Joe Rogan and Ben Kirkwood challenge the 6,000-year timeline, arguing that granite artifacts at Saqqara and tube drill cores prove a lost civilization existed during the Younger Dryas cataclysm. They cite Robert Schock's water erosion dating the Sphinx to 12,000 years ago and Chris Dunn's "Gezer Power Plant" theory, suggesting pyramids functioned as energy devices rather than tombs. The discussion links cosmic impacts, DMT usage, and cyclical destruction to global flood myths, concluding that recognizing these existential threats could shift humanity's focus from political conflicts to surviving future planetary catastrophes. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Secrets of the Egyptian Pyramids00:10:44
Everything you know about ancient history is wrong.
The Egyptian pyramids at Giza are undoubtedly one of the most, if not the weirdest structures on earth.
They are full of secrets that have not been exposed.
Who built these incredible structures?
Was it really the ancient Egyptians?
What's the speculation?
There are realms of science that sit outside of our understanding.
We'll know more tomorrow in 10 years, in a thousand years about science.
There is evidence of techniques and tools that we use that simply do not match the things that we find in the archaeological record.
It goes so much further than the pyramids to me.
We're looking at the remnants of a lost civilization.
We say they're tombs and Google might say they're tombs, but there's very, very little evidence that they're tombs, almost none.
Everything you know about ancient history is wrong.
What?
And we've got a roadie from Metallica here to explain it to you.
Let's go.
Okay, give it up right now for Ben!
Ben Kirkwood is end up building.
We got him here.
Okay, Ben, I'm so excited.
I've been talking to you and then stopped talking to you the entire morning that we've been here.
I want to bring people in.
Obviously, people are familiar with the pyramids.
They see these great structures.
They go, oh, this is amazing.
They've heard people say, oh, the aliens built them, et cetera.
Can you just break down why the pyramids are so amazing outside of just the visual stimulus that we've all seen in postcards?
Well, yeah, I mean, the reality of them is probably stranger and more interesting than anything people can think of in terms of fiction.
It's just they're for the longest time have been not only like the tallest man-made structure, but they've been some of the most precisely man-made structures we've ever accomplished.
Like we didn't, it wasn't until like the 1700s that we even developed enough precision to be able to define just how accurately those things are aligned to things like true north.
We're still discovering crazy coincidences about them in terms of, you know, they're encoding these fundamentals of nature.
The Great Pyramids, like I can talk about it a bit, it's a scale model of the northern hemisphere.
It's just like...
What do you mean by that?
Well, there's...
Let's break down some of the precision.
Sure.
So the Great Pyramid, mostly that's the one that's been studied.
We actually haven't done a whole lot of studying on the other pyramids.
It's something that's severely lacking.
In fact, we've not even cleared off the bases of some of the other pyramids up at Giza.
It's crazy.
We still to this day haven't done that.
But that pyramid itself, the Great Pyramid, the one that we all know, and look at the biggest one, it's aligned to True North within just, you know, a fraction of a degree off.
I mean, we just don't build with that type of precision even today.
In fact, the only building we made that was that precise was like an observatory in France that was the first one we ever made that even came close to that degree of precision.
They made that in the 1800s.
That's just one aspect of it, though.
It's insane.
Apart from it being just the tallest building forever until the Eiffel Tower was built.
So the traditional historical narrative is that these were built, what, 4,500 years ago?
Something like that, somewhere around the 2500 BC cell.
So they build this in 2500 BC, and then it takes us until 1800 AD in order to build something taller.
Yeah.
Just taller, not even as precise.
Yeah, nowhere near as precise.
4,000 years later, 4,500 years later, whatever it is.
So you can understand why people start to question the historical narrative.
Well, it falls apart under any rudimentary examination, just the logistics of trying to build that thing alone.
So you have to, the way that they, there's very little evidence that actually ties it to the guy they say who built it.
It's a guy named Khufu.
He's like a pharaoh of the fourth dynasty, old kingdom.
And he lived, they have to try and tie it to, well, because the whole story is like it's a tomb for him.
So, you know, when he came to power, he probably said, we're going to build this thing as my tomb.
So they had to get it done inside of his reign.
So that sort of pins it to like, well, 20 to 25 years.
Okay.
So you can break it down from there.
You can say, well, it weighs like 5 million tons.
No kidding, and it's made up of around somewhere between two and two and a half million blocks of stone weighing, you know, any of it, like two, three tons, some of them.
Some of the big granite blocks on the inside weigh like 70, 80 tons.
It's insane.
And these blocks are coming from quarries that are...
Some of them, yeah, the granite came from quarries that are like a thousand kilometers away to the south.
They had to be shipped up.
A lot of the limestone, so it's made up of granite in the inside.
The outside is two types of limestone.
The core masonry is...
This limestone, a lot of it did come from Giza, not all of it.
There's actually nowhere near enough quarrying to make up for all of it.
The Cairo area and then the outside casing stone is something called Tura limestone.
It's a very fine white version of limestone that came from a fair distance away.
But you can break it down from there.
So if you go, well, it's 25 years, two and a half million blocks of stone.
