking, found all of this stuff from, you know, several decades ago that was part of this smear campaign.
It'd be just like if 10 years from now somebody's going to, okay, who's this guy, Graham Hancock?
Or who is this guy?
And they pull up, oh, he's, this guy's a white supremacist.
He's a, you know, he's a racist.
He's, you know, he's out there promoting, you know, conspiracy theories and all of this kind of stuff.
You know, there's a whole list.
And if you go back through the list of these inventors and scientists who have worked on these kinds of things, All the way back to Nikola Tesla, you see that there's a repeating pattern of suppression, of discrediting, of character attacks, all of that kind of stuff, right?
So, as we walk in to sit down, Jamie has just dumped this pile of stuff in front of Joe, and Joe is looking at it, right?
Well, so my priority and goal, which was to talk about the science, at that point completely got derailed for the most part.
And it got into the politics, the scandals, the conspiracy theories.
And if it ever does get aired, you'll hear that I'm constantly trying to.
Steer it back to the science.
I had put together a slideshow and, you know, and it kind of went back and forth.
And Malcolm got, you know, defensive because Joe kind of went into attack mode, which, you know, had there been merit to this, would have been a valid thing to do.
But so the, and then in the course of it, there were several comments made that really kind of encroached upon a territory that had.
Was being covered under non disclosure agreements.
That was part of it.
Part of it was just the emphasis on politics.
And as it's going on, I'm kind of like shaking my head and going, oh, this is not where I wanted this thing to go.
I wanted to talk about plasma technology.
You know, we're talking about all this other stuff.
So at the end of it, we adjourn.
Joe comes, catches me on the way out, and he says, hey, would it be okay with you if I. didn't air this right away if I spent some time vetting it.
And I said, for me, it was like, yes, that's fine.
It was almost like a relief to me that this was not, because I knew it was going to completely derail the conversation and the discussion.
So I said, I'm fine with that.
And then he also asked me if I would come back on just myself.
And I agreed to that and said, sure, I would.
But, you know, in my mind, I wanted to get a better grip on the technology so I could talk about it knowledgeably.
And also, I knew that there was testing coming, it was in the pipeline, and there was going to be some major testing going on.
So I thought, Well, let's wait until the testing is complete, and then the testing will objectively show whether or not the technology is real, whether it's legitimate, or so on.
And now, where the testing is ongoing right now, there have been, like, Ben made a reference to what happened at the Tesla Tech Conference in Albuquerque a few weeks ago.
Tesla Conference Data Analysis00:07:21
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, you've added that pretty.
What did you.
Yeah.
Well, there are a couple things to say.
I mean, I feel like, I mean, I'm.
I don't know Malcolm.
I've not had the chance to meet him, but I've been intensely interested in hearing about the technology, and particularly its relationship to things like it seems to have some properties of sacred geometry.
And we can get into some of those topics.
But I've heard similar things where you talk about his reputation or the fact that he's been set up, and there's dirt that you can dig up online if you search for him.
And certainly just through social media and other people, I've had people reach out to me that are worried about you and your association with him.
My response to most of that is usually like, well, you know, people can be eccentric, and genius often is eccentric, right?
There's very rarely do you see like geniuses and people that, whether they're right or wrong, kind of have ideas that change the world.
It doesn't seem common that they're just like regular normal people.
Nikola Tesla's a great example.
I mean, he was more or less pretty antisocial, probably would be, you know, not received really well.
He would feel really strange to have met in person.
So, but you can separate.
Kind of the man from the mission.
Randall mentioned this earlier, right?
It doesn't just if he's eccentric or these things, you know, there's dirt on him, all these things that have been said about him, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong.
You can separate those things.
So I've personally been interested in kind of the technology and to find out, you know, let's get it tested.
I've seen some of the theory, I've seen some videos of devices doing things, but there's always been the talk of the testing.
And I've been talked to people that are involved in this.
And then, yeah, recently, In Albuquerque, at the Tesla convention.
I wasn't there, but I've spoken to people who were, and I think you can find videos of it on YouTube.
Malcolm was there.
They brought a device.
They had it hooked up to, I think, a 20 kilovolt generator.
It had the whole thunderstorm thing attached to it, and there were a number of people there.
I mean, that's kind of an alternative energy conference, and you typically have a lot of physicists and chemists and very qualified people that are interested in this.
Engineers that turn up.
And there were a number of people with their own instruments.
Like spectrometers and gas analyzers.
And they hooked it up to this device that's running off.
You know, it's basically, as far as I understand it, there's a couple of different varieties of it, but one variety is one that is attached to a regular internal combustion engine.
And they were seeing some, frankly, remarkable results just on the spot.
And you can see this in, you know, on YouTube.
There's been a couple other reports about it on the internet, but, you know, it's doing things like removing carbon monoxide from the exhaust, you're increasing a percentage of oxygen.
In fact, Potentially, even producing net oxygen might be a result of this.
But yeah, I mean, the CO2 levels go down, plus your engine efficiency goes way up.
It's kind of like a feedback loop that works in tandem with an engine.
So, that to me is very interesting.
And what I think it all needs is kind of third party independent verification and testing, which is, I'm sure, something that's being pursued.
So, yeah, it was that Tesla conference and the data that came out of that was pretty interesting.
And I mean, personally, technology aside, I'm interested in some of the theory behind it and its potential application as something that may not necessarily be a new discovery so much as a rediscovery.
Because as Randall said, I'm fairly convinced that there's plenty of evidence that suggests there were some powerful tools and techniques and technologies being employed far in the past.
I think it's the only way to explain some of the signatures we see in stone, some of the logistical achievements that have been made.
And, you know, at the bottom line of what that means is that there must have been a power source to have this technology operate.
So this is a potential candidate, I think.
I don't know.
I'm interested in it from that perspective.
Now, do you think.
This plasma technology, you said it's a possibility, but like how much of a possibility is that this stuff is responsible for some of the moving thousand ton stones or cutting some of these immensely like hard stones?
Well, let me put it this way.
You know, now that I've got a better grasp of what it is, the more I learn about it, the more it seems like it would be the prime candidate for an alternative technology and a technology upon which an entire civilization could be based.
Yes, that seems to me to become increasingly likely because it is so ubiquitous.
The whole idea of plasma technology in the fourth state of matter is real.
And there have been a lot of scientists who have been studying it for decades.
And so it's a well known phenomenon.
And it lends itself to all of these kinds of things that the alternative energy community and alternative ancient history community have speculated about.
It seems to fill a lot of the The gaps in that knowledge.
And so ultimately, it's going to be, you know, the testing and building of prototypes.
And that's why Malcolm's got a nonprofit organization called the Strike Foundation.
So they've applied for some patents, which are applications of the technology.
I'll give you an example a chimney scrubber that would be, you know, on a coal plant, a coal fired plant.
So they've got a patent on that, right?
But the basic principles are being put out for free access with the idea to encourage people to take those principles and work with them, test them.
So we got somebody right now who's going to be attempting sort of a backyard mechanic who's going to be doing a retrofit of his car with the technology.
And that's one of the applications you can retrofit any kind of engine or generator that operates on fossil fuel, whether it's Regular gasoline or kerosene or natural gas or diesel, and it'll have the same effect.
The data is out there.
I mean, I was talking with George Howard the other day, and he's saying that people are building these.
Like, if you go sit through the 10 hours of content, it's out there, and you have the skills to want to try and build one of these and use it as an application, you can.
And as Randall said, the people are.
I've seen a few different videos on YouTube of people building these or running these systems.
So it's a, yeah, I mean, I know that the data is going out there.
At least on the theory side, and it's contained in those 10 hours of lectures that are up on HowTube, I believe.
Yes, it is.
Yeah.
So it makes the engines, you said, twice as efficient?
About twice as efficient, yes.
So I guess the problem will be figuring a way to scale it up, right?
They've scaled it up to a 400 kilowatt generator.
So that's, you know, industrial level.
Sacred Geometry and Efficiency00:02:25
And he said, Malcolm said in one of his presentations that this is, it all is based off of sacred geometry.
Well, yes, because, for example, the, The spheres are in the ratio of four to three to two.
And that's your fundamental number, 432.
And the lengths of the pipe, the diameters of the pipe, all of these things are in those ratios that we get from the ancient canon of sacred numbers, which is interesting to me.
Wow.
Otherwise, they don't work as effectively if you don't use those particular ratios.
Okay.
Now, we're going to do a whole separate podcast on this stuff and go like super deep into it.
So, I don't know if there's anything else that we should show for now, but I do want to sort of dive deep into the fundamentals of sacred geometry because it's something that we did not cover on our first episode.
Yeah, that's a great idea.
That's, yeah, I think that's an excellent idea.
Can you give people a basic rundown, sort of an elevator pitch of what sacred geometry is and how it ties into prehistory?
With the busy fall season already in swing, you might be looking for some wholesome, convenient meals.
For those jam packed days, Factor, America's number one ready to eat meal kit, can help you fuel up fast with chef prepared, dietitian approved, ready to eat meals delivered straight to your door.
It's a great way to save time, eat well, and stay on track with your healthy lifestyle.
If you're like me and you're far too busy to always make sure you're eating well, that's where Factor comes in clutch.
You can skip that extra trip to the grocery store, as well as all the prepping, chopping, and cleaning, and still get all the flavor and nutritional quality that you need.
Factor's fresh, never frozen meals are ready to go in just two minutes.
All you have to do is heat and enjoy so you can get back to crushing your goals.
Round up your meals and replenish your snack supply with an assortment of 45 plus add ons, including breakfast items like their delicious apple cinnamon pancakes, bacon and cheddar egg bites, and potato, bacon, and egg breakfast skillets.
Or for an easy wellness boost, try refreshing beverage options like cold pressed juices, shakes, and smoothies.
Head on over to factormeals.com forward slash DJP50 and use code DJP50 to get 50% off.
That's code DJP50 at factormeals.com forward slash DJP50 to get 50% off.
Back to the show.
Well, excuse me.
Golden Ratios in DNA00:15:43
I think that sacred geometry is geometry, as most people know, with the additional component of there being a symbolism and a philosophy behind it that you don't find in Euclidean geometry so much.
Euclidean geometry is your definitions, your axioms, your propositions and proofs, and all of that.
Well, all of that is part of sacred geometry, but in sacred geometry, we also get into the idea of.
Of there being symbolical meaning to the numbers.
And the other part of it is that the sacred geometry, you don't even have to call it that, but what you do see is that across the spectrum of nature, all phenomena manifest geometry.
So if you look at the molecular level, you'll see geometry at work.
If you look at the cosmic or astronomical level, you'll see geometry at work.
Look at the human level, you know.
Most people that are at least semi educated about this kind of material know of the golden section, right?
Also known as the divine proportion, you know, was used by Leonardo da Vinci and others going back to the Middle Ages.
The diagram of the human body.
Yeah.
And the human body is a repository of the divine proportion, as it's been called, the golden ratio.
And to put it simply, imagine that you have a line.
This is the simplest two dimensional manifestation of a draw line.
And now you divide that line into two parts.
If you divide it in the middle, now both sides of that line are the same length.
And it's a very static situation.
You can't get any additional properties out of that that you could use in processes of growth, for example.
You need to have an asymmetry because now, as soon as you have the asymmetry, now you have.
See, if you have a line that's divided in the middle, that's very static.
Artists know that, right?
Sacred geometry, what you're doing is an asymmetrical division of a line in the one and only point where you create a proportional relationship between the length of the whole line, the longer segment, and the shorter segment.
So, in classes and lectures, I demonstrate this.
It's much easier to grasp when you see it than just hearing about it.
And I am actually in the process of creating a new level of sacred geometry courses.
Primarily aimed at the homeschool, the massively growing homeschool movement.
Because I used to teach this, I did many years of teaching these principles to homeschooling classes of kids from the age of typically 9 to 17.
Oh, wow.
Discovered that when you incorporate the ideas of sacred geometry, it becomes 100 times more interesting than just your standard boring proofs and propositions and things.
So, but let's get back to that line.
Okay.
An asymmetrical line where The ratio of the small section to the large section is the same as the large section to the whole line.
Does that make sense?
So, if you have a line and you divide it asymmetrically and you call the long length A, the short length B, and the whole length C. In this case, C is, if you picture, can be the sum, will be the sum of A plus B, won't it?
Right?
Okay, now let's go.
We can take it either from the large to the small or the small to the large.
Let's say the ratio of B over A is the same as A over C.
The short is to the long as the long is to the whole or the sum of the two.
So you could say, as short B is to long A, long A is to A plus B.
And that's the basic mathematical expression of the golden section.
And then when you solve that, you find out that it has a value of 1.618.
Zero, et cetera.
It goes out forever, just like pi.
Now, that ratio is the ratio found ubiquitously throughout the natural world.
Like I said, it's particularly associated with processes of growth, it's very much manifest in human anatomy.
So, Danny, if you take your qubit, which is elbow to fingertip, right there built into your anatomy is the ratio I was just talking about.
So, hold up your forearm like this.
Now, feel around on your wrist, and you will find that there's a little space in your wrist joint.
You can feel it.
See, look, my thumb is in that space.
It's called the space of desktop.
Okay, so now imagine that line is your forearm from fingertip to elbow, and that asymmetrical division is marked by that space right there.
So now look what you get small is to large as the large is to your whole qubit, which is elbow to fingertip.
So right there, it's right there.
If you look at your fingers, you see, look at the digit of your middle finger, Danny.
You start right here.
You've got a joint right there.
Now you'll notice the next joint is longer, isn't it?
Yes.
And then from the middle of your finger to your knuckle, that progression is in the golden ratio.
So the small to the large, the large is to the next larger, and then from there to the space of desktop, right?
And then from there to your whole cubit.
Now, do this.
If you turn your forearm horizontal, and this is you're standing on the floor, and this is the top of your head.
Then this space of desktop would coincide with your navel.
So again, it's this scale invariant relationship.
And those are just a few examples.
You know, your navel is not the middle of your body.
Right.
However, when you're born, it pretty much is the middle of your body.
But as you grow, you grow into the divine proportion until you reach adulthood.
Now imagine this think about the proportions of an infant.
Now, imagine if you took an infant with those proportions, the size of their head, the distance that their navel divides their body, and you enlarge that to the size of a full grown adult, and you saw that person walking down the street, you would think they looked strange, wouldn't you?
A little bit, yeah.
Yes, you would.
Well, something from Game of Thrones.
So the thing is, you're growing into that ratio.
You see what I'm saying?
Yes.
And everybody deviates a little bit.
Everybody deviates.
Nobody's perfect.
Although there have been studies looking at artist models and things like that.
And, you know, the further away you deviate from it, the more, I guess you'd say, idiosyncratic, to use a polite term, that you look.
And there have been studies done by artists and things looking at the proportions of the human face.
Now, for example, if you do this, if you take.
You make a rectangle and you use the short length as the short side of a rectangle and the long length as the long side.
You now have a rectangle that is called a golden rectangle.
That golden rectangle is frequently used to frame the composition of paintings, of architecture, many, many things like that.
Also, artists came to understand that a golden rectangle will perfectly frame the face.
The height, because you notice if your face was as wide as your head was tall, again, you would look strange.
Yes.
Right?
Right.
So, and then you can divide that rectangle.
So, if you think of this as a vertical rectangle, and I may have a slide of this, if you think of it as a vertical rectangle, golden rectangle, then if you lop off a square, what's left.
Is another golden rectangle.
So the square defines your brow ridge like this.
From your chin to your brow ridge would be a square.
What's left over up here is another golden rectangle.
But you can subdivide the features of the face according to the golden ratio.
So you find it in your height, in the division of your navel, you find it in your forearm.
It's all manifest throughout the human body.
But it's manifest in all realms of nature, particularly in growing things.
And we find it in molecular, it plays a very important role in the geometry of the DNA molecule.
Yeah, I mean, it's reflected in the spiral helix of DNA.
If you take a cross section of the molecule, if you cut it and you look at that cross section, you'll find it reflected in that.
So it's, I like the golden ratios.
I kind of think of it, like to think of it as a constant of our universe.
It's a universal constant.
And you can go from the DNA, there's something that's the size of a molecule or a DNA helix, up to the structures of galaxies.
And you'll also see in that spiral structure of galaxies, the golden ratios reflected in that as well.
So it's, it's, It's like a natural constant.
It's in nature.
It's in life, as Randall says.
It's expressed in nature, particularly in things that grow, but it also seems to be a constant in the very fabric or construction of our universe, from the smallest levels to the very largest.
So it's a fundamental principle of reality.
What is this?
Well, this is a two dimensional model of a section of a DNA molecule.
And DNA is made up of.
These bases, these nucleotide bases, adenine, taurine, and you can see that they are a series of interconnected pentagons and hexagons.
Well, your pentagons are a pure manifestation of the golden section.
If you take a pentagon, which is a five sided polygon, and you connect alternate corners, you get a pentagram.
And the pentagram, if you look at it, it subdivides completely into the perfect golden ratios of the sides.
So, this is just, and this is one of the things I teach in my coursework how you find this geometry embedded in various things.
So, this is an example of your DNA molecule.
So, yeah, here's your organic nitrogenous base of the purines, and there's your pentagon.
So, it's like the geometry almost seems to be fundamental to the organization of the bases, the molecular bases.
They use this geometry.
To build these molecular structures.
And that's what you see right here.
And the DNA is a great example.
I don't know if I have the cross section here that.
Okay, wow.
Yeah, so here's your Vitruvian man.
And the Vitruvian man shows one application of the squaring of the circle.
And the golden section is very much intrinsic to the solution of the squaring of the circle problem, which is one of the great classical problems of antiquity.
And what I'm trying to show in this slide here is this idea that, you know, while going back to this here, life is cosmic.
Within the past several decades, studies of meteorites that have fallen to Earth have revealed that they contained the building blocks of DNA in the form of the purine nuclear bases, which, as we have seen, organized themselves according to the union of pentagonal and hexagonal rings.
Their presence in meteorites provides powerful confirmation of the hypothesis that life originated in space and was subsequently delivered to Earth through the agencies of comets and their meteoritic offspring.
It demonstrates that life is cosmic in origin and confirms that geometry is fundamental to the generation, function, and propagation of life throughout the universe.
Okay, I think I've heard this.
This is what they call panspermia, right?
Well, pan?
Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
That's right.
Yep.
So, this geometry, this understanding of geometry and everything that's tied into it with mathematics, it doesn't seem like it's something that is practiced in any sort of way.
Building or any sort of technology that we use today.
Is that right?
To some extent, I think architects are getting more hip to the use of it.
Yeah.
Yeah, I definitely think that's happening because, you know, if you look at the 20th century, 20th century, pretty much you can follow the recovery of these principles.
Going back to, you know, one of the early, I think, researchers into this was Jay Hambage, who was a designer.
Illustrator who discovered, he called it dynamic symmetry.
And dynamic symmetry was a system that I think was very much in use throughout by ancient cultures throughout the world.
And dynamic symmetry links together a lot of interesting relationships that we find in geometry, including the golden section.
And it kind of synthesizes these things.
I actually could pull up, I guess, a slide here on.
On that, that we could look at, and you could see what it is.
Let's see if I can go to.
So, this comes directly out of my sacred geometry course.
Okay.
And we'll see here, and you'll be able to kind of see how it works here.
Relationship to the meteorological systems of the ancient world.
Employed as the basis for temple construction, proportion, and orientation.
Metrological.
That's what I kind of meant.
I meant we don't build anything based on.
The universe that was seems to that seems to there's a lot of evidence that shows that a lot of the stuff that was built in prehistory does a lot, yes, yes.
So, here's I'm gonna let's see, I'm gonna and it this is like this is straight out of my course.
So, if you take this course, this is where we begin with it.
Um, so erecting a line perpendicular to the endpoint of a given line, and I'm gonna just show go, I'm gonna go through this really quickly.
I'm not gonna explain this, I'm gonna get.
Directly into the idea of dynamic symmetry.
But it begins with being able to erect two perpendicular lines, like you see here.
Constructing Dynamic Symmetry00:10:34
And then from there, it'll go to creating a square.
Okay.
So we just went through a process of defining the four corners of a square.
Now, once you've done a square, you now can proceed with the system.
So the square's diagonals can now be drawn, creating a central point.
So, if you put in one diagonal and the other, you get a central point within the square.
See that?
There it is right there.
Diagonals of a square inscribed and circumscribed circles, ratio of diagonal to the side of the square.
And that shows the ratios right there.
We won't get into that because I'm just going to give you the overall impression.
So, here's an inscribed circle.
We can do another square inside there.
So, we've now got two squares.
The circle is.
Inscribed in the larger one, circumscribed the smaller one, and that creates a specific, what's called a dynamic ratio.
This ratio was fundamental to the ancient world and was used over and over again.
And here we go.
We've done it one more step.
And it creates a series of concentric rings that have this dynamic proportional relationship, expanding or contracting.
And it was used over and over again in the ancient world to establish the dimensions of temples and sacred structures.
Now begin with a square.
Call the length of any side one.
The length of each of the remaining sides will be one.
Agreed?
Right.
Okay.
The area of the square will also be one, one square unit.
And you put in that diagonal, and you can quick, you know, use the Pythagorean theorem, and you'll see that the diagonal is equal to the square root of 2, which it says right there is 1.414213562, dot, dot, dot, meaning it goes on forever without repeating, without terminating.
Okay.
So then what we do is we use that diagonal of that square, as you see right there.
Now, if you're drawing this, you would be drawing with a compass.
You would put your, after the square is drawn, set your compass point at A and open to the radius AC, and you swing an arc down and you intersect.
The baseline of the square projected out, and you can see right there where they meet at point D.
So now you can see that the distance from A to D is going to be the same as the distance from A to C. Right?
See that?
Okay.
That ratio is the square root of 2.
So now from there, we can generate a rectangle.
Now, this rectangle, long side is square root of 2, short side is 1.
Now, On a building site in the ancient times, you would have had.
Let me go back to this.
Let's say you've got your square laid out on the ground, and you have a stake or a pole driven in at A, and you have a chain or a knotted rope that stretched to C, and then you can actually inscribe this right on the ground.
And that's how they would have done it to lay out the template for the building that is about to be constructed.
So now, once you've got.
That rectangle, the square root of two, I can show you many examples of the root two in art, architecture, in nature, and so on.
The next step within this sequence of dynamic symmetry is to put that diagonal in.
Now, again, you can use the Pythagorean theorem, which tells you that the square of the short side of any right triangle plus the square of the long side equals the square of the hypotenuse.
So let's take, look, ADC is a right triangle.
This length is the hypotenuse.
So if you square CD and you square AD, you add them together and take the square root, you're going to get the length of AC.
And that turns out to be.
Let's go through this.
I'm just showing this is what we do in class.
I show people how to construct these.
Now, here's what happens we take the perpendicular to the diagonal and we get BE.
Now, did you see how I got?
How I got this point right here, we can back up.
It's not too important you see that right now.
But if you put in the diagonal and then I draw a circle like this, and notice that the circle radius is the same as the side length of the rectangle.
Okay, right now I take this distance here and I will take this length from here to here.
Let's see, did I call okay?
AF, and now I bisect AF in this manner.
And when I do that, I get this perpendicular from here to here, and that splits the base of this rectangle right here, right in the middle.
And what as a result of that, what happens is I get a series of these scale invariant triangles, and I can go through this whole thing, they all have the same proportions, and then ultimately.
What happens is I get two duplicates of the original.
There we go.
Let's see.
And I can create what are called the whirling rectangles.
And these whirling rectangles are showing actually a vortex phenomena that we can find in nature.
Again, we get into all of this in the classes, and you'll notice the symmetries that are starting to appear there.
As we develop this sequence, you're melting my brain already, Randall.
Good.
This is what we want.
We want Danny's brain to be melted.
Give me those salts.
And so, what we got here now is one of the things that makes them dynamic is the fact that these rectangles are infinitely replicable, either growing or reducing.
So, look what I've got here.
Now, you can see here that that rectangle in blue is the exact proportions of the original rectangle.
See that?
Yes.
Look at there.
There it's going around.
And I can continue by creating a series.
I can create a grid.
And this grid is scale invariant, meaning it's self similar.
Right.
Right.
And this is one of the key ideas of sacred geometry the self similarity of these forms, which means that if you're creating a composition, let's say you're an artist and you're created a painting.
That the canvas ratio is a root two rectangle, what we're just looking at here.
Well, you can divide this root two rectangle up just as I've shown you here, so that all of the parts reflect the proportions of the whole.
Now you have what the Greeks called stereometry, which is this relationship, this harmonic relationship between the whole composition and its mathematics, its proportions, and the parts.
So, like if you look at this, you can see that within this, I'm showing here these are dynamic points within the Within it.
And those dynamic points are kind of like where the energy is happening.
See?
Because if you connect these points here, what you've got is another root 2 rectangle.
And now, let's say you create a template using a root 2 grid.
You now lay out your composition of your painting or your building, whatever it might be, on this template.
Now, you don't necessarily see the template.
But you intuitively grasp that there's this harmonic relationship between part and whole.
And that's what this was one of the secret techniques taught to architects and artists in the Middle Ages.
And you can see here, you can take this down to an infinite degree of precision, or you can go keep going with it.
So I take that diagonal in the root two rectangle and I repeat the process, and I get a root three rectangle.
And I can do the same thing except now when I erect that perpendicular to the diagonal, what I do is I've split the root 3 rectangle into a series of three smaller root 3 rectangles that all have the proportions of the hole.
And you can see now I'm drawing in diagonals to reveal the symmetries, the hidden symmetries within it.
And then we can proceed as before to establish a template, a grid.
And then once we've done that, we have this infinitely replicable geometry.
So, yeah, following are some simple examples of a few patterns and designs that can be developed from the relations of dynamic symmetry.
The possibilities and variations are literally without limit.
So, this is just going to show you some of the stuff that you can begin.
Now, how does all this relate to time?
How is that segue?
We get numbers.
We get key numbers.
Like, for example, look here.
Here's you just ask a question.
Look at this.
What are we looking at here?
We're looking at a large multi ring cosmic impact structure.
Is this the Yucatan?
Yes, it's the Yucatan.
And when you have a multi ring structure, the spacing ratio of the rings is root two.
Remember when I first showed you the concentric circles?
Yes.
That's what you're looking at right here concentric circles that are in that ratio.
So, when you have a high energy hypervelocity impact, it melts the target rock, turns it into a liquid.
You have your rings emanating from the point of impact as they're moving outwards, they're cooling, they're crystallizing, and eventually they freeze into a solid.
It's the root two spacing ratio.
And there's some examples.
Mario Oriental on the lunar impact crater.
And there you can see the root two spacing ratio superimposed.
Ancient Egyptian Measurements00:05:33
Whoa.
So, yeah, I mean, and again, this is something that, you know, I'm just, we're rushing through it.
And the way you really learn this is hands on.
So when I teach this in a course, I have everybody are drawing this.
Now, in the new course I'm developing, I've kicked it up a notch because I'm also showing how to do all of this digitally.
So, if you work in a CAD program or some type of graphics design program, I'm showing how you would use this as a design tool, not only in the classical way of compass and straight edge, but also doing it digitally.
Okay.
And so you're going to see here, I'm going to do this very quick.
This is your transcendental root ratios are formed by the ratios of successive diagonals.
And we're creating a series of.
Ratios here.
That we see harmonic progression, whatever the measure of the radius of the inner circle, successive radii are measured by the sequence of root ratios times the original radius.
And so this is like the geometric harmony of ancient metrology, unifying geometry applied to temple building all over the ancient world.
Yeah, so the Mayamata, which is a.
Ancient Hindu manual of architectural design says if the measurement of the temple is in every way perfect, there will be perfection in the universe as well.
Man is the measure of all things, said Protagoras.
Isaiah, who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance.
You'll find this in a lot of sacred traditions, this idea of measurement in metrology.
Here's the visions of Ezekiel.
In the visions of God, he brought me.
Now, this is the prophet Ezekiel, right?
Right.
And this is very consistent when you look at the stories of the prophets.
Okay, what's happening here?
Divisions of God, he brought me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was the frame of a city on the south.
And he brought me thither, and behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of brass, with a line of flax in his hand, and a measuring reed.
And he stood in the gate.
And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall show thee.
Because this was the key.
Now you can see this is.
This is the beginning now of his prophetic vision.
This man with the measuring line in his hand and a line of flax, right?
Because that gives you your plum and then you've got your measuring reed.
So, this is the basis for laying out the sacred structure, the temple.
So, what you're seeing here is that this is what's preceding Ezekiel's prophetic vision is encountering this man with the line of flax and the measuring reed in his hand.
And he's telling Ezekiel, You says, Behold, with your eyes, listen with your ears, and set thine heart upon all that I will show thee, because what I'm about to reveal to you is the pattern of all creation.
And once having beheld that pattern of all creation, you will now be endowed with prophetic vision.
Because you asked me about time.
Well, here's the thing all these numbers govern the tempos, the cosmic tempos.
Right.
If you understand the cosmic tempos, you are now in a position to understand what has happened before and what.
Is going to happen because you understand the cycles.
Zechariah, this is a good one.
I lifted up mine eyes again and looked, and behold, a man with a measuring line in his hand.
Then I said, Whither goest thou?
And he said unto me, To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof and what is the length thereof.
Now, why is it important to see the length and the breadth of the holy city, the sacred city that represents the manifestation of the cosmic heavens on the earth?
Well, again, it's like.
Because that's the beginning of seeing and understanding and comprehending the cosmic pattern of creation.
And wasn't Jerusalem, it was measured in the actual size of it times a certain sacred number, actually measured the circumference of the earth?
We can talk about that in a minute, yes.
Okay, sorry for my layman interjections, but.
Well, we're getting in there, Dan.
Okay.
Yeah, you are.
You guys are holding my hand and walking me through it.
From the New Testament, and there was given me a reed like unto a rod.
And the angel stood saying, Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and them that worship therein.
Now, what do you think that St. John the Divine is going to discover or learn when he measures the temple, the altar, and them that worship?
Is that there is a common measurement, a common system of proportion that unites all of them from the person, the worshiper, to the altar itself, to the temple itself.
Now, what is not mentioned here is that you can expand that.
To the Earth itself, and from the Earth to the solar system, and from that to the cosmos.
You could also go in the other direction if you've got the ability.
Expanding to the Cosmos00:05:53
So then I show historic metrology, which is showing like the Egyptian Riemann, an Egyptian unit of linear measure analyzed by F.H. Griffith in 1892, and by William Flinders Petrie and A.E. Berryman, considered to be equal to 20 digits or 14.58 inches.
A. E. Berryman, in his work Historical Metrology, refined the length of the Riemann to be 1.2165.
So, if you take this calculator, Danny, put in 1.2165.
Now, that'll be in feet.
That's the length of the Riemann.
So, you can see that it's a little bit.
Now, this is an ancient Egyptian unit of measurement.
The Riemann.
The Riemann.
It's a little bit longer than our foot, right?
Right.
Okay, so now there was another unit of measurement used in Egypt called the Royal Cuban.
It was discovered by Isaac Newton in his analysis of the dimensions of the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid based upon the survey of Greaves in 1637, which, in fact, I'm sure you were well aware of.
Also mentioned in the writings of Herodotus, in his description of the city of Babylon, with slight variations, the accepted length of the royal cubit is taken as 1.72 feet or 20.6265.
Now put in 1.72.
Am I clearing out the 1.265?
No, no, no, leave that.
Actually, okay, here's what you're going to do divide by 1.72.
1.72.
Right?
Okay.
Now you see there's a little 1 over X button.
Oh, no, I hit equals.
Okay, you got to hit equals.
Okay, let me try this again.
Okay, let's go back to this.
1.2.
Put in 14.58 inches.
Okay.
Okay.
Got it.
Now divide by 20.6265.
Okay.
Equals, what'd you get?
0.70685.
Okay, so now do you see the 1 over x?
Because we're going to flip.
We're going to flip the ratio.
The 1 over X button.
It should be.
It's a button.
Got it.
Let's see.
1 over X. Third row.
Yep, got it.
Hit that button.
Okay.
What'd you get?
1.414711934.
Okay, 1.414, basically.
Yes.
All right.
Now, right to the right of that button, you'll see X squared.
Hit that button.
What'd you get?
2.0014.
So what you're looking at is the square root of 2.
So, what you just did, Danny, was you showed that the ratio of the royal cubit, the remand to the royal cubit.
So, the Egyptians knew this.
If they drew a square, which was one remand on the side, and you drew its diagonal, the diagonal was the royal cubit.
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 plus 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'll give you up to $5,000 in free silver on your first order.
So call them now.
Click on the link in the description or call 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.
So, that exercise we just went through, you draw a square and it's one Riemann, which is, as it says here, say 14.58 inches.
Okay.
Its diagonal is going to be the royal cubit.
And that was the basis of their measuring system that dynamic relationship of a square and its diagonal.
Now, the royal cubit was used, like I said, by Newton in his analysis of the king's chamber.
It's also the thickness of the sockle.
That's right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That the.
Pyramid sits on.
Well, then, if we jump forward, the Palestinian cubit, the knowledge of the Palestinian cubit survives in the writings of Epiphanius, a bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, who wrote a treatise on weights and measures in AD 392.
It conforms to the cubit of the altar, as mentioned in Ezekiel 43 13, that is, the cubit and the hand's breadth.
The Palestinian cubit is generally taken as 25.284.
Put 25.284 in your calculator.
And I'll do the same here.
25.284.
Got it.
Now we're going to divide that by the Riemann, which is 14.58.
And hit equals.
Now hit your x squared key.
Three.
Three.
So it's the square root of three.
Roman Paces and Neolithic Roots00:07:51
So in other words, imagine this now.
Now the Palestinian qubit.
Is used roughly in Palestine area about a thousand years after the royal cubit and remon are being used in Egypt.
Picture now.
You start with a remon, you draw a square.
Take its diagonal, that gives you the royal cubit.
Use that to get your root two rectangle and take its diagonal.
That diagonal is now the Palestinian cubit.
Got it.
Got it?
Got it.
So now we've got the Roman pace, the origin of the Roman mile.
Now, you know, the mile comes from the pace, right?
You know what a pace is?
That's just like a human walking.
A human walking.
Now, imagine if you're going to pace out, you've got a field and you want to know roughly how big it is.
You don't have a measuring tape.
You figure, oh, it's about an acre, but I'm going to pace it out.
Yeah.
Well, if it's in the old days and you're a surveyor, a builder, an architect, you're going to know pretty precisely the length of your pace because that's a common way of determining land measure, you pace things out.
Initially, you know, we didn't have transits and builders' instruments back then.
We used things like ropes and chains.
Back then, what are we talking about back then?
Anywhere before, you know, from a few hundred, hundred, hundred and fifty, two hundred years ago, okay, all the way back.
Okay, pacing something out.
Okay, how many paces now?
If you're pacing something out, you know that you're going to quickly learn that you it's much easier if you were counting every other step than every step.
Right.
You don't count left, right, left, right.
You go right, right, right, and you count, say, every time your right foot hits the ground.
Okay.
Now, if you do a thousand of those, that was the origin of the mile.
We've been using the mile for that long.
Oh, mile goes back.
Everybody, I mean, you find the mile, think about this a thousand paces.
So you had a Roman mile, which was a thousand paces in Rome.
Now, think of the word mile and think of the word mill, which means.
A thousand.
A thousand, that's right.
Millennium here.
Yeah, like a millennium.
A millimeter, one thousandth of a meter.
Ah, okay.
So that's the origin.
The mile and the mill, it's 1,000.
So the original meaning of the mile was 1,000 paces.
Now, our mile, how many feet are in our mile, Danny?
I'm holding you conspicuous before the entire world at this moment.
1,000.
1,000 feet?
Feet?
I don't know.
Let me ask.
Somebody, do you have your ruler?
10,000?
That boy needs his wrists.
10,000?
Hey, I failed out delivering any of that.
Ben?
I will claim the metric system, unfortunately, as the basis for my education.
We could cut in some small get out of jail card freak.
Okay.
Now, this is not an excuse.
I don't.
Our fathers and our grandfathers all knew this, I think.
Certainly, farmers and builders and people like that who live close to the land knew that our mile is 5,280 feet.
Okay.
Now, if you divide 5,280 feet.
By 1,000, you'll get the length of the pace upon which our mile that we use today is based, right?
So 5,280 feet, divide that by 1,000, that means that each pace was 5.28.
5.28.
Very good.
Right.
5.28 feet.
If you had your notebook there in class, I would be getting you to write that down.
5.28.
5.28.
Okay, you got it.
5.28.
Now you look at the Roman pace here, and it's equal to 4.86 feet.
So they were shorter.
They were shorter.
You got it.
Now, our mile is part of the imperial system that goes back to ancient Britain.
Now, I've looked at the surveys of Stonehenge, for example, and if you take the big outer ring of sarsen stone circles within a few inches, it's 105.6 feet in diameter, right?
And if you look at the sarsen stone uprights, which are the big stones forming that outer circle, That ring, there are lintels on top.
And those lintels are an average length of 10.56 feet.
10.56 times 10 is 105.6.
Think about that.
Okay, so if you were to draw a ring on the ground, a circular ring that's 105.6 feet in diameter, Stonehenge would fit within a few inches within that ring.
Now, the fact that they were using a consistent unit of measure is.
Verified or confirmed by the fact that the distance, if you go around that ring, and there's 30 uprights, which are most of the surveys and studies assume that there was originally 30 of those uprights, and several of the lintels, the horizontal lintels that cap those uprights, are still in place.
Their average length is 10.56 feet.
So think 10.56 times 10 gives you that ring.
Okay.
Okay, got that?
Got it.
Now, what's 105.6 times 100?
105.6 times 100?
No, times 50.
I'm sorry.
5,280?
Our mile.
What the fuck?
Yeah.
So, what does that suggest?
It doesn't prove, but it suggests that the builders of Stonehenge were using a system of measurement.
From which we derive our mile.
When do we think Stonehenge was built?
Well, it's Neolithic.
I mean, you're talking like, I think it's what, 5,000 BC or somewhere like that, maybe even earlier?
Yeah, yeah.
At least Neolithic.
At least Neolithic.
So at least 4,500 to 5,000 years ago, at least, if not older.
Yeah.
Okay.
This suggests that our mile is that old.
And they were using, if they had a mile of 5,280 feet and you divide that by exactly 50, They now draw a ring on the ground, and that's the diameter of the sarsen stone circle at Stonehenge.
And you divide that by 10, and that gives you the average spacing of the sarsen stone uprights.
So, wow.
Yeah.
That's bizarre.
Now, these are the kind of things we look at in the course that I do.
Okay.
So, when we look at the Roman pace, which is middle, basically almost Middle Eastern, right?
You know, in Italy, not Middle Eastern, but it's Mediterranean.
We'll call it Mediterranean.
We're looking at roughly 2,000 years ago when the Roman pace was in.
And in Rome, it was well known that you had the city center and the Roman mile was 1,000 paces out from the city center.
Okay, so if we look at here, 1,000th of the Roman mile is equal to eight stades of 607.5 feet.
Now, that stade is where we get our term stadium from.
Yeah.
Deriving the Perfect Sphere00:09:25
Oh, really?
Yeah, yeah.
Now, a stadium was the distance around, you know.
So, the British version of the stadium was called the furlong.
And we don't know how old the furlong is, but it was apparently very ancient.
Now, the only place that I know of where furlongs are still used today is where, man?
Racetracks.
Yeah.
Racetracks.
Oh, horse racetracks.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But the furlong to the ancient Britons.
Was 660 feet.
660 feet is one eighth of a mile.
Try it.
660 times eight and see if you get 5,280.
5,280.
There you go.
So a furlong was one eighth of a mile.
What's the origin of the furlong?
I don't know.
It's old.
But see, that's more confirmation that the mile that we use today has ancient roots.
Now, here's something else that's interesting.
We talked earlier about the That we live on is an oblate spheroid.
Indeed.
And we know, as Ben was talking about, the equatorial diameter is 26 miles greater than the polar diameter.
Right.
Right?
It varies from.
Now, why is that?
It's spinning.
Think about any spinning system.
The centrifugal force is going to throw the mass of it towards the equator of the spin.
And thank that God that it does, because otherwise conditions on the surface of the earth would be so chaotic that it's highly doubtful that.
Any kind of higher life ever could have evolved.
So, if the Earth was a perfect sphere spinning, how would that disrupt the Earth?
How would that disrupt everything?
Like the Earth's cross, the oceans?
Well, there would be, see, this equatorial bulge acts as a stabilizing flywheel.
Okay.
Right?
And the Earth is not perfectly rigid.
But it's interesting that you said if the Earth was a perfect sphere.
If the Earth was a perfect sphere, What would be the measure of that sphere that would then have the same volume as the actual Earth?
Well, the actual Earth varies from 7,926 miles at the equator, 7,900 miles at the polar diameter, so a difference of 26 miles.
So, what that means is that if you're standing at the equator, you're 13 miles farther away from this Earth's center than if you were standing at the North or South Pole.
Right.
And it also, you could think of it this way if you travel from the equator to one of the poles, you're going downhill 13 miles.
Oh my God.
Right?
Now let's think about this.
Okay, so what would be, I'm glad you brought up the idea of the perfect sphere because, again, when we're talking about creation manifest in three dimensions, and the idea of sacred geometry is that behind the actual manifested three dimensional physical universe is this template, the template of geometry.
In that template of geometry, you've got idealized numbers.
Okay.
Now, the idealized number of the Earth would be what you just said.
What would be the size of the Earth that was a perfect sphere?
Let's say that had the same volume as the actual Earth.
Yes.
It would be 7,920 miles.
If we squished it into a perfect sphere?
If it was a perfect sphere, same volume as the actual Earth, 7,920.
Get that number in your notes.
I'll write that down 7,920 miles.
It's a country reference.
Okay.
Got that number in your head?
Okay.
Let's go back to the furlong that we were talking about.
Okay.
Furlong, we agreed, was one eighth of a mile, 660 feet.
How many inches in 660 feet?
It's going to be the same number 7920.
What the fuck kind of sorcery is this?
Pardon me.
Whoa.
Now let's think of what we just saw here.
Okay, we said the Earth 7,920 miles, miles, right?
We've already determined that the mile is a human derived unit of measurement based upon paces.
You go and you walk out 1,000 paces on the surface of the Earth, and it's 5,280 feet.
Whoever developed the mile knew the circumference of the Earth.
Well, I'm not going to go make that claim, but there's something weird going on here.
Now, picture.
There's two things.
When you say that the mile is 5,280 feet, each of those paces is 5.28 feet.
So think you've got a ratio.
The ratio is the length of the human pace to the human foot.
That's ultimately the ratio of our mile.
The pace to the foot, 5.28 feet, and a thousand of those paces is our mile that we use today.
Key number, that ratio, 5.28 feet.
Okay.
You got to keep that in mind.
And I know that, you know, you have to work with these numbers for a while before they become embedded as part of your consciousness, part of your framework, your conceptual framework of reality.
You just saw that the furlong, 7,920 inches.
So think of this you've got a furlong, 660 feet.
Let's say you lay that out on the ground.
And I have actually done this find a nice big open field or Parking lot layout 660 feet, then you mark out one inch.
Which, oh, by the way, is the width of your thumb originally your digit that's where the inch comes from.
Right?
Put your thumb on a piece of paper, draw a hit on either side, you've got your inch.
That's a derivation of the inch.
So, all of this is connecting human anatomy.
You've got your inch, you've got your foot, you've got your pace, you've got your cubit, right?
So, now this is all linking the geometry to the human anatomy.
So, now here's the final thing that you want to get in your mind the relationship.
The furlong is to the inch as the earth is to a mile.
Got it?
Got it.
Okay, let's go further with this.
Are you ready?
I mean, this is we're just kind of like got one leg down into the rabbit hole.
What I like to do is I like to get people that they put one leg in, then two legs, and while they're peering down, I come up behind them and give them a push.
Let's go.
There you go.
Okay, so in the book of Revelation, we were talking about the prophecy there.
St. John the Divine, he's met with the The angel with the line of flax and the measuring reed, and he's got to measure the holy city and all of this.
Then later on, it's describing his vision of the holy city.
And it says, The city lieth four square, and the length and the height and the breadth of it are equal.
What would that suggest to you?
Four square, but that's got length, it's got height, and it's got breadth.
Cube.
Cube.
A cube.
Okay.
12,000 furlongs.
And the city lieth four square, and the length and the height and the breadth of it are equal 12,000 furlongs.
Okay?
How far is that?
Put 12,000 in, and we know that a furlong is 660 feet.
So go 12,000 furlongs.
7,920,000.
Now just look at the first four digits.
7,920.
Does that look familiar?
Yes.
Yes.
So now that's a lot of feet.
Let's put that into some ratio.
That's the Earth.
Yeah.
That's the measure of the Earth times 1,000.
Now let's put that, but that's feet.
We just converted that to feet.
Got it.
Okay.
That's why it's miles.
But who can picture what's 7,920,000 feet?
Let's convert that to miles.
Okay.
You're going to divide by 5,280.
1,500 miles.
Now, what's the ratio between that and the actual Earth?
So here's what you've already got that in your calculator, right?
You have 1500, yep.
So that'll put 1500 on top, divide by earth, 7920 on the bottom.
Now you're going to flip that by hitting 1 over x.
So did you put the big number on top and the small number on bottom?
Okay, I just did the divided, that gave me 0.18.
Okay, then hit 1 over x.
Okay, 1 over x, 5.28.
What?
In the fuck is this, Randall?
Tracking Climate Cycles00:03:42
Okay, so it's all connected.
Yeah.
In other words, there's a whole set of ratios and proportions.
Yes.
Embedded in creation itself.
And whether we're talking sacred scripture and prophecy, whether we're talking architecture, whether we're talking art, whether we're talking growing things, whether we're talking about the great temporal relationships, time cycles.
We're going to find the same numbers, the same ratios at work.
So, this was sort of your introduction into the sacred architecture of reality.
When you begin to see these connections across time and space from one level of phenomena to another level of phenomena.
And it was the basis for prophecy.
And here's why.
If everybody you knew only had a memory that went back six months, but you had a memory that went back a full year or more, so that you saw and you knew, like imagine this I use this analogy in the whole climate change.
Scam that's going on.
Okay.
If you started tracking climate change and you started looking at daily temperatures and you had no memory of what came before and you started keeping your temperatures on March 1st and then you go through March every day.
Some days it'll be a little warmer, other days it'll be a little cooler.
But by the time you get to April, May, June, you're going to see a definite upward trend, aren't you?
Now, if you don't have any memory of before March 1st, you're going to think, oh my God.
This temperature that I'm seeing now in June is unprecedented.
But somebody comes along whose memory goes for multiple years, and I say, well, no, no, this is normal.
This is part of the normal cycle, right?
But the difference between that you, let's say, whose memory only goes back to March 1st, and this other person who knows that it's cyclical, who knows that, yeah, it's going to get hot.
It'll be hot in August.
Then guess what?
It's going to start cooling off again.
And then by December and January, the world is going to be a very, your world that you inhabit here is going to be a very different place.
That person is a prophet.
The prophet is the person that knows the grand cycles and knows where we are in those cycles.
And therefore, they are able to say, yes, in the future, this is going to happen.
Now, say for example, I grew up in Minnesota.
Okay, so every year it's like, when is the first freeze going to occur?
When is the first thaw going to occur in the spring?
Well, we don't know the exact date and time, but we certainly know the window, right?
The same with prophecy.
You know, you're not necessarily going to know the exact date and time that something is going to happen, but you're going to certainly know the window within, the window of probability within which that's going to happen.
Right.
And that's what separates the prophet is the person that has the long view and understands the cycles and where we are within those cycles.
So if you're in Minnesota, I guess the date would be.
For the first freeze would probably be somewhere around mid October.
So, as you're coming up the first, second week in October, the prophet is going to know that that first day of freezing is imminent.
They may not know the exact date and time, but they know it's imminent.
Prophets and Long View History00:03:39
See, and that is echoed throughout history going back to as far as as far back like the implications that of this sacred geometry and some of the oldest structures that we found basically implies that they understood.
They understood this long history.
Yes.
That's what I would read into it, yes.
That somewhere what this is showing, and I mean, we've just scratched the surface of this.
Right.
I think what it's showing us is that somebody back whenever, and I would trace it right back into prehistory, had a very sophisticated knowledge of the architecture of creation.
And they understood not only the spatial relationships, but the temporal relationships as well.
And they were able to apply that in terms of.
Sacred building in terms of a technology.
Because it turns out, see, that the plasma energies, when you transition from a plasma to a plasmoid, what it is, is you are now confining the erratic plasma.
See, when you go from solid, you've got electrons and neutrons bound tightly together.
Go to a liquid, they're still bound, but there's a much greater degree of freedom.
Go to gas, they're still bound, but now you've got even greater degrees of freedom.
Freedom.
What if you ramp up the energy even a little to the next step?
Well, now you've got a complete disassociation between electron and neutron.
Your neutron is now just an ion, and now everything is completely free to move.
How do you now begin to exploit that or utilize that?
You create containment fields.
Those containment fields are governed by sacred geometry.
And I think there we're looking now at the key to understanding what an ancient system of technology that could have, a civilization could have been built upon.
Maybe, maybe.
Now, this is a hypothesis, definitely, I think, warrants further testing.
But we're interested in a very interesting time now because now we have the potential to actually test it.
Right.
And it is being tested as we speak.
That's a lot.
Look at the stuff Ben has been.
Yeah.
I mean, how do you explain that?
You know, you can't really.
You have to dismiss it.
And isn't that what pretty much the critics are doing?
Well, yeah.
Yeah.
It depends which element of it, but in general, it's a head in the sand kind of approach and dismissing it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, logical fallacies, notwithstanding, that's what happens.
But it's, I think, this is why I'm interested in it from that perspective of could this have been a potential root of a technology that was used?
Because we're seeing the same system.
We're seeing this.
Employment of these principles, these sacred geometric principles in the architecture, in the artifacts, and then when you see it employed in what is a potential technology, there's an alignment there.
It's like, all right, so they were clearly aware of and deploying these principles in their works, and it was like a fundamental building block of what they were doing.
We see it in the sites, we see it in the temples, we see it in the objects like vases, and then we see evidence for some form of technology, and now it looks like there's a technology that's potentially being rediscovered that.
Mathematical Precision in Vases00:14:40
That is built using these same principles that we see deployed in other aspects of these ancient cultures.
Like, that's you know, that's it's hard to just say, well, that's just pure coincidence.
I mean, it's and some of these vases that you've discovered.
I mean, is it true that it would take a very sophisticated computer to replicate some of these things and the symmetry?
Well, it's yeah, it's a bit more complex than that.
So, since we last talked on the vases, we the vases have always been fascinating, right?
These pre dynastic objects.
And you can eyeball and look at ancient artifacts and see elements of precision, but you're just looking at it.
We don't truly know until we measure things.
This is Randall's talking about metrology, it's the science of measurement.
And since we last talked, that's exactly what's happened.
We had finally had the chance to actually get our hands on some of these artifacts and start employing some of the best metrological systems like structured light scanning, even now in like.
MRI and CT machine scanning, which allows us to look at these objects, create models of them that are accurate down to the micrometer.
With structured light, it's like thousandths of an inch.
And if you're looking for a comparative measurement, like a human hair is between two and three thousandths of an inch thick.
So we're like less than half the width of a human hair, accurate to this.
And then a micrometer is like a 25th of a thousandth.
So we're measuring right down to extremely high tolerances.
And then, so once you've got that model, you can start to do.
Analysis on it and figure out well, what's the geometry?
You know, what are the patterns we're seeing in this?
What is the relationship and accuracy of different elements in this vase?
So, you know, long story short, we found that A, they're incredibly accurate in terms of the geometric relationship of different parts of the vase relative to the others.
And we can dive into sort of specifically what that means, but how it ties into kind of what we've been talking about.
Is that we had a actually had a once we created this model, we sort of looked initially at the metrology of it and said this is sort of astonishingly well made in terms of like the vase itself is is oblate, like you can't make do it's not like it doesn't conform to a regular shape, so you can't really do measurement on it.
So, what you have to do is match geometric shapes to different parts of the vase.
So, at the top, we're matching like a flat plane to the top of the vase, and in a in a CMM or coordinate measurement system application, we can then say okay.
Yeah, and it is also based on how many points of reference you use to match it.
So you could do it with five points of reference, which isn't going to give you a really accurate measurement.
But with these high definition models, we're using, you know, 70,000, 80,000 points of measurement.
So it's that flat plane that we match to, say, the top of a vase, it's a very accurate representation of the top of the vase.
But then we can look at it and say, okay, so how flat is it?
So we're looking at these vases, it's within one or two thousandths of an inch of being perfectly flat.
But once we've got that top of the vase, we've now, you can kind of now use that.
As a comparison or a relative measurement for other parts of the vase.
So you have now, like, think of it as an x axis.
You've got the top of the vase, which gives you your x axis.
Then we looked at the vase and we said, well, let's match, say, a cylinder.
You're matching regular geometric shapes to parts of the vase, things like cones, cylinders, spheres, toroids, things like that.
So in the neck of the vase, so you have the top, you've got the mouth of the vase, we can fit a cylinder to the mouth of the vase.
And again, using.
60,000 points of reference, so it's very accurate.
You can now do geometric operations on that cylinder.
You can look at, okay, how cylindrical is it?
Like, how perfectly does that vase neck represent that shape?
And again, you're within single digits of a thousandth.
But then, this is where it got interesting on the metrology you can now look at, all right, so because it's a cylinder, we can define the center line.
We know where the center line is.
How perpendicular is that center line relative to the top of the vase?
Think of that as like a y axis, I guess, or a z axis.
And turns out we're within, again, like a single thousandth of an inch.
So it's perfectly, almost perfectly perpendicular.
And from there, we stepped out, and I can show you slides in this if we want to maybe get into some of the detail here.
But you can then match things like the bottom of the vase matches a part of a sphere using like 80,000 points of reference.
You can define where the center point of that sphere is and then match it against the center line of the vase.
And that's where sort of some of the precision in this object really started to shine.
Because it's, you know, you're within these single digit thousandths of an inch, which tells you a lot of things about the accuracy of how it was made, the regularity of the shapes.
And it's just leagues beyond anything that is achievable by hand.
I mean, we're talking about tolerances that aren't really perceivable by hand or eye.
And it's stuff that's done in rose granite.
And it's just, it's remarkable engineering.
But that's, that was kind of just the beginning of the rabbit hole of what happened after that because we released the, and I'm happy to, we can go through those, that detail, I think, when we, maybe when we talk the next day.
Yep.
So what we did then is we actually, so we released the model, we sort of open sourced, This data, and we said, All right, so we found some remarkable aspects of this vase.
Let's here's the STL.
You can go to my website, download this model of the vase, and do this analysis for yourself.
And we had a Danish cryptographer download it, and he started looking for patterns in the vase.
And he's a mathematician and cryptographer, and he started to find some really remarkable things.
And this is where the sort of sacred geometry element comes in.
So he was looking for geometric patterns in it.
So he discovered a number of things, firstly, by finding out that some of the patterns that are related or Drawn from these sacred geometric exercises, things that Randall was showing.
One of those is something called the flower of life grid.
It's a series of interlocked circles.
And he found that elements of the vase were derived or could be matched to flower of life grids.
There's a couple of different sizes, like the inner diameter of the vase, and then the top and the bottom of the vase, and the outer diameter of the vase all match.
There's two different flower of life grids that it matches.
It was kind of like a starting point.
And then he found that a primary.
I guess the unit of measure that seems to have been involved in the design of the vase is the radian.
So, a one radian angle, which is a simple way to rep. Radians is an easy way to represent an angle.
It's a little more elegant than the way we use 360 degrees.
It's if you take a circle, you take its radius, you apply the length of that radius to the circumference of a circle, you cut that out.
The angle that it forms in the center of the circle is a one radian angle.
So, you have like half a circle is essentially pi.
Radians.
And there's two pi radians in a circle.
So you can express any angle as a fraction or as a number of radians, right?
Right.
So the one radian angle is used to derive a number of features on the vase the placement of the handles, the dimensions and the curvatures of the sides of the vase at the top and the bottom.
It's a fundamental principle in its construction.
Further than that, he found that.
All of the curvatures of the vase.
And now you're talking about curves like, you know, because these vases are shaped like this, right?
So all of the curves are essentially, you know, sections of circles.
They're like the circles, kind of the main primitive that's used in its construction.
And all of the curves in the various different little places on the handles at the base of the vase, at the top of the vase, and at the neck, you're talking about circles or sections of circles that have radii measuring from 42 millimeters at the high end down to like 1.1.
Millimeters at the bottom end.
So you're talking about a circle with a radius of just over a millimeter.
All of those radii of specifically those circles, the radii of those circles, they all match a specific algorithm that he discovered in this vase.
And it's only those radii that match this, something he called the radial traversal pattern.
So it's every curvature that's used in the vase was only, it all matches a single algorithm if there were different sized radiuses.
They wouldn't match this pattern.
We don't see that.
So each of these curvatures are related to each other through this single algorithm.
Effectively, what you could do is represent the vase mathematically with this algorithm.
So we thought, hmm, that's interesting, right?
So we went into CAD and he said, let's create a vase model based purely on this algorithm.
So let's build one from scratch just using this algorithm and then compare it to the model of the vase.
So he did this and then he compared the model of the vase to this.
Model that he'd created just using the radial traversal pattern.
The median deviation of measurements between the vase and the pattern that he'd created using the mathematics was something like two micrometers.
Whoa.
So it was.
Yeah, so this is it.
If you scroll down, abstraction set in granite.
Yeah, if you scroll down a little bit.
Did I see a vesica there?
Holy shit.
This is what you were showing us earlier, Randall.
Yeah, if you keep going, I think this is the second article that he wrote.
So, yeah, this is the radial traversal pattern.
These are the radii of these circles that fit it.
And so, essentially, what Mark found this is Mark's article, and I'm happy to show more detail onto this.
I'm just trying to Mark Vist, he's the Danish cryptographer who did work on it.
So, you have a couple things to consider here.
There's like 12 degrees of mathematical interrelationship between the curvatures that are used.
So, the different sizes of circles and those radiuses that are used to construct the vase.
And it's only those.
Like, if you had different sized curves, like different circles that were used to create the curves, it wouldn't fit this pattern.
We wouldn't see it.
It's not an accident.
This thing, it seems like, and you can express the vase mathematically and it matches.
And if you scroll down a bit, he talks about the median deviation.
Go up a little.
So, yeah, so it's the median radial deviation is nine micrometers.
So, that's the comparison between the CAD generated model that's built on maths and the actual vase model, which is basically you're talking now in measurements that we don't know if it's imperfections in the vase or imperfections in the scan because we're down close to the tolerance of the scan itself.
This is, it's like it's just.
It's really remarkable.
Now, what's interesting about that and the implication for a potential design process is like, okay, so if you can admit that this thing was designed, it's not an accident.
You don't get 12 degrees of mathematical interrelationship as an accident in this vessel.
We can reverse engineer its features to show that there's an equation that can be used to demonstrate the vase.
So maybe it was designed mathematically.
So, how do you do this?
How do you go from a design process?
To output.
Now, can you design this vase on paper?
You might be able to.
Like, you could probably draw it out.
If the paper was the size of this room, you could scale it up.
But you try drawing, imagine trying to draw a circle or a curvature of a circle that has a radius of 1.1 millimeters.
You know, that's, we're not, you can't do that, right?
Even if you draw it out on a piece of paper, you've still got to scale that thing down to somehow generate an output.
And remember, we have measured this vase.
It's made out of rose granite.
It's incredibly precise in its manufacturing.
So, it's not something that's achievable by hand.
Whatever system was used to manufacture it requires, even if you grant them the use of the lathe, it's not a simple lathe.
This is a lathe that has to have very precise bearings and rods and set screws and things like this.
You're also working in granite.
There's all these forces involved in trying to work this type of stone to get it down and to create it this precisely to a degree that matches just the mathematical model that precisely.
The real trick is actually how do you produce output from this design?
And I think Mark's quote in this article is excellent that talks about it.
There's really, across all of nature, I mean, there's only one phenomena that we know that can do this type of thing, which can take.
And input can take a design, it can take input, it can operate and do operations on state and then translate, like basically do something and then provide an output.
We don't know of any natural phenomena that can do this of people or animals or anything like that.
It's the only thing that does this type of operation a Turing machine.
And Turing machines are something that, I mean, today we call them computers, but you can make Turing machines.
Mechanically, pneumatically, hydraulically, electronically, which is how we do it.
Yeah.
So we could create something this perfect today if we wanted to.
Well, I think if we put it out, it's one of the challenges that's out there.
I would love to see somebody make this.
Some of the people that say, oh, this is a modern fake.
I'm like, well, it seems to have been very well made if that's the case.
And it's also got all these mathematical principles that are behind it.
I'd love to see somebody try and make this down to the level of precision that we see in the vase itself.
But it seems like it would have required.
I mean, this is Mark's conclusion on this article it would have required a Turing machine to create this thing.
There's no other way of doing it.
Turing Machines and Artifacts00:15:36
In fact, if you scroll down.
How many vases have been measured in this degree of accuracy?
So that's a good question.
Yeah.
So we've really talked mostly about the one vase, which we've had access to through private collection, but there have been now probably a dozen that we've measured.
And we're working on the analysis for this, but I can tell you that purely from the metrology perspective, So, the things that I mentioned beforehand about looking at the accuracy of form and proportion and the relative perfection of, say, the bottom of the vase, the top of the vase, things like that.
Some of these vases are even more accurate than this one.
Like they zero out on the thousandth scale.
And as you see, you also see this is like the divine proportion here.
The golden ratio is represented in the vase in a number of places.
And these were allegedly made how many years ago?
Well, so this one is a pre dynastic.
Many of these vases, they're pre dynastic in terms of they come from, or they've been found in burials that predate the beginning of the dynastic civilization of Egypt, which was roughly just around 3000 BC, a little earlier.
Sorry, a little later than that is kind of when the first dynasty kicked off with the Menes, the first pharaoh of the first dynasty.
Around 5,000 years ago.
At least, I would say they're at least 5,000 years old.
Many of these objects, and this one in particular, matches.
The pre dynastic vases you'll see in museums, and they're termed pre dynastic because they're found in pre dynastic burials.
And they're found, and there's a lot of contradictions there, right?
Typically, they're found in these burials along with very primitive pottery, which is always a strange contradiction to me.
It's like, well, and because they're found in the same burial, they'll say, well, they've come from the same period or the same people have made them, which I think is always a very sort of Strange leap to make.
But most of them were found, like 40,000 to 50,000 of them were found beneath the step pyramid of Joseph at a place called Saqqara, who was a pharaoh of the third dynasty.
And he collected them.
It's even acknowledged in the, I guess, the Egyptologists do say, and at the museum at Saqqara, they'll tell you that many of these were inherited heirlooms because they've got names of like earlier rulers on them or they've, you know, so they're saying that he was collecting them up and he stored most of them with him.
But, you know, we have some of these vases have been found in burials that go back 14,000 years.
There's a site called Toshka that's now underwater since they built the high dam in Egypt, but it was excavated in the 1960s and it was a primitive burial.
They found a guy.
In a fetal position, a skeleton curled up.
Yeah, I've seen this.
And in the burial, he's got this primitive handmade pottery and stone vases, like these, what seem to be precision made stone vases.
I say seem to be because we haven't measured them yet.
You can't say it's precise until we've actually measured this stuff.
But just you can kind of look at it and see these things aren't the same as the next thing, right?
Because it's just comparing the pottery.
Which is the clay formed pottery?
These aren't pottery, these are made from hard stone.
It's not just granite.
You can't spin this on a wheel.
Grano diorite.
No, it's a reductive process.
You go for it versus, you know, pottery is kind of additive.
I said, well, it can be reductive too.
You take a lump of clay.
But this is extremely hard stone in a lot of cases.
You have, you know, schist, corundum, diorite, granodiorite, all sorts of types and lapis lazuli, all types of stones, right up to ones that even contain high degrees of or high concentrations of things like corundum, which is a nine on the Moe scale.
Hardness, diamond being a 10, you know, steel being a hardened steel, like six and a half, granite, six and a half to seven, flint and diorite, like seven and a half to eight, you know, fingernails are like a two, copper is like a three.
So these are extremely tough substances, and there's just these thousands and thousands of these vases made from this material, and they're found in burials that often have essentially pottery that are set up and made to imitate the vases.
They're even painted to look like them.
And it's hand formed pottery that isn't even spun on a wheel.
Like it's literally put together by hand.
They didn't have the wheel.
These are some of the contradictions.
They didn't have the wheel in pre dynastic Egypt.
Well, they don't even credit the Old Kingdom with the use of the wheel.
That didn't come until later.
Like they were dragging stuff along on sleds.
Right.
So they say there was no use of the wheel.
So no potter's wheel, no lathe, because the lathe's a fairly advanced application of the wheel.
But yet you have these.
Objects that display characteristics of sophisticated technology, mathematical design, sacred geometry, and they're buried with very simple artifacts like pottery, you know, hand-formed pottery that is, I think, clearly set up to imitate these vases and they even look like them.
I've got a bunch of pictures here that I can show you examples of this.
When you say they painted them, they painted them to look like the texture of granite with like the different color variations.
Handy that drive, you go into the vases directory in my podcast images directory.
Actually, this is on Randall.
Is this he's on which TV is this?
He's on his computer.
Okay, yeah.
If you go into the podcast images directory and into vases, I'll show you some examples.
There's, yeah, it's, I think when we look at this, it's not specifically related to sacred geometry, but I think when we look at the past and we look at ancient Egypt, I think we need to be considering concepts like inheritance, renovation, renewal.
So if you go, um, Displayed next to simple pottery.
Go up, up, yep.
Four imitation.
Four.
To the right.
Yeah, you were on it.
That's it.
Yeah.
So it's tough to see, but so you have here, these are pre dynastic, this is in a pre dynastic section in the Cairo Museum.
Oh, yeah, they dotted it.
Yeah, so you have what's this, these are this precision made sort of hard stone vase next to what is a, it's not a wheel spun, but a hand turned pottery vase that's been dotted up to look like granite.
And you see this, I saw it in the British Museum earlier this year.
I've got dozens of pictures of this type of stuff.
I'm fascinated by it, but pretty clearly imitation.
Like this is, I mean, if you're in the business of making pottery vessels and you find, Like a hard stone, you're doing stonework, or you're probably working with limestone and softer stone, and you find a granite vase or something that's made from extremely hard stone and it's made with perfection, you would see it.
I mean, you would notice it and it would become immediately precious.
It would become an artifact that is valuable, and then you would probably try and imitate that.
It's what we do today.
It's human nature to do that.
It becomes precious, and then it gets buried with you, and maybe it's an heirloom.
Or, you know, your tomb gets raided by the next king and he takes it and he's buried with it.
I think that's what we're looking at.
There's a huge technological jump between these two industries.
There's like a tale, there's two different industries.
There's a primitive and a sophisticated industry when it comes to many of these artifacts.
The tale that it tells is that this stuff came way before.
Well, I think so.
The advanced stonework and the artifacts were potentially inherited from an earlier time when, from a civilization that had access to more sophisticated technology and potentially even knowledge in order to be able to make these things, design and make them, like we're seeing.
And at the same time, we're seeing, because we kind of know what tools and techniques the dynastic Egyptians used, right?
We found their tools.
We found.
Pounding stones, and we found copper and flint chisels, and we found very simple sort of hand tools.
We've got scenes on the wall that show how these tools and techniques are used.
Like, we see the primitive methodologies that we're using to make and do stuff.
I mean, and then at the same time, we have a class of artifacts that very much match that description.
So, be it in pottery vases or in rough statues or rough boxes or columns, we have these artifacts that match the tools and techniques.
Of the that we know the dynastic Egyptians used, and that we know how they use them because of these scenes on the walls.
At the same time, we have another class of artifacts that doesn't seem to match that, that display signs of machining, of overcuts, of you know, rapid stone cutting, we you know, high degrees of precision and symmetry into extremely hard stone.
We've got the logistical challenges of objects that weigh up to a thousand tons and more, you know, being moved around.
It's an insane amount of work.
It's not just with the precision, but with the moving of these enormous objects.
My biggest question I mean, there are so many big questions, but like one of the things that always puzzles me, especially when it comes to the pottery and not only that, but the big boxes that you find inside these pyramids that are perfectly square.
Why?
Why do they need to be so precise?
Well, it's an interesting question.
I think the answer to that is because.
At some point, or originally, their purpose was functional rather than ceremonial.
There's a relationship between precision and function.
We use the term precision all the time in our world, right?
The actual understanding precision is kind of a different thing.
You do not develop precision unless there's some sort of functional return on it.
Right.
This is what Chris talks about.
Yeah, Chris Dunn is excellent.
He talks about this.
And in fact, there's been a couple of really good books written about precision and how it was developed in our modern world.
And in our world, it wasn't really a concept that we employed until, I mean, the thing that started it originally, at least in the industrial world, was the need for naval cannons to shoot straight, right?
We used to create these cannons by casting them.
And then while they were still hot, they'd fire a cannonball out of it and go, oh, man, I hope that's going to shoot straight from now on.
That's how we make it.
And they were like, hmm, maybe if we cast it and then we actually cut out the barrel or we start to try and make it more accurate, we might be able to shoot straighter and shoot further.
And so that was sort of the initial foray into precision.
And then that was followed by the need to make chronographers and watches and timekeeps.
This is essentially how we eventually even were able to measure longitude.
You have to be able to measure time accurately to calculate longitude.
And then once the industrial age came, steam engines and Steam power became a thing.
And so you have to start to worry about the precision engines and being able to make surfaces that can contain pressure.
And so you do this in order to get a functional return, right?
And if you go all the way up to our modern world, we have silicon processes that are down to like seven micrometers in creating transistors where we can fit millions and millions of transistors in complex logical circuitry down onto a footprint that's this big.
And it's cost billions of dollars to develop that capability, but we do it because there's a massive functional return.
Our entire world is built on the transistor and the integrated circuit.
Everything we use from washing machines, it all is part of it.
But developing precision is extremely expensive, and you only do it if you have to, or if you think you can get a functional return to it.
Now, if you're building a box to throw a bull carcass into, or to put a person into, or something that's purely ceremonial, You don't need precision.
Exactly.
You color within the lines, you hollow out the inside, you slap the lid on it, you're done.
No one's supposed to ever open it up again.
But if you're going to the trouble where you are making surfaces flat to within a few thousandths of an inch or making relative surfaces just perfectly perpendicular or parallel or things that lock to create hermetic seals, I mean, you're doing that for a reason.
There must be some sort of functional return on it.
And I genuinely think that that's what the boxes.
were for.
I think some of even some of these sites themselves may have been functional at some point.
I will say also that once you do develop precision, once you develop the manufacturing capabilities to use precision, then precision is kind of what you get when you make stuff.
Think about it this way.
The industrial design on your average toaster today, right?
Much better than it was in the 60s.
It all works well.
Everything's aligned.
The panel gaps are tiny.
You press the button, everything goes off.
It's because it's designed in a computer.
And it's done perfectly on a piece of paper, and then it's executed in a system that is capable of delivering precision just because that's how the system works.
Panel gaps on cars today are much tighter than they were in the 1960s.
Everything clicks together much better.
It's because our manufacturing systems are capable of delivering much more precision.
Standardization won't work without precision.
That's right.
Yeah.
So that's also how you get to when you look at artifacts that come from the ancient world, to me, things like statues, because we see a high degree of precision in statues.
We see perfect symmetry, which is an element of precision.
I actually think there's an endless number of applications for this scanning technology to start revealing some of these geometric relationships and precision on these artifacts.
But from what we do know, there's a high degree of precision in some of these artifacts that you could really only term as being artistic.
Like, I can't look at these giant statues of Egypt and go, well, that's functional.
Right.
It's artwork.
Like, it's.
They're perfectly symmetrical.
But some of them, yeah, perfectly symmetrical.
It's the ones that we've looked at.
And eyeballing the others, they kind of look that way.
But again, needs testing.
But they're precise.
The measurements that we do have and the scans that we do have and the analysis that's been done, they're precise.
I think they've been created by a manufacturing system that delivers precision.
Once you have it, that's what you get.
And potentially the vases fit that category.
I think some of the vases may well have had a functional purpose originally, too.
Who knows what that could have been?
I mean, I don't.
There's all sorts of speculation you can make.
All right, let's take a break.
I got to pee.
Okay.
We're back.
But I wanted to ask you, Randall, what's going through your mind when you're seeing all this stuff about these vases and the symmetry and the.
Sacred geometry of these things.
Well, I know you've had time to review it, but like as we're going through it right now, I'm seeing your reaction.
A lot of Ben's work is relatively new to me.
I've seen a couple of his presentations, so I'm still digesting it.
And of course, it's consistent with this idea that, yeah, I mean, it's just one of many different kinds of phenomena that seem to point to some kind of a science or technology.
Alternative Civilizations Manifested00:03:59
That is beyond what mainstream academia has recognized up to this point.
So, I mean, if this was a standalone thing, you know, it probably could be, you know, even like the critics are trying to dismiss it.
But the thing is, is that it's not.
It's part of a whole corpus of different streams of evidence suggesting there's a deeper, more complex story of the human presence on this planet and what we have accomplished.
And so, a big part of my work has been about well, okay, there's two things, two points I think that we need to make here.
One is that it's not really understood by mainstream academia the extent to which our planet has been completely remodeled from time to time and how severe and extensive that actually is.
On the other hand, if you're looking for, if your definition of a civilization, Is basically a reflection of what we have done in the last three to four centuries in creating this modern scientific based, industrially based civilization.
Well, if that's what you're looking for, it may not have looked anything like we would imagine that it would look.
In other words, if you're holding up a mirror, trying to say, look for some manifestation of our own kind of civilization, and you don't see that, and then you dismiss the idea, That there could have been civilization or a scientifically sophisticated knowledge of nature and natural law.
Well, I think you're going to miss it.
We're looking for the wrong thing.
Yeah, I think that we have to be open to thinking that there may be other avenues of manifestation in the creation of what we call civilization that don't look anything like what we now call civilization.
Graham Hancock has a great way of putting it that.
I like to tell people that he says that we have, and it's a good term, an electromechanical approach to problem solving.
In the way that our technology and our civilization has progressed, we have this electronic mechanical approach to solving problems.
There may well be other ways of doing that.
It's like all you have to do is think about the technological progression that we've had as a civilization in the last 100 years or 50 years and project that forward and go, well, we are currently expanding into entirely other realms of technology.
There's some aspects of it, like some of this work that Randall's been talking about, we're barely scratching the surface of yet.
No doubt inside of 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, we're going to know more and have pursued in different angles and other paths of technology.
I think what Randall's saying is exactly right in that there are other ways to solve some of these problems.
There are other technological paths and evolutions that another or previous advanced civilization could have gone down, which, you know, necessarily they wouldn't look anything like us.
It could have been, they could have progressed down an entirely different technological tree.
And solved problems in a different way and thus resulting in something that looks almost alien to us.
Do we even think that, do we know or speculate if they even had something like commerce?
Like everything that we have is based on, like you were talking about the silicon microchips, it's based on manufacturing, spending billions of dollars to sell billions of iPhones to everyone around the world.
It's all based on money to some extent.
Like I wonder if some of these ancient civilizations even had anything remotely close to that.
I don't, I mean, I think anything that we would attempt to surmise about that would be speculation.
Extinction Events and Money00:04:28
However, when we do look at, you know, ancient cultures, we do see extensive commerce, trade networks, thing.
You know, that's one of the things discovered now about, you know, the Chacoan culture of the Southwest.
They were trading all kinds of goods and materials, all the way like from the Hopewell culture up in the Northeast to, you know, West Coast down to the Mayans, maybe even into South America.
So there was, You know, if we go back a thousand, two thousand years, I mean, there's definitely evidence of, you know, well developed trade networks going on.
And I think trade, you know, is a natural thing for people to do.
And, you know, the model I work from is, you know, the realization that when we go back to some of the catastrophes, like the most powerful catastrophe of the last, in my opinion, perhaps is.
You know, maybe five million years is the Younger Dryas and the events around the Younger Dryas.
And we know kind of we can, as our yardstick, we can basically use habitat loss as a measure of how extensive a catastrophe would be.
And then we can measure habitat loss by looking at species extinction, because particularly when you're looking at the top of the food chain, you're looking at, you know, the larger species require more habitat.
They require more time for generational turnover.
And when we look at the mass extinction of species at the Younger Dryas, we're seeing half of the megafaunal species on Earth get wiped out.
I don't think necessarily it was one single event, but it was a cluster of events that occurred that ultimately brought the planet out of the depths or the grip of the Great Ice Age into this interglacial age that we find ourselves in now.
That transition involved the loss of roughly half.
Of every species of animal on Earth over about 100 pounds in body weight.
That is an enormous extinction event.
Now, it doesn't compare to some of the great extinctions in Earth history, like the Cretaceous Tertiary dinosaur extinction event, which wiped out perhaps 70 to 75% of all species.
That's what we were looking at with the picture of the diagram of the crater impact earlier.
That's right, about 66 million years ago.
Okay.
Or even worse, the Permian Triassic extinction event that wiped out perhaps 90% of all species, terrestrial and marine.
The extinction event of 13,000, say the Younger Dryas extinction event wiped out about half of the megafaunas.
So we're talking about the top of the food chain.
It barely touched marine species, for example.
Most marine species came through unscathed.
Most of the smaller creatures, mammals, you know, came through.
Because for one thing, they require far less food, they require less territory, quicker generational.
Turnover times, quicker time from bringing in newborns up to, you know, that they can survive on their own, the viability.
Whereas the larger species, you know, all of those are different.
You know, you got to have more territory, more food, generational time, turnover time is slower.
You know, it takes much longer to bring the young up to where they can survive on their own.
All of that, all of those factors play in.
And all of that would be a function of the loss of habitat.
The loss of habitat requires means that there's not as much food for them to eat.
And what we see is that half of the species that went extinct during the Younger Dryas or close to it, there's some evidence that some species were already on their way out prior to the Younger Dryas.
I think that is because we were getting into a series of environmental catastrophes.
I don't think, see, a lot of the critics are dismissive of the whole.
Catastrophe scenario because they have an oversimplified model in their mind.
One of it, well, it wouldn't have been a cosmic impact because that would have been a single event.
And I don't even, I don't, I disagree with that.
Clustered Cosmic Bombardment00:03:46
I think that you, in fact, the evidence suggests that the nature of the cosmic environment is such that from time to time there could be periods of clustered bombardment.
Yes.
And as a consequence of that period of clustered bombardment, there could be a whole host of secondary consequences.
I love your analogy to this, driving on like a highway.
Going through a busy city intersection versus like driving through the desert.
Yeah.
Or at 2 a.m. at night versus 5 p.m.
You know, exactly.
Yeah.
Exactly.
So it's not only a fact, it's your timing and it's your geography.
Where, you know, if you're out there driving down that country road, that's geography.
Now, if you've got an intersection and you're going, it's a busy intersection at 5 p.m., but at 4 a.m., you know, it's not so busy, your probabilities of having a catastrophic collision are going to be much greater.
If you're crossing that intersection during heavy traffic.
And that's exactly the model that we can use to describe the hierarchy of cometary disintegrations and how they will litter their orbital pathways, particularly, I mean, the ones that intersect the Earth.
And in the early stages of cometary disintegration, the debris of that disintegration is going to be clustered or clumped.
So if the clump is on the other side when the Earth is crossing that orbital path, low probability.
If the clump is right there, higher probability.
And then, of course, through time, that clump spreads out.
And now your probabilities are going to be relatively constant, but it's still going to be there.
And that's like the torrid system now.
Right, the torrid meteor stream that we cross through twice a year.
That's right.
And what I was asking before we started, too, was is there any evidence of during that great year of 27,000 years when the Earth is going around the equinox, is there a time where we go through during that 27,000 year period, is there a time frame where it's more probable to go through more meteor streams?
Okay, well, okay, so it's actually closer to 26,000.
Okay, that's sorry.
Okay, it's okay.
We forgive you, Danny.
I see you honking it.
You better take another.
Ben's secretly trying to hit the salts with it while we're talking over here.
We can't let him.
First time I caught it by himself.
Yeah, I'm awake now.
Awesome, Randall.
Don't be shy.
I'll try it.
This is not refreshing.
I don't think it's safe.
I'm not sure where I am today without taking risks.
Woo.
Woo.
Whoa.
Oh, God.
Sorry, that blew my ears out.
Smelling salts.
So, this is what.
This is what, okay, like when the women used to faint away and they had their fainting couches and you'd bring them around, bring them around.
This is what they were using.
Probably.
So, have you ever watched?
Like when boxes get knocked out, it's like, wake up.
Have you ever watched?
Yeah, exactly.
Have you ever seen hockey, a hockey match or like a football match where these guys get concussions or they get hit really hard and they're sitting on the sidelines and the medics will come over and they'll crack this little like thing right in front of their nose and they're like, they wake up?
Yeah.
That's the same thing.
That's what it's like.
It jolts your nervous system and it wakes people up after they get knocked unconscious.
Where do you get this?
I think it.
Let me see.
Is it legal?
Yeah, it's legal.
It's jujimufu.com.
J U J I M U F U.
I might have to get that from you here.
That's good shit.
Sorry, before we got off, what were you asking me?
Oh, okay.
So here's the thing.
I probably should pull up a.
Visual.
It helps so much to try to.
Precession and Age of Aquarius00:15:13
Okay, so this right here represents a full processional cycle.
Okay.
Okay, usually rounded off to 26,000 years and current measurements of the rate of pre, not pro, get this straight, everybody, pre session, not procession.
Okay.
Why is it called that pre session as opposed to procession?
Well, because if you go out, oh, is Ben waving?
Ben knows.
Ben, do you want to answer this?
Well, it's a pre session because it proceeds back.
Backwards through the zodiac.
Yeah, because it's backwards through the region.
Now, what do we say?
Well, if you go out and you begin to look at all planets, first start with the sun, go to the moon, then go to the planets.
Everything is moving from west towards the east.
Like if you go out and you stand and face the south, right?
East is going to be on your left, west is going to be on your right, and you're watching the moon from night to night.
It's going to be moving towards the east.
Okay.
If you watch the sun from day to day and Month to month.
It also, if you were able to like blot out the sun momentarily and see the backdrop of stars, you would see that it's moving against the backdrop of stars almost one degree per day and it's moving towards the east.
If you look at the planets moving, you'll see the same thing with the exception of retrograde motion.
If you're facing south, you're saying?
If you're facing south in the northern hemisphere, that's the simplest way to do it.
Okay.
Planets do what's called retrograde motion, which is not.
It appears, it's a visual illusion.
It appears that they're backing up in their orbits, but they're not really.
It's only something that occurs when the Earth is lapping the planet.
Other than that, everything is moving towards the east.
However, the vernal equinox, which is the intersection of the two great cosmic planes one, the plane of the ecliptic, which is Earth's orbital plane, two, the celestial equator, which is the Earth's equator projected into space.
Now, the thing you've got to realize oh, I'll use this straw.
Perfect.
Okay, imagine this is the Earth's axis.
Well, the Earth's axis is not.
Perpendicular to its orbital plane.
Like, let's suppose that Ben's head is the sun and the earth is going around, right?
Yes, yes.
Okay.
So there's a plane of the ecliptic that would say coincide with Ben's nose.
Yeah.
All right.
Okay.
Well, the earth's axis is tilted 23 and a half degrees.
Right.
And it's going around, and that's what gives us the seasons, right?
Because here's, let's say this would be winter.
The northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun.
So it's further away in the summer.
Summer.
Now, all right.
Got it.
And these two are the equinoxes where day and night are of equal length.
Okay.
Now, Earth's axis is not forever fixed in that orientation.
Right now, the Earth's axis is pointed towards Polaris, the North Star.
Half a cycle ago, it was over here pointed to Vega.
That was the North Star because it's doing this.
Actually, I should be going this way.
Yep.
It's doing this.
Right.
And it takes.
26,000 or a little bit less than 26,000 years to do this.
Okay.
The currently measured rate.
That's the great year.
That's what the ancients called the great year.
The current rate, been measured by astronomers, is right at 50 arc seconds per year.
What does that mean?
50 arc seconds per year.
Yeah.
Okay.
So you know that every circle is divided into 360 degrees.
Right.
Every degree is divided into 60 minutes, just like an hour of time on the clock is divided into 60 minutes of time.
One degree of arc in a circle is divided into 60 minutes of arc.
In fact, the term minute becomes because we're talking about minute parts of a degree.
Now, for most day to day uses, you're not going to need more than that degree of precision.
However, if you're like, say, for example, an astronomer and you're wanting to measure the proper motion of a distant star, even a minute or a minute of arc is too big.
So they have gone even smaller.
They've gone to a second order of minuteness, hence the second, right?
So you go degree, 360 in a circle, 60 minutes per degree.
A minute.
60 seconds per minute.
Pick up your calculator.
Go 360 for the number of degrees in a circle.
Okay.
And go 60 minutes.
So go times 60.
Okay.
Okay.
What'd you get?
21,600?
Yes.
Ah, okay.
Now go that times 60 for the number of seconds in a circle.
Did you get 1,296,000?
You did.
Yes, you did.
Now, I said that.
The current measured rate is 50 arc seconds per year.
So divide that by 50, that number.
25,920.
You got it.
Now, years in the great year.
Look at the graphic up here.
What do you see right here?
29,520.
25,920 and zero.
So let's say that this is now and we're going backwards this way through the signs of the zodiac.
We go one complete cycle, that's 25,920 years ago.
Now, the plane of the ecliptic is divided into 12 equal pie slices.
Each of 30 degrees, right?
Okay.
30 degrees times 12 will give you your 360.
Okay.
Got it.
So everybody knows, okay, we're talking about the age of Pisces into the age of Aquarius, right?
Okay.
And for the last 2,000 years, roughly, we've been in the age of Pisces.
What does that mean?
Well, it means that the point of intersection, the X marks the spot of those two great cosmic planes, the plane of the ecliptic, the plane of the equator, are moving.
Through the signs of the zodiac at the same rate that this is turning.
Okay, is this beginning to make sense?
But what we've got here is each of the 30 degree slices, pie slices, have rates.
Look at here.
If we go back to the dawn of the age of Pisces, that was 2,160 years before present.
BP is before present.
Okay.
We go back to 30 degree or 60 degrees ago.
That's 4,320 years before present.
You can see as we go through here, each one of these average.
So if we take, you got 25,920 in your calculator.
Now divide that by 12.
2160.
Now 2160 represents what we would call the cosmic month, the month of the great year.
2160.
So we now conceptualize that there's an analogy between our annual year of 12 months and the great year, the cosmic year with 12 cosmic months.
And for the last roughly 2,000 to 2,100 years, the vernal equinox has been moving through against the backdrop of the constellation of Pisces.
Okay, that makes sense.
It's moving now into, it hasn't gotten there yet, but it's moving towards the constellation of Aquarius.
And at some point, which people can argue about, we would then have the age of Aquarius, roughly 2,000 years that the vernal equinox is moving against that.
Particular star field.
That would be the dawning of the age of Aquarius.
And on that note, could you do a few bars from the classic song from 1969?
You have a much better voice than me, Randall.
Well, maybe if we all do it together.
Okay, you start.
This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius.
That's it.
Okay.
Of course, they got the astronomy completely wrong in that song, but we won't get into that.
They got the idea right.
How close are we to that, though?
Do we know?
Well, it depends on how you define it.
We're not close.
We're actually three to 400 years away from the vernal equinox, moving actually into what we now define as the star field of Aquarius.
Three to 400 years.
Yes.
That's pretty close in this scope.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
We're almost done with Pisces.
Yeah, the age of the fish.
See, and then if you go into the mythology, you know, look, the founding of Christianity, how much fish symbolism?
Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
I will feed you fish and bread.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Some of his disciples were fishermen.
Oh, wow.
People that drive around with the Jesus fish on the back of their car are actually acknowledging the astronomical age that we're in.
Icthus, the fish.
Icthus, right?
Okay.
And if you go to Hinduism, you had the fish incarnation of Vishnu, fish symbolism.
If you go back then, the previous one, the age of Aries, you have ram symbolism.
You have ram headed sphinxes in Egypt, Moses.
Moses.
Right.
What did he do?
With ram's horns.
He blew the ram's horn.
Yeah, exactly.
Moses, yep.
So Moses potentially is a representation of the age of Aries, the bull.
And there's a lot of that.
And if you go back.
The ram.
The ram.
Sorry, the ram.
Because I was going to say, if you go back to the age before the.
And so if you go, what's the time for the Old Testament?
So if Jesus, let's say, represents the age of Aries, you're talking rough intervals of, you know, 2,100 years.
When did Jesus come in the New Testament?
It was roughly 2,000 years.
2,000 years.
What was the period before that to Moses in the Old Testament?
Roughly 2,000 years.
Right, right.
2000 BC.
And if you think when Moses was introduced to us, he came down off the mountain with the commandments and he found his worshipers doing what?
Do you remember?
Worshipping the golden calf.
The golden calf.
Because the age before the age of Aries was the age of Taurus, the bull.
Yeah, so now.
They're worshiping the golden calf.
The golden age is now obsolete.
It's going past.
We've got a new age with new energy symbolized by the ram.
So, you can go back through and you'll see that.
And once you know that, the astronomical component, you can go back and revisit myths and you'll see a whole other dimension of meaning begin to emerge.
God, there's so many layers to this.
There's a lot of astronomical phenomena symbolized in our stories and religions, and particularly the Bible.
Right.
I mean, the whole birth and death and resurrection is essentially telling a story about what the sun does during the winter solstice.
And what is the spirit?
Of the Earth moving around the sun?
It's 18.5 miles per second in its orbit.
So convert that into miles per hour.
So if it's 18.5 miles per second.
Okay, 18.5.
18.5, and there's 3,600 seconds in an hour, you multiply that by 3,600, and that'll give you the number, which is the key solar number, one of the key solar numbers.
Don't quit.
This is 666.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
So the number of the beast.
The number of the beast.
Here is wisdom.
Let him who hath understanding count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, 603 score and six.
Is what it says.
Yes.
And it's not what most people think it is.
Oh, my God.
Scratch a penny on his forehead.
So, what is the significance of the number 666?
Well, besides that, that's the same.
Where do you start?
That's the question.
Well, it was typically a number associated with the sun.
And there's a lot of symbolism that would take us quite far afield.
Let's see if this.
Okay, this, this, the graphic is working.
Okay, let me, let me go into a larger.
There we go.
All right, so notice this line, north south, that's the Earth's axis.
Right.
The straw that I was using.
If you picture Earth's equator projected out into space, that's the celestial equator.
Okay.
And then you picture the ecliptic, which is Earth's plane swept out by the Earth as it's going around the sun.
It's the plane of the Earth's orbit.
Now, remember what I said?
There's so many motions.
Yeah.
And it takes a little bit of thinking to get this integrated in your consciousness.
North celestial pole.
That is where Polaris, the North Star, now is.
If we could go back half a cycle ago, it would be tilted over this way, and the pole would be pointing towards Vega.
And one of the things we do on our field trips, which is fun, is if it's, you know, a clear night, we'll go out and I'll point out Polaris in the sky, the North Star.
And then you can picture that we're standing on the Earth and the pole, the axis of the Earth, is pointing towards that.
But 13,000 years ago, it was 47 degrees on the other side of a circle and there's Vega.
So now, if you can actually picture, What's happened is from Vega 13,000 or half of that number, 12,960, half of that number around brings us to now, Polaris.
One half more cycle, 12,900 years from now, 13,000 years, the pole star will be Vega.
So if you're around, Danny, 13,000 years from now, and you try to navigate by the North Star, you will get lost.
I mean, by Polaris.
Medieval Warm Period Markers00:15:05
Yeah.
You'll find yourself.
So, this intersection is the key point right there.
That's what's moving.
Here's another version of it.
Again, and you see the 12 signs.
So, look here.
Here's Aries, Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn, right?
Sagittarius, Scorpio.
You're coming right around.
And so, right now, it's showing at zero degrees here, which is the cusp between Aries and Pisces, which would actually have been 2,000 years ago.
Now it's over here.
It's moved this far in 2,000 years.
So that intersection, again, that is the celestial equator.
The plane of the ecliptic remains fixed.
Right.
Okay.
It's the celestial equator that's moving.
Wow.
I mean, the obliquity of the ecliptic does have its own cycle as well, right?
There is a variation in that.
That's one of the Milankovitch cycles.
This is but one of several sort of oscillations that the Earth goes through.
Yeah.
Some people think it may actually function as a basis for ice ages and things like that.
There's a whole bunch of them.
There's like a 41,000 year cycle as well for the obliquity of the ecliptic.
And I pretty much will concur with that.
I think it does affect gradual accumulated climate change over thousands of years, no doubt.
I don't think it explains things like the Younger Dryas, though, where you have major shifts from glacial to interglacial within a few decades.
Right, right.
Seems to require something of an external injection of energy into the system.
That's exactly it.
It's a great way to put it.
Yeah.
Cosmic Shooting Gallery, I think.
So here's your homework assignment, Danny find a nice flat open space, draw a big cross underground, and get a chair and sit right at the middle and sit there for one year.
I mean, now you can take breaks to eat and go to the bathroom and stuff, but come back and sit there for one year, face the south like this guy is doing here.
And what you're going to see is this changing.
Look, summer solstice, the sun is way up here.
Winter solstice is way down here.
The equinox is right in the middle.
Right?
Got it.
And you'll notice too that if summer solstice, notice the path of the sun above the horizon is much longer than it is here, isn't it?
Well, hence because the day is much longer.
Now, let's do something.
I'm going to go back to these numbers.
Let's see if I've got these numbers here because you're going to see that certain numbers recur over and over and over again.
Let's see if I've got them here.
Yeah, like here.
Let's go to this one.
Okay.
These are part of the sacred, the canon of sacred numbers.
Okay.
Now, here, let's say here we are now, 25,920 years.
Here's graphics of the star patterns.
Okay.
Right?
Half of this number, 25,920, gives us 12,960.
Curiously, this is within about a half a century of the Younger Dryas catastrophe, the start of it.
Okay.
Which one of the, where did the younger drives happen?
Right here, at the cusp of Virgo, Leo.
Got it.
Right here.
Okay.
It lasted for about 1,300 years, or if we want to use the sacred number, it would have lasted 1,296 years, which brought it right to the center of Leo.
And that was the end of it.
And then we get from there into the constellation of the crab, the constellation of the twins, and this was the post glacial world right here.
Then we get into Taurus.
Something interesting happened right here.
Is that what I have done in this other graphic that I had up here?
Let's see if I can.
Young Ventrise happened right in the middle of Leo.
Yeah.
What ended in the middle of Leo?
Ended in the middle.
Ended in the middle of Leo.
Started right before Leo.
Having a Sphinx.
This is one of the reasoning people talk about.
I mean, slightly off topic, but if the Sphinx happened to have been a lion and it happened to be pointing towards the east and the sunrise.
Ah, right.
It may be.
That makes sense.
That's one of the proofs that this suggests it could be a marker.
I mean, it might be the end of the Younger Dryas.
It might be a marker for significant events on the planet.
I mean, it's within one processional cycle.
If it's a fact that the original Sphinx was a lion's head, the symbolism would be perfect.
Yeah.
Right.
Because now you're looking at the age of Leo.
Right.
But it may not have been.
You're not saying that it would have been made in that procession, right?
It could have been made on a previous procession, right?
Yeah.
I mean, it's possible.
But in terms of the Younger Dryas and nailing significant events, you also have other sites like Gobekli Tepe, which seem to.
Be a celestial calendar indicating the Younger Dryas as well.
It could be a marker for that.
I mean, I've heard that used as one of the potential proofs to suggest it's older, along with the erosion and everything else.
But it would be perfect symbolism for the age of Leo and a significant event that we know happened based on all of the historical records.
Sorry for the minor tangent, but if they would have built that after the Younger Dryas, it wouldn't explain all the water erosion on it, right?
No, it could.
Yeah, it still could because it wasn't, it wasn't, it didn't.
Egypt actually was verdant and green during that period and for several thousand years after that.
It wasn't like an immediate climate change at the end of the Younger Dries for Egypt.
I think that it became a desert, oh, I think about eight or nine thousand years ago, somewhere in that range.
There were a few thousand of years after the end of the Younger Dries where it was still essentially green.
I mean, this whole Sahara area.
Right.
Okay.
Yeah.
All right.
Where were we?
What I've done here is I've gone through the scientific literature and I've taken events, unique, I'll call them event nodes, where things happened, right?
And I've plotted them on this wheel here.
And you can see there is a very interesting correlation.
Like, let's see, let's go back to the cusp of Taurus Aries right here.
Make it full screen.
And, oh yeah, let's do full screen.
4,320 years ago, right?
That's twice 2160.
And we've got Heinrich Event 3 happened 4,320 years ago times seven.
So, if we go back to here and then we go back seven cycles around, an event happened 30,240 years ago.
What kind of event are we talking about?
Well, we're not sure.
Other than what we know is that the manifestation of the event was a Heinrich, what's called a Heinrich event.
A Heinrich event is when you have this massive.
Now, you got a picture.
You're missing a digit on that?
Pardon me?
300,000 years.
I'm sure that's not.
Oh, no, 30,000 years.
So, one cycle ago, then.
Yeah, let's see.
43,020.
You got 4,320, or is it supposed to be 43,000?
No, it's supposed to be, well, this happened 4,320 years ago.
Okay.
So 30,200 years ago was Heinrich Event 3.
Okay.
Got it.
So if you go back to this event right here, and then you go seven times around, right back to when the vernal equinox was standing in the same position in the sky, but seven times around.
More than this, you'll see that it was at 30,240.
Oh, in intervals of 40,320.
I got it.
Yeah.
I thought you were saying in intervals of processional cycles.
No.
Okay.
Oh, okay.
Then if you go back to this here, this is called the onset of neoglaciation.
So here's the end of the Younger Dryas.
Here's the beginning.
Actually, the beginning of the Younger Dryas, that arrow is slightly off.
Slightly off.
That arrow is actually pointing to the end of the Older Dryas.
Okay.
Yeah, 19620 was roughly this beginning of the Younger Dries there.
12,960.
Sorry, 12,960.
Yeah.
Spoonerism.
And then here is the end of it.
And then by the time you get to 10,000.
Which, sorry, which way are we moving around this wheel?
We're moving this way.
We're moving counterclockwise.
Time moves this way.
And if we go backwards in time, we're going that way.
Okay, backwards in time is clockwise.
Yeah, if we start here, if we go backwards in time, we're going clockwise.
Got it.
So we go from here back to, say, 8,640.
We had a Heinrich event.
Again, at times seven.
So at 60,480 years ago, there was an event.
And again, it falls on the cusp of this transition.
But 6,480 years ago, you had the onset of neoglaciation.
Now, what happened was during the age of Cancer and Gemini, which are these two ages right here, the planet went into what has been called the climatic optimum, where temperatures were warmer than they are today.
Now, this is well established.
By multiple lines of evidence, tree lines were higher, sea level was higher.
You know, the younger Dryas is a flowering plant that likes cold weather, it's a polar wildflower.
So, in the older Dryas in Europe, in Northern Europe, you had an abundance of Dryas octopotallum, which is the plant, the flowering plant, gave its name to the younger Dryas.
That went away.
And it was replaced by warmer, loving species.
They prevail, and if you look on this graph, that's from right here end of the oldest Dryas, and there was a sharp temperature rise.
The cold loving Dryas octopatala did not like this rise, the warmer temperature, because they were adapted to a polar climate.
Well, the polar climate came to an end, and you had a warming period for half of a cycle here.
And then, very suddenly, at around 12,960 years ago, Dryas octopatala suddenly returned.
The cold loving plant.
Now, that's an example of how you can use botany to determine environmental changes.
Because if you go from cold to warm, plant and animal species will change.
So, cold times, you're going to have certain species of animals and plants.
The warm comes back, and now you bring back in plants and animals that like warm species.
Now, you can correlate that with studies of Where sea level is at.
So typically, what will happen is that temperature rises, more glaciers melt, sea level rises, right?
The latitude of warm weather goes to the north, warm climate shifts to the north.
Just like if we go back to the medieval warm period, say a thousand years ago, that lasted roughly from 900 AD to 1250 to 1300 AD, sea level's higher.
You had much warmer weather, warmer climate.
You had a flourishing wine industry in the British Isles, right?
Which didn't exist until genetic modifications allowed the reintroduction of vintner, what do you call it?
Vintner grapes, which is wine grapes.
Yeah, wine grapes into England.
That's also when Greenland was colonized by the Scandinavians during this warm period.
Well, the warm period gave way to the Little Ice Age, and then when the Little Ice Age came, you had this expansion.
Of polar ice, like sea ice, that cut Greenland.
Now, during the medieval warm period, Greenland, you could sail from northwestern Europe to Iceland to Greenland.
When the medieval warm period ended, the sea ice, the polar ice, extended far to the south.
It sealed off Greenland, so you couldn't sail to Greenland anymore.
It almost caused the complete extinction of all human society on Iceland because there was trade going on and You know, the cold weather, the return of cold weather drastically affected agriculture, caused food crops to spoil in the fields, and that led to people getting hungry and that led to famine.
And so, what we see if we look at history is that the cold spells in global climate have always been far worse than warm spells.
Right.
Warm spells increase the growing season, they tend to increase the amount of rainfall.
I've documented in Talked about this extensively on my Cosmographia slideshow, I mean, podcast, showing that the overwhelming evidence that warm periods have been benign times within human society, usually associated with, like, if we go back to about 540 AD, the onset of what is called the Dark Ages Cold Period, saw famine,
it saw pestilence because pestilence follows naturally in the wake of famine because people get malnourished.
Their immune systems become compromised, and now you have opportunistic diseases.
So, in 542 AD, after six years of cold weather and repeated crop failures, you had the Justinian plague that wiped out half the population of Europe.
So, now you have this cold period for about 300 years, 400 years, and now that gives way to what's called the medieval warm period.
The growing season extended, tree lines moved up, you started getting a much wider range of latitudes where you could grow food, you had a longer growing season.
Whereas during the Dark Ages Cold Period, the population of Europe declined.
During the Medieval Warm Period, it increased.
After 150 years of warmth, so much prosperity had accrued that it allowed launching the Great Cathedral Building Enterprise.
That was precisely timed within that Medieval Warm Period.
And you can see the end of the Great Cathedral Building Era ended with the end of the Medieval Warm Period, which occurred between 1250 and 1300.
Dark Ages Climate Shifts00:08:20
And then in 1300, we began the first phase of the Little Ice Age.
And again, a whole series of crop failures over the next few decades.
And then in the 1340s, you had the bubonic plague, which again decimated a third of the population of Europe.
At that point, the great cathedral building era came to an end by that time.
And we went into the first phase of the Little Ice Age.
That ameliorated somewhat right in the middle in the 1600s, and we had the Renaissance, and then the cold came back.
That cold, which was the second phase of the Little Ice Age, kind of came to an end between 1850, about the mid 19th century, and by the 20th century, it was over.
Interestingly, all of our measurements of modern warmth, the baseline is the end of the Little Ice Age.
So, again, think of the analogy that I was talking about.
What was wind on here?
Well, on here, you can almost not see it, but it's right there.
Got it.
Okay.
Right?
There you've got the onset of the Dark Ages, and here you've got the Onset of the Little Ice Age.
So it's like a quarter of 2160?
Roughly, yeah.
So we go back beginning of the Little Ice Age to 1300 in round numbers.
And it didn't start everywhere at the same time.
But within a half a century to a century, it had pretty much affected the whole world.
Now, that Little Ice Age was the coldest half millennium since the end of the Great Ice Age.
Now, knowing that, and how do we know that?
Well, from all these other factors that I talked about.
For one thing, glaciers around the planet.
Expanded enormously during the Little Ice Age.
In Europe, Northern Europe, you had whole villages and farms that were wiped out by the glaciers that had swelled up to be bigger than they had been since the end of the Great Ice Age 11,000 years ago.
Now, think about what it means if our determinations of global warming and so on, our baseline is the coldest period of 11,000, 10,000, 11,000 years.
Right.
Just like the analogy I used earlier, if you started.
Profit.
If you started marking climate warmth, but you started at March 1st and then you get to June, well, obviously, yes.
Each month you're going to see records being broken.
Right.
Right.
See, that's what people are not being taken into account.
And the scientists that know this, some of them are pointing this out.
They're being dismissed as climate deniers, even though there is no such thing, because nobody denies that the climate changes.
Show me one professional, one scientist.
Right.
One meteorologist that's denying climate change, they don't exist.
It's a completely fabricated concept to try to discredit anybody who's pointing out that the whole climate change narrative has been manufactured and it's based upon certain assumptions that completely don't come out legitimately once you've examined them.
Because most people don't realize okay, well, we're measuring glacier recession from the point at which the glaciers were the biggest they were in 10,000 years.
Exactly.
Yeah.
And see, this is what's not being told.
And it's deliberate.
It's a deliberate deception.
How far back did some of these glacial core samples take us?
Oh.
Well.
400,000 years, I think, at the maximum.
You're talking about the ice core samples?
The ice core samples, yeah.
Yeah.
Greenland and Antarctic are going to be the longest record.
And yeah, we can see in there that there's massive changes.
Now, there haven't been changes enough to completely melt away the Greenland ice sheet or the Antarctic ice sheet.
However, the Laurentide ice sheet that was over.
Most of Canada was as big as the South Polar Ice Sheet.
The Cordillera, which was over Western Canada, was about roughly the size of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
The Finno Scandian Ice Sheet over Northwestern Europe was even bigger than the Greenland Ice Sheet.
All of that ice melted away literally in a few thousand years, and we don't have an explanation for where the thermal energy came from to affect that drastic change that could cause that much ice to melt away that quickly.
And given that.
We don't really even have an explanation at anybody that there's a consensus around what causes the onset of an ice age and what causes the termination of an ice age.
If we don't know that, how in the world can you claim that the science of climate change is settled?
It's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
And if somebody says that the science of climate change is settled, or they call anyone who questions that consensus a climate change denier, Right there, those two things are telling you either they don't know what the hell they're talking about or they're phonies and they're lying.
I think people get lost in the politics of this.
They do.
People don't understand the history of this.
And people get it's more nuanced where people are arguing over whether humans contribute to climate change or do humans not contribute to climate change?
Of course, humans do contribute to climate change.
The question is how much and how significant is that relative to the natural forces?
And I argue, based, we look at the history of the climate change on Earth.
That natural forces are overwhelmingly the dominant factors.
Right.
And we talked about this a little bit on our first podcast, but the way they're measuring the climate right now, they have these like old sensors that are like near airports or something.
Yeah.
Yeah.
On top of tarmac.
Right.
Well, and there's manipulation of raw data going on too.
They've literally changed the raw measurements from the past, essentially, you know, cooling the past and warming the present so that the trends match some of the computer models more or less.
There's a guy named Tony Heller who does some good.
Yeah, he's great.
Yeah, definitely.
Timmy Heller does some good stuff.
Some good videos exposing some of the way that that's worked in order to kind of manipulate the data such that it matches the predictions that were made almost exactly.
Yeah.
And it is political, unfortunately.
I mean, I always find it telling the first moment you usually ever engage in some sort of skepticism around the narrative of climate change.
You generally, first of all, have to then defend yourself as saying, well, pollution bad as well.
Right.
It's like, for some reason, it's weird.
It's like, of course, pollution is bad and we should be stewards of the planet.
But that right there is telling you that it's a political argument.
There's somebody who did a study on this.
I think it was Steven Pinker who basically reverse engineered people's view on climate change.
And he said basically all you have to do is figure out their political leanings.
Yes.
And then you can figure out how they feel about climate change.
Yeah.
Yes.
But yeah, so that's the point.
I mean, the point is that the climate, anybody who studies the climate, and I've studied it in depth for decades, knows that the climate has changed profoundly over and over and over again.
There has never been a point which we can say the climate has remained stable.
Right.
It doesn't exist.
So, what you're now going to tell me is that all the natural factors that have been causing the climate to change, whether it's the sun, whether it's geomagnetism, whether it's ocean currents or atmospheric currents or, you know, changes in albedo, changes in the relation of the planets, which is also a very interesting theory, volcanism.
I mean, we could go on with the list.
Are you going to tell me now all of those are irrelevant and non operational anymore?
And it's only because people are driving SUVs.
And eating cows.
And eating cows.
Right, right.
And eating cows.
Yeah.
But we're not going to eat cows tonight.
We're going to eat seafood, right?
We're going to eat fish tonight.
We're going to eat fish.
Fish do not contribute to climate change that I'm aware of.
Give it to my God.
But I think that the ancient peoples knew that there was a tempo of global change.
Megafauna Bottlenecks Explained00:08:50
And a lot of their mythology and so on embodies their knowledge of.
Environmental change, climate change, and so on.
Because when we look back at the legacy of inherited traditions from the legends and folklore and mythology of the ancient world, over and over again, we have to recognize that catastrophism is a major part of all of it.
And you can start with things as obvious as the great flood myths.
We're all here brought up in the Judeo Christian tradition.
Well, you know.
The great flood myth is introduced very early on within the biblical story, right?
And of course, like flood myths from all over the world, there's always a moral component that's sort of juxtaposed on it.
And I think that that's sort of a natural thing when something like that happens.
We can refer to the impact, the atmospheric impact of the Tungus, so called Kundu.
Tunguska cosmic body in 1908 Siberia.
Right.
In the aftermath of that, what happened?
Well, the Tungusi populace, the tribesmen lived there, it launched a new religion.
And Agni, the god of fire, descended from the sky to punish the people for their sins and their infractions and the things, their bad behavior.
So immediately we see in a modern context a celestial event like that spawning a religion.
Now imagine that you have an event that's 10 times or 100 or 1,000 times more.
Than just a single Tunguska event.
Obviously, yes.
And when you start looking at flood stories, I mean, one of the things that we'll be doing in Montana, Ben and I, is we will be exploring landscapes that were created by flows of hundreds of millions of cubic feet per second.
We'll be exploring landscapes that were carved and created by water flows that are 10 and 20 times greater than every single river on earth combined.
Now, if you survived something like that, yeah, it's natural that the survivors of events on that magnitude would look at it in theological terms and moral terms and so on.
But behind that, that veneer, that theological and moralistic veneer, I think we're looking at very natural events that we now know we can.
We can document that events like this have occurred repeatedly in Earth history.
Yeah.
And the wonder of it is, in some ways, is how we humans did not go the way of the woolly mammoths.
That is the wonder of it.
Yeah.
We did have a bottleneck.
I mean, we know there was definitely a bottleneck in both population and genetic diversity associated with the timeframe of the younger dryers.
It's kind of funny.
There was a study done recently.
Antonio Zamora has done some good little short YouTube videos on it if people are interested.
But it is a study that shows that there was, across the world, populations of humans almost everywhere, and these are disconnected, isolated groups, simultaneously went through a decrease in genetic diversity, particularly in male populations, actually.
And it's all associated with a period of time shortly after the onset of the Younger Dryas.
And of course, the study's authors don't make a connection to the Younger Dryas period because it's still a debated topic, I guess, in what you'd call mainstream science.
Mm hmm.
But they said that, well, perhaps it was just some sort of somehow simultaneous change in breeding and preference patterns between these isolated and different groups of people that resulted in this genetic diversity.
But it also coincides with this extinction event and turns out we're megafauna.
I mean, I'm certainly megafauna.
Or 90% of the world's population got wiped out.
Well, it's hard to say what percentage.
It wasn't that.
There was a bottleneck in population and in just diversity, but I'm not sure if it was that much.
Yeah, it was probably.
I mean, it could have been.
I mean, we're just kind of at the beginning of piecing this together.
I mean, clearly the human species was affected by these events.
You don't have events that wipe out half the megafaunal species on Earth and not affect the other half of the megafaunal species that survived.
It's not like half the species came through completely unscathed, but the severity and magnitude of those events completely exterminated half the other species.
Yeah.
Right?
We know look at how close the bison, the American bison, came to becoming extinct.
Around the turn of the century, there was only a few hundred individuals.
Now, you know, we can go to the grocery store and buy bison burger, right?
A thousand, ten thousand years from now, you could completely miss the fact that bison came this close to becoming an extinct species.
Because it's only, you know, within a few generations, once we made up the mind, you know, people decided that they wanted to salvage a species, it didn't take long for the species to recover.
So, I mean, 10,000 or 12,000 or 13,000 years ago, a species may have come that close to extinction, but there were still enough numbers that the species within a few centuries could completely recover.
See?
And it brings us to the question of how drastically were humans affected?
And I think there's parts of the world as well.
I mean, it's not, as you were saying, younger Dreyfus, although it was probably the most dramatic thing to happen to the planet in maybe 5 million years.
It wasn't.
5 million?
Yeah, I mean, it might have been the worst thing that's happened to the planet in five million years, certainly from an extinction perspective.
But it's not, there were parts of the planet that weren't as badly affected as others.
Certainly, North and South America were tremendously impacted with the species that went extinct.
We see a similar thing in Europe, but you look at Africa or Australia, and there seems to have been much less impact.
I mean, that's one of the, you know, Africa has a lot of megafauna, and you look at what we estimate the age of lots of that megafauna is still going to be like two to three million years old.
Like those species also live through the younger dry.
Australia is somewhat similar.
Australia did undergo very severe mass extinction, but it was much earlier.
Than the younger Dryas.
Now, if you look at percentages, North and South America both experienced about a 75% reduction in megafaunal species.
So, in other words, North America lost about three quarters of the big animals.
I mean, think about the animals that used to be here in North America.
Four species of proboscideans you had the woolly mammoth, the Colombian mammoth, the imperial mammoth, you had mastodons.
You had dire wolves, you had giant cave bears, you had huge moose, you had giant deer.
Armadillos.
What?
Armadillos.
Giant armadillos.
Size of a Volswehr heckin', bro.
Yeah, yeah.
And you had.
Yeah, and giant ground sloths.
I mean, the list was up to like close to 100 species, right?
How do we know we had armadillos that big?
Because we found our remains.
Yeah.
Go through Cincinnati Airport sometime.
We found our remains of these animals.
Cincinnati Airport, I went through there the other day.
They actually had the skeletons.
I had a Die wolf, they had a saber toothed tiger, they had mastodons, they had one of the big elk, the giant elk that was just like, oh my god.
Yeah, so short faced bear.
Now, okay, so North and South America both lost about three quarters of their species.
Eurasia lost a little more than a third, about 35% of species in Eurasia went extinct by the end of the Younger Dryas.
Africa, 10 to 12%.
So a lot of the big animals in Africa are the survivors of the Pleistocene.
People don't realize that when you start looking at rhinos and hippos and elephants and giraffes and all the rest of them.
So clearly, the cataclysm, the Younger Dryas cataclysm, was not uniform around the whole planet.
Now, one of the other things that I've noticed from going back in the literature is that a lot of times, going back to the idea of how humans were affected, you had places where there was obvious settlements.
Had been there for centuries, and then all of a sudden they're abandoned.
Carrington Event Debates00:09:34
The usual assumption was well, these people got up and migrated somewhere else.
Problem is that then the other places you find evidence of human occupation, and they're gone at the same time.
You find quarries all over non-glaciated North American settlement camps and things like that where people were living, working.
You find the refuse pits, the middens, all of the things that was evidence that there was a fairly long period of occupation, and then all of a sudden it ends.
And that termination coincides in many cases with the beginning of the Younger Dryas.
And it's probably more a case, less a case that they got up and moved somewhere else is that they didn't survive.
Like a quarry, you know, where they're quarrying flint or stones for their spear points and things are active for centuries and then all of a sudden they're abandoned.
Oh, well, they got up and moved somewhere else.
Well, where'd they move to?
But what's more likely is that, yeah, that particular social group.
Died out, and that was the end of it.
How much debate is there over what caused the Younger Dryas, whether it be comets or solar ejections or all of the above?
There's still debate, I'd say that.
I mean, there's at this point, what, 160 odd papers peer reviewed that the vast majority are very much in favor of the cosmic impactslash airburst theory.
Airburst meaning like it explodes when it hits the atmosphere.
Yeah, so initially, I think people were thinking about.
Thinking of it in terms of a single impact, but it very much seems like it was a series and potentially different periods of cosmic impacts and airbursts.
Airbursts are also traumatic.
I mean, we have, there's actually been a few really good studies on sites that show cosmic impacts.
It's not related to the younger Drys, but Dr. Stephen Collins at Tel El Hammam basically discovered the source of the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah story.
He did a digging on a site, and they've shown that that site was actually subjected to a cosmic airburst.
And it literally matches all the story that's in the Bible, which you would probably attribute that to the wrath of God if you had happened to witness that from a hill a few kilometers away.
But yeah, I mean, air bursts are bad as well.
But there's still debate.
I mean, there was another paper released recently that was attacking the theory pretty poorly, I thought.
I mean, it's just some of the opposition to it is quite strange.
And some of it has probably no place in.
In what I'd say is peer reviewed science, like the whole requiem for the Younger Dries paper is silly.
You shouldn't.
But safe to say at this point, there's still some debate.
I mean, I'm not playing in that arena, but it feels to me like there's a vast amount of evidence supporting the idea.
Yes.
Both on the macro and micro scale, as well as cultural evidence in all of our oral histories.
There's like nano diamonds that have been.
Yeah.
So it's.
Exactly.
A lot of the papers focus on the.
We have a number of sources of evidence.
There's a lot of papers that focus on the impact proxies, the things they find in the strata layers of the dirt, the shock synthesized nanodiamonds, the carbon and magnetic microspherals, extraterrestrial platinum and iridium spikes, the black mat layer.
So, all of that's in those layers.
You have the evidence for catastrophic climate change that correlates with those strata layers that are found in the ice core samples.
So, we look at oxygen isotopes and other elements.
There's like soot particles.
There was a paper done looking at some of the Particulate matter in some of these ice core samples in the younger driers that suggest there were wildfires and like 9% of the world's biomass was burning.
So you have these indicators there.
And then you have the macro evidence, a lot of the stuff that I've really enjoyed Randall showing me, the evidence for just flooding the likes of what we're going to see in Montana, which is astronomical, yeah, channeled scablins, astronomical volumes of water pouring off those ice sheets on the way to the ocean that sort of must have happened in.
You know, these catastrophic sort of short term events.
So you've got a lot of evidence that points to this traumatic period and that something happened.
And then there's all this scientific work that sort of says, well, these are all impact proxies.
You know, Mark, there's a great presentation done by Mark Young at the Cosmic Summit conference that we held earlier, which sort of looked at a lot of this evidence.
And, you know, I think at one point he points to some of the rebuttals of the.
Of some of the naysayers of this pointing out that, well, no, we're not looking at micro diamonds.
We're actually looking at like bug poop.
And Mark was saying, well, bugs don't shit diamonds.
So, do bugs shit diamonds?
I don't think so.
He's a deadpan guy, and he just delivered that line quite well.
What is the idea about solar ejections?
I think that's worth considering.
Because now we have a lot of evidence for a cosmic event at the beginning of the Younger Dryas, but there was also a catastrophic event at the Younger Dryas.
The Younger Dryas is bookended by two catastrophes.
Yeah, the end.
We don't have the same kind of proxy evidence for.
Cosmic impact at the end of the Younger Dryas.
Robert Schock maintains that I don't know if he's come around to accepting the possibility of impact, but he's been arguing in favor of a solar event.
And I think that's totally possible, particularly since I learned that there seems to be a correlation of the infall of cometary masses into the sun and a reaction in the chromosphere of the sun that translates into solar storms and coronal mass ejections.
I'm going to do a paper on that on my.
Or do we even do a whole podcast around that idea?
I haven't had time to fully dive into all of what's now known that we've gleaned from the information and insight that we have into the sun since we started deploying solar observing satellites.
We now know a whole lot more than we did, let's say, since the early 90s.
Now we've got, what, five or six satellites that are looking at the sun in one capacity or another.
Yep.
The evidence that seems to be emerging is that the sun is much more variable than was previously assumed.
Now, when we go back to the beginning of the climate models and the first IPCC report, which I believe was 1992, they were not looking at the sun at all.
They were still looking at the constant sun model.
And so, if the sun is not changing, then you can't blame the sun for climate change if it's an invariable sun.
However, if the sun is far more dynamic, then it is going to play a role and on multiple levels.
And I think that's what we're seeing.
We're seeing now the cutting edge information about the sun suggests that it is much more dynamic, a more dynamic star than was assumed in the 80s and early 90s when the computer models were being generated and the sun was being dismissed.
Solar constant was the working assumption.
Well, if the sun is constant, then the sun is not contributing to climate change.
Right.
See, but that's wrong.
I think at this point we can clearly, you know, assume that that's wrong.
Yeah.
And the sun could entirely also be a source for cataclysmic events in the past as well.
Like we know, we've seen smaller versions of it with the Carrington event.
And yeah, we.
What was the Carrington event?
There was.
When was it?
Was it 18?
I'm trying to think the actual date.
We know that there were telegraphs in.
It was in the 1870s, I believe.
It was something, yeah, 1870.
So it was essentially a, it was probably the biggest solar flare that's happened in that period since.
And it literally set telegraph wires on fire, melted the lines.
And if it happened today, a Carrington event, Maui?
Well, it might fry all the electronics on whatever side of the planet it hits when it comes along because it's a huge part of that solar flare.
It's just like EM.
Pulse kind of thing.
It can fry, it sort of fries electronics.
A lot of our electronics are very sensitive to electromagnetic pulses and things like that, which solar flares hit you with.
There are theorized more serious events even than that that come from the sun.
There's evidence that there have been more powerful solar events than the Carrington event.
Oh, yeah.
Really?
Yeah.
We could talk about that in a future podcast.
Two things I want to mention George Howard is reminding me that the second Cosmic Summit is coming up next June 14th and 15th.
It is.
And the tickets have gone on sale, I believe, while we've been sitting here having our podcast.
Deep Meanings in Catastrophes00:05:21
Oh, beautiful.
Amazing.
Yeah.
So, for sure, when it goes live.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Ben was talking about our Montana tour.
The last I heard, there was like two or three.
I think it might have filled up.
There might be one spot left.
We'll see.
But I think it filled up as of yesterday.
But there may be a spot.
Okay.
Well, the other thing that's coming up, then, starting on Halloween and for the following, what, four or five days, we're doing a tour.
Eastern Tennessee in the Cumberland Plateau, which is an amazing place of caves and grottos and canyons and cataracts, mostly hidden under the vegetation and the canopy of the forests off the beaten path.
We do this, it will be our fourth tour up in that area.
We get off the beaten path.
We've got a great lodge reserved for the tour that we're going to be using as a base to do these explorations.
So if And we've still got, like, you know, we've got probably eight or 10 seats left open for that.
And this is again very, yeah, the people that come together around these things are to me.
And I get this feedback all the time that people say, well, as awesome as learning about this natural history and the landscapes and the catastrophes and all of this, just as interesting and valuable and satisfying as the connections and the friendships that come out of it.
Because, like Ben said earlier, repeatedly people will say, well, you know, I'm.
Every day, you know, I go to my family for dinner, I go, you know, at work.
There's nobody interested in this kind of stuff that I can talk to, but I come here and everybody is interested in these the mysteries of our past.
And that's a big part of what we're exploring in this.
So it's not only about teaching people to read this cipher and decipher the landscapes, because wouldn't you say that's kind of what it once you've seen?
Oh, it's for me, it was revelatory.
Having somebody like you teach is great, like actually being able to look at that land.
I mean, it's a These are beautiful places just on their own.
But then once you actually get some of that context about what caused it and you can start to imagine what actually happened here, it's just this, it's a whole other level.
I mean, I've met people who actually live in these places, like in the Skaglands, and you start to explain to them what happened and they're just like, holy crap, I couldn't believe what you're looking at.
They've been living in it and they've never even looked at it from that view.
I can't, I don't know.
I can't tell you how many people have contacted me saying, well, I've lived here in this landscape all my life and I'm suddenly looking at it with new eyes.
Here's an analogy for you, Danny.
Imagine, like, we look up on the screen, we see words up there, don't we?
Yeah.
And you can read those words.
And because you can read those words, you extract meaning from them.
You can make associations.
You can understand things.
But if you're illiterate, you'll look up there and those, they'll just be shapes.
They won't convey any meaning to you.
They won't convey information at all, will they?
No.
If you're illiterate.
So, what I'm getting at here is that there is a.
A grammar, a syntax, a language of catastrophist geology that even most geologists are not well versed in.
So, what I've been doing for 40 years is learning that language.
So, when we go into the field, we look at things, and what I'm trying to do is teach people to be able to read that.
And imagine this all your life, you've been going through and you're surrounded by words.
And maybe if you're intuitive type, you get the sense that those aren't just shapes, there's some kind of meaning there, but you don't know what that meaning is.
Now, you come and we do a week long intensive, and I start explaining to you well, this is an alphabet.
Here's how you say it.
And this is what this word means, and this word means.
And you know, if you take letters by themselves isolated, what do they mean?
Nothing.
If you arrange them in a certain way, suddenly the word has meaning.
Then you take those words and you put them in a certain arrangement.
It's a sentence.
More depths of meaning emerge.
Put those sentences into paragraphs.
You see what I'm saying?
Now, let's say we do a week long intensive and you go from being completely illiterate to now you walk out and suddenly words all around you start conveying meaning.
Insight and information to you.
That's the goal of these tours to teach people to read that language that has literally been hidden within the landscape of the entire planet for 10 or 11 or 12,000 years because nobody had the perspective to see it on the scale that we can now see it.
That's why when we do our briefings and we do the full study of what we're doing, it starts with.
You know, we look at myths, we look at stories, obviously.
Then we look at photographs, then we look at videos, then we look at NASA satellite photography, we look at, you know, geographic information systems, we look at Google Maps, we look at digital elevation models, all of this because now we can see things on a scale that our grandparents couldn't see.
Atlantis Myths and Ripples00:14:44
50 years ago, 60, 70 years ago, we didn't have satellites.
Where photography, where you could be now begin to see the scale of some of these events that have played out on our planet.
So, I try to bring in as much of that as possible.
Then, the crown of that is you go out in the field and you start seeing this stuff.
For the and I'll tell you, even with all of the photography and the videos and the drone footage and everything, seeing that until you get out in the field, you know, it just that's when it hits you.
You begin to realize.
I'm like a microbe here.
Yeah.
You know, I'm like a microbe.
These things that have played out on the surface of this planet are in another realm altogether.
So, yeah, you can start to appreciate that the literal, like, one of the terms I've heard you use is like, it's, they call America was also known as the New World.
And it literally is because it was, it's built on the ruins of the old world.
And you can get a sense for those, some of those processes when you start to see this.
Right.
These catastrophes, and that's why I think catastrophism is such a and the evidence for it is such an important key that unlocks the possibility for a longer timeline and civilizations and things like this, is because it literally changed the surface of the earth.
Like, it's between the flooding, the fires, the sea level rise and falls, it changes the surface of the earth.
And, oh, this is the video we put what is this, the Devil's Canyon?
Okay, this is drone footage from actually none other than oh, shit, Ban Van Kirkwood, yeah.
Am I okay to go?
I sent it to you for this very reason.
Yeah, okay, but I want to make sure that it's understood.
This is Ben's work here.
Yes, I did my best.
This is one of the places we visited.
This was a canyon that was probably cut in a matter of a week or two.
Cut by one of the great floods.
Now let's take a look at this.
Yeah, this was basically an outflow canyon, like down to the Snake River, right?
Yeah.
And what you're seeing here is not a canyon produced over millions of years, but a canyon produced over a few weeks by a flow that probably would have been close to 50 million cubic feet per second or greater.
And so, this entire canyon was rushing with water, yes, for a short period of time.
For it's been dry since, it's like, yeah.
So, now this is in the channel scan.
So, this was on one of our tours, and you'll see as we pan around.
And again, a lot of this is not going to be, yeah, it's not going to necessarily speak to somebody until you've been trained to read the language, right?
But now you can see here, you know, there's the group, there's some outcrop boulders that were left in the aftermath.
Of the great flood flows.
Those things on the left?
Yeah.
There you can see our vans.
How deep is that from the very middle of it to the top?
The deepest part would be 800 feet, maybe?
Maybe six to 800 feet.
Oh my God.
It was, I mean, was it overflowing this at one point?
Well, it started with an overflow.
It started with an overflow and then it cut down.
And here is what you call a cataract, this bowl shaped feature.
Now, this entire landscape that you see here was completely submerged.
This Palouse Falls is all that's the whole remnant, but you can see it's cutting its own little cataract there.
But the cataract produced by the big flood was this big round thing that you're seeing all in here.
This is one of our regular places to visit, and it's mind boggling in scale.
So, this is one of your great features here.
This is called Potholes Cataract.
Picture out here, this is.
Like a turbulent moving sea, okay.
The entire width of this scene here is probably close to 200 feet deep.
It's choked with thousands of icebergs.
It's moving towards the viewer, and this is a ridge.
And behind you, you can't see here, it drops down into the Columbia Valley.
This water is pouring over this ridge, and these walls here are about 400 feet high.
Think about this if you have floodwaters coming through, ripping up stuff, excavating, eroding.
Well, that's half of it.
The other half of the equation is that the material is transported and it has to be deposited somewhere.
So you learn to correlate both of those.
What kind of rock is ripped up from here and where does it end up?
Right.
But you're going to see West Bar here, which is pretty amazing.
We're coming around.
This is West Bar.
You're going to see it now.
So are there giant rocks here that came from somewhere else?
Oh, yeah.
Glacial erratics.
Yeah.
There's rocks and huge chunks of granite that probably came from Canada that are deposited.
Out on this giant, like a strewn floodplain, and where these coulees ended out is just these boulder fields that go for hundreds of square miles of just huge chunks of basalt, even some granite that probably came from a long way away.
And then you get these big erratics where, like, haystack rock and things like that, that are just these giant boulders that were deposited.
Now, I want you to look here at the surface of this three mile long, two or three hundred foot boulder bar has giant current ripples on it.
Now, The height of these current ripples varies between 30 and 50 feet.
The height of like up to a five story building.
And that's how we know without any doubt at all.
There we go.
Look at these.
These are the kind of current ripples.
I mean, you'll see them walking along a sandbar and a creek, except that these current ripples are gigantic.
Like I said, from.
Isn't this also seen in the Sahara?
Well, you have sand dudes in the Sahara and they're being blown by wind.
Not water.
And they're dynamic.
They're constantly moving.
These are not moving.
These are pretty much like they were when they were deposited 13 or 14,000 years ago when this gravel bar is actually a boulder bar.
That's what you see when the tide comes out of the beach.
Yeah, that's right.
Scale and variance, right?
It's a great example of it.
Like these, the same sort of phenomena at work in small scale as it did with this.
You can imagine this current of water coming around the inside of this bend just.
Giant current of water that left these current ripples.
Wow.
These 50 foot high current ripples that are there now.
It's almost impossible to comprehend that.
Wait till you see it firsthand, Danny.
Yeah.
You got to put on your bucket list that you want to go on one of these tours.
I'm coming.
Yeah.
Now, haven't people shown, pointed out specifically, I think it might have been Jimmy who pointed out that those things are near the reshot structure, those water ripples.
That was me.
That was you?
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
Maybe Jimmy got it from you because I think I heard Jimmy say it too.
Well, Jimmy has been arguing that the reshat structure is Atlantis.
Exactly.
I don't agree with that.
Right.
I remember you were here last time.
You said it's Azores.
I think that the most likely place, if it existed, I think the most likely place that's the most consistent in the details of Plato's two dialogues is the Azores as a remnant.
Those islands are the tops of mountains whose bottoms are part of a plateau that.
About which there is a lot of evidence that it has subsided by a substantial amount since the last ice age.
And I do a whole, I've got like a nine hour lecture that I do on that.
It's a pretty solid case.
I watched it.
It's phenomenal.
I watched it after our last podcast.
Oh, excellent.
Okay.
Wasn't there a recent voyage that went out to the Azores to look at this?
I don't know.
We were talking about this.
James Cameron was, I thought he was supposed to look at it.
I haven't heard anything about that.
Since it happened, I mean, but I'm not involved in it.
But a lot of the science on this, a seamount dive or something could have been, yeah.
Yeah, I don't know.
It's unfortunate that a lot of the actual science looking into the mid Atlantic ridge submergence sort of ceased what in the like 70s and 80s, yeah.
Most of the real science once Atlantis became a dirty word, right?
They kind of stopped looking at it, but it's, I think it, oh, yeah.
Like they, for example, one of the seamounts was back then was named the Atlantis Seamount.
In the literature and everything, and I've got the old from the 50s, 60s, 70s, and then we get closer to now, the same seamount has been renamed the Atlantic Seamount.
Really?
Yeah.
That's bizarre.
Well, I mean, to try to, you know, don't want to have that connection.
To try to get rid of that.
Yeah, the Atlantis thing.
That woo woo connection to Atlantis.
Right.
But what I try to show in my, you know, dissertation on it is that it isn't woo woo.
Right.
I mean, what's woo woo about it?
I mean, if you start talking about, you know, whatever.
You know, crystal spaceships or whatever.
Yeah.
But if you stick to whatever Plato actually says, which is what I do, I pretty much break Plato's two dialogues down and go, what did he actually say?
Now, what is geology, geography, oceanography, and so forth, botany and genetics?
What does all that say now in the context of what Plato said?
And that's where I come up with you know, that to me, Azores fits the bill.
But I'm not saying the Azores was Atlantis.
What I'm saying is that if Atlantis was real, of all the places that have been named as potential sites for Atlantis, I think the Azores is the most consistent with Plato.
And where did Plato get his information from Socrates?
Solon.
Solon.
Solon, okay.
Well, actually, from descendants of Solon.
In the Socratic form, it was Critias, who was like a great grandson of Dropidus, who I think, if I'm recalling the succession, he got the original story from Solon, who got it from the Egyptian priests, who gave him the date, which was 9,000 years.
In their sacred registers, Sanchez was the name of the priest.
And that would have been when compared to now?
Well, Solon's trip to Egypt occurred about 600 BC.
So if you had 9,000 years to 600 BC, which would have been 2,600 years ago, what's 9,000 plus 2,600?
11,600, which is precisely the end of the Younger Dryas, which precisely coincides with what's called Meltwater Pulse 1B, where there was a massive melting of the great ice sheets, pouring water into the oceans, causing the oceans to rapidly rise.
Coincidence?
Maybe.
But what if it's not coincidence?
All the pieces fit.
This is the stuff that I know you cover in your lecture series on it.
But once the glaciers melt, you have isostatic rebound of the Earth's crust, which is the lifting up, like all that weight of ice on the top of the globe here is going to come off it.
So I love the beach ball analogy.
It goes up, the mid Atlantic ridge, which is where the Azores is located, is essentially like think of it as like a hinge joint in the crustal plate.
On the planet.
So imagine if the land over here is going up, and what's it going to do?
It's going to pull that apart.
So you're going to have submergence of the landmass at that mid Atlantic ridge at the same time.
Yeah, it's going to go down.
It's isostatic compensation.
Yeah.
Because the Earth is constantly trying to make equilibrium.
So if one place goes up, someplace else has to go down, and vice versa.
That's the geoid.
It's trying to constantly adjust itself to fit the mathematical geoid.
Which is the perfect distribution of mass given the mass of the Earth, its orbital speed, its rotational velocity, rather, which is what causes that bulge around the equator.
So during the Ice Age, you had this enormous buildup of ice on the planetary surface, on the land.
All of that weight, which is billions of trillions of tons, is taken out of the oceans.
So, like Brent said, the beach ball analogy, if you take a beach ball and you press it this way, it bulges this way, right?
If you, Danny, get up and go over and sit down on that cushion, what happens?
Isostatic depression.
When you get your ass up off that cushion, you'll have isostatic uplift or isostatic compensation.
It'll come back up.
Right.
Right.
I told this to Joe Rogan when I was explaining to him, and I said, Joe, you probably didn't realize that right at this moment, your ass is causing isostatic depression of your.
The cushion on your chair.
He probably doesn't remember that.
But I did say that to him.
One more thing I wanted to cover before we get the fuck out of here is the idea of the pole shifts.
Magnetic poles.
The magnetic pole shifted and the Earth did like a 90 degree tilt.
No.
See, now there are a lot of these people that are speculating don't really even seem to understand the difference between the magnetic pole and the geographic pole.
The geographic pole is the Earth's axis of rotation, right?
The magnetic pole doesn't necessarily.
Exactly coincide.
In fact, it migrates.
It doesn't coincide with the axis, the geographic pole, which is the axis of rotation.
Those are two different things.
Now, I believe, you know, I've looked deeply into that when I was first studying catastrophism, looking at the work of Velikovsky and Charles Hapgood and others.
Charles Hapgood saw the catastrophic history of the Earth.
He was trying to come up with an explanation.
Continental Drift Explanations00:13:51
He came up with a relatively sophisticated model of crustal shift.
Not the whole mass of the planet because he looked at the mass of the crust, right?
Exactly, right?
Earth crust displacement was his theory, right?
So it becomes disconnected from like the mantle, yes, the athenosphere, the plasticky kind of connection.
You can think of the earth as like the crust as being like the skin on an apple, that's like a relative uh thickness of it, right?
But beneath that, we have varying degrees of like plasticity and connection.
So it's like the earth, the tectonic plates are sliding around on.
What is it, the Athenosphere that has this plasticky kind of properties to it?
And Hapgood proposed that that could have been disconnected and shifted violently or suddenly and then causing catastrophes.
He proposed that actually before continental drift was accepted by mainstream geophysics and geology.
Really?
Yes.
Yeah.
But of course, then when continental drift came along, this was a much slower process where Hapgood was envisioning something much faster.
Now, I. I'm not sure I'm 100% correct, but I'm pretty sure that Hapgood abandoned that idea eventually.
He didn't abandon the idea of catastrophism, just the mechanism that caused catastrophism.
Now, I have a.
It's very different.
I think that back to the subject of isostatic compensation, you figure, again, the geoid in equilibrium is spinning on its axis.
So now.
Remember the 13 mile difference between the equator and the Arctic?
That's the radius, yes.
Radius.
Yes.
Oh, never mind.
Sorry.
Radius.
The radius.
The diameter is double that, 26 miles.
So now you picture this.
If you have a huge redistribution of surface mass, so let's say that the weight of the ice over North America depresses the area of North America under the thickest ice by a couple of thousand feet.
Well, now it's not in equilibrium with its latitude anymore, is it?
Because all of the surface of the Earth's crust, if it's in equilibrium, the northern latitudes are going to be miles closer to the Earth's center of mass than the equatorial.
But now, what happens if you change that distance by thousands of feet, or maybe even in the case of the ocean bottoms, a mile or two, right?
It's not in equilibrium anymore.
There's not that correlation between the latitude and the distance from the Earth's center of mass.
Could that then lead to an accelerated plate tectonics where the planet is trying to regain that equilibrium?
So, in other words, if you've got large parts, the half of North America is depressed by 1,000, 2,000 feet, and then all of a sudden it's, and I say all of a sudden in a geological sense over a few thousand years, it's moved away from the center of mass.
Now it's the distance that it would want to be if it was at a much more southerly latitude.
Does that make sense?
I think so.
It does.
I think so.
Yeah.
So then it's trying to reseek equilibrium, which I think what you're saying is could that possibly cause a kind of a violent adjustment, which leads to volcanism?
A period of accelerated plate tectonics is how it's called.
So it's the bad news.
You're saying it's the weight from.
It's the mass.
Or the mass of the ice sheets on top of.
Again, picture this oblate sphere that's bulged out this way.
Right.
So at the equator, it's 13 miles, and it's happy there.
Now.
Go 45 degrees north, halfway to the North Pole.
Well, now it's six and a half miles closer, right?
Go even further.
Now it might be 10 miles closer, right?
Now, all of a sudden, let's imagine that it shifts upward by thousands of feet.
Now, where it wants to be to be happy is going to be further south.
It's going to want to be farther away from the Earth's center of gravity.
Got it.
That makes sense.
Yeah.
And what would cause that to happen?
Melting glaciers, melting glaciers, because you've got this huge redistribution of mass, right?
Okay, from off of the land surfaces into the ocean basins.
And during the onset of a glacial age, you've got the opposite you're drawing out trillions and trillions of tons of water from the ocean, piling it up on land, and now that weight is pushing the land down by perhaps several thousand feet.
At the same time, you're removing that weight.
From the ocean basins, which is going to cause the ocean basins to want to rise.
So, picture glacial, interglacial.
You've got water being extracted from the oceans, building up on the land surface.
From glacial back to interglacial, this is all melting and going back into the ocean.
So, if you look at over a long period of time, hundreds of thousands of years, oscillation, glacial, interglacial, glacial, interglacial, the shape of the geoid is pulsating.
In response to that redistribution of surface mass.
Right.
Now, I think there's a possibility, and I'm not a geophysicist, but I think it would be a possibility that that could introduce this disequilibrium that would cause the movement of the plates to try to shift.
And once they start moving, the inertia of that movement, they're not going to necessarily stop because clearly, like Hapgood was right, I think, you know, when you look at orogenesis mountain building.
Have you ever been up in the Canadian Rockies and look at these incredible overthrust faults?
That's a future tour, by the way, where you have slabs of rock thousands of feet thick thrust up over other, forming these mountain ranges.
Well, okay, you can look at rates of erosion, and the higher you get material up, the faster the rate of erosion.
The problem with mountains is this that seems to be ignored is that when you look at rates of erosion or down cutting, they're roughly, and if mountains are being built by continental drift, and continental drift is a few centimeters or a few inches per year, that would mean that they're moving, it's causing the plates to buckle and raise the mountains.
Well, the uplift of the mountains isn't going to be any faster than the lateral movement of the plates.
But we've got mountains that are 10, 12, 13,000, 15,000 feet high.
Yet, when you look at the rates of downcutting and erosion, the rates of downcutting of erosion, the eating away of the mountain masses being uplifted is roughly equal to the rate of uplift.
How'd they get up there?
How'd they get up there?
Unless the rate of uplift was a whole lot faster.
Way faster.
Yeah.
Interesting.
Yeah.
It's possible.
I mean, there's, I think places like Tiwanaku in, In the Andes mountain range, it's like that's a huge mystery about how the hell that whole plateau got up there and how it could have supported the amount of life that was required to create a city of that magnitude.
There are some real clues to something potentially happening at a faster rate.
I mean, I don't think it's like a day, like the flipping over.
There's too much inertia in the system and too much stability in the system for that type of thing.
Just personally, again, I'm not a geo.
Geophysicist, either.
But yeah, I am interested in the idea that something could have caused a fairly, at least geologically, quite rapid shift in the Earth's crust or in places like mountain ranges.
So I think we need to kind of recon.
See, I think we need to go back, take a kind of another look at the geological history of our planet within the context of catastrophism.
Because since the end of the 19th century up until the 1980s, The models of Earth history were strictly gradualistic, strictly uniformitarian, to use the term.
Right.
Meaning, we have unlimited, the biblical age of the flood of the Earth is 6,000 years.
So if you have 6,000 years, you've got to do all of this, create the surface of the world as it now is.
It had to be catastrophic, right?
But now suddenly we've got millions of years.
So we're going to get away from biblical literalism, which was actually kind of a straitjacket on science in the early days.
We're going to get away from that.
And we've got now unlimited amounts of time.
So, given unlimited amounts of time, we don't need catastrophism anymore.
It was kind of a case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.
We're going to dump biblical literalism, but at the same time, anything catastrophist was seen within that framework of biblical literalism.
So, it became one grain of sand, one drop of water at a time.
And people like J. Harlan Bretts, who came along and proposed to Who was the first to propose to the scientific community that these features that we were looking at in Washington were created by these gigantic floods?
He was rejected for 30 years because his critics said, We've gone beyond that.
We're beyond all the biblical stuff.
We don't need big floods anymore.
You're just trying to take us back to knowing the Bible.
But that wasn't the case at all.
The reality was that he was documenting these gigantic, you could almost say biblical scale floods.
But.
Biblical is a good word for it.
Right?
Biblical is a good word for it.
It would have felt biblical had you been witnessing it at the time, that's for sure.
If you somehow, by some fluke, were able to witness it and survive.
That would have been the hard part.
Yeah.
You could definitely see how it would have spawned that whole theological, moralistic framework for understanding.
And Brett was eventually vindicated on his deathbed, unfortunately.
Well, he got actually, I think he was 96 years old when he got the Penrose Medal, which is the highest honorary medal in geological science.
And like I said, I think he was about 96.
And a reporter or somebody asked him, Well, how do you feel about this?
And he finally, after all these years, and he said, Well, it's great.
The only thing is, my only regret is that I outlived all my critics, so they're not around for me to gloat over anymore.
Absolutely.
And I was right and they were wrong.
Yeah, I was bringing it all back.
I mean, the last time I had you on here, Ben, we were talking about like how what's it going to take for academia to accept some of the stuff that you guys are talking about?
What is it going to take to make this like the accepted narrative of the history of the earth?
Or not even the accepted narrative.
When are they going to open the door to new other.
Opportunities or other.
It's happening.
It's happening.
Cosmic Summit, perfect example.
And what I was explaining to Ben was like, people like you and Randall and Ben, both you guys, you guys have more of a reach to people than any textbook has or that any teacher at a university has.
It's almost surpassing what the quote unquote narrative is that you learn in school out of a textbook.
And, you know.
Bypassing it a little.
Yeah, it's.
Well, and it is.
I can see that that's a.
A slightly threatening thing.
I think certainly guys like Graham Hancock get attacked because of it, and there's a reaction from you would call academic circles to try and say, How can we become popular and get on social media and things like that as well?
I'd still like to see a.
I still would like to.
I think it's an ongoing debate.
I mean, I like that this information becomes more available.
People can learn for themselves and make up their own minds.
Right.
But I hate that there's actually battle lines being drawn on this.
I still think there's a need for more.
Sort of rigorous and open engagement and debate, which is not typically.
There's not.
We haven't seen a lot of that.
Yeah.
Right.
And social media is not the place to do it either.
It's, you know, whereas I think it's the, there should be proper forms for that type of thing to engage these different ideas.
I think it's definitely a political component to it because, for one thing, think about this.
If people started getting engaged with understanding how dynamic the history of this planet has been, which encompasses everything, changes in the environment, You know, climate change and mass extinctions and all of that, and potentially the rise and fall of civilizations being, you know, who succumbed to these changes, right?
Well, that's going to take away from the political narrative that they're trying to cram down our throats, which is it's all human fault.
Upcoming Montana Trip00:02:30
We're doing it.
You know, the whole climate change, see, and that's what pisses me off is that they've hijacked the term climate change.
Right, right.
Right.
Oh, of course.
I mean, anybody who studies the history of climate on this planet, Acknowledges, yeah, the climate has changed profoundly over and over and over again.
So don't tell me that I'm a climate change denier.
And I go, who's the real denier here?
The real denier is the one that refuses to look or refuses to admit that the climate is as dynamic as we now know for a fact that it has been and that there is nothing, nothing that has happened recently that is unprecedented.
However, we could talk about a few other things.
Possibly you.
We're not going to get into that now.
Looking at Maui.
I don't know if you've seen my series in the Cosmographia podcast where I'm talking about these great firestorms in history.
If you haven't, watch it.
Yeah.
And then circle back to the Maui thing.
I've heard the Maui is directed energy weapons coming from space.
I don't.
We don't need that.
Great Chicago fire, Peshtigo fire.
I know what you're talking about.
Yeah.
Hinkley fire.
Hinkley fire.
A little bit.
Do you guys look that up on Cosmographia if you're interested?
I think Randall's episodes on that are epic.
Are these like solar?
Related?
No.
Look at that.
We will.
We'll give you a little quiz next time.
Perfect.
Well, that's a great place to end this, guys.
Thank you so much.
I'll just finally say one last thing.
Yes.
The Cumberland Tour, we've still got about a half a dozen seats coming up in the first week in October, and it's amazing.
If you go on to randallcarlson.com, I'm disclosing some information about where we're going, what we're going to be doing, and to show people that, you know, Even here in the East, we have these amazing landscapes in our backyard.
Nobody hardly knows about them.
And again, it's going to be a way of bringing people out into the field and teaching them this language.
And then, like you said, the Montana trip coming up.
Montana trip's coming up as well.
That's probably on randolcastle.com as well if there's seats available or contact at thecabin.com for seats on the Montana trip.
And Ben and I will both be there in person.
We will.
Yep.
We will.
I'll link both of you guys' YouTube channels.
Yep.
Below so people can go check it out.
And then websites, randallcarlson.com, and you have a regular website?