It basically means you, for 25 years, you have to be putting one block of stone in place, finished, shipped, carved, quarried, put in place every five minutes, every day for 25 years.
24-7, non-stop.
24-7, non-stop.
No union hours.
No union hours.
Yeah.
Over there.
Yeah, no breaks, no whatever it is.
I mean, it's crazy.
And that is only the pyramid.
And you've got to remember also, pyramids are part of a complex.
There's two other pyramids there, and then there's like three little.
There's a bunch.
Yeah, there's like nine or ten there originally.
But there's just that one pyramid.
It's not just when you build these pyramids that they're part of a complex, not the other pyramids, but they have a causeway.
They have these, they call everything's a temple or ceremonial, but there's temples.
There's years of work just in preparing the ground.
The whole foundation of what's around the pyramid.
I love going to Egypt and showing people, everyone stands there and they look up at the pyramids.
I'm like, look down at your fucking feet.
Look at what you're standing on.
There's these massive floor tiles that have been put into the ground.
Some of these things weigh up to like 200 tons.
And they're fit together like a geometric puzzle and done so precisely, you can't stick a razor blade in between the gaps.
I didn't know that.
Oh, imagine it's...
I didn't pick up on that at all.
So you're saying that they dug down and then created a flat surface.
A foundation.
And then tiled the foundation.
Yeah, with these, but some of these, I mean, you're talking tiles this thick, some of them even bigger.
In fact, the middle pyramid is even more impressive in that regard because it's built into a side of a hill.
Like it's literally a sloping hill.
So they dug down on this side and they raised it up on this side.
They made this flat platform for it.
And it's just astonishing engineering.
So you've got to factor in, and of course, these types of projects, you don't just make it up as you go along, right?
So how long does it take to design it, plan it, put the plant, that's years.
Doing the foundation work, that's probably years.
You have to make sure there's enough stone to even achieve it.
Just logistics is this massive problem.
I actually would love to do the exercise of working backwards because we've done some experiments on things like, okay, using really primitive methods, which is what the mainstream guys say they used.
It takes this long to cut stone.
And we've done a few little experiments here and there, but you can use that and work backwards, try to estimate how many cuts of stone do we need, how long would that have taken, how long is it going to take to ship the ship.
Oh, that's right.
You can see based on, what is it, axe and chisel or whatever it is?
Yeah, chisels.
So, well, this is the...
The hammer and chisel?
The stupidest thing about it all is these CDs.
The wonders of ancient Egypt, the pyramids, these giant granite single-piece statues and columns.
And they tell you that it was all made with round balls of stone and flint chisels, just like repeatedly bashing on them.
So let's assume it's like grinding on them with sand.
But let's assume it was.
You could calculate.
No, no, no.
But even if we were to, like, you could calculate how long it would take to take that round stone and the chisel and chip away and create these perfectly, they're not even symmetrical, but like these perfectly shaped, you know, shocks.
You wouldn't even be able to get them perfectly symmetrical.
But even as close to the cycle, you can calculate how long it would take.
Yeah.
And have you tried to do that math?
No, but it's on my list of things to do it.
In particular, I'm interested in like the granite as well, because like the granite's so hard to cut.
Granite's so hard.
There's a few things involved in the granite.
It's, it's, you know, they, they say, well, they, they grinded on it with sand and like they get a copper bar.
And we've done these experiments.
It takes, it's much harder.
Like that's the other thing that people try to compare, like the work of the Romans and a lot of times the Greeks.
They all worked in marble.
Like this is a very, very soft stone relative to granite.
Like frankly, granite's a stupid material to try and do this stuff.
It's so, it's harder than steel.
It's like a 6.57 on the Mohs scale.
You know, diamonds at a 10, your fingernails at a 2, copper's at... 3, bronzes are 4, steel's like a 5 and a, you know, 6.
What is marble out of curiosity?
Marble's like, I think it's like a 3-ish.
So this is theoretically twice as hard.
Yeah, it's just a super soft.
I mean, super hard.
You had mentioned like molecular manipulation.
Yeah, so that's the speculation realm, but it does to me.
And you can see a bit more of that, I think, you go like South America, because a lot of the real megalithic stuff in places like Peru.
And just so we can define megalithic.
A megalith is just a giant stone.
Giant stone walls.
Yeah, I call stuff that's megalithic is, I would define it as like, yeah, walls and structures made up of massive single pieces of stone, typically showing signs of precision in how they're built and just perfect alignment.
Like making these sort of mortalist walls is not easy.
Like we don't do that today.
Like this is what mortar does.
So I think this is one of the cool things that you've exposed and a lot of your contemporaries have exposed is that ancient history isn't studied by architects.
Do you know what I mean?
Or engineers.
So they're applying these ideas and principles to the information that they have, but they don't know what the fucking Mohs scale is.
So they're finding some tools and they're seeing some locks and they're going, okay, this is how they probably chopped up their rock.
And in their mind, engineering is limitless.
And you can do whatever.
Whereas an engineer would be like, no, you can't.
Well, an engineer shows up and then it looks at the granite and goes, wait, they did what with granite?
Yeah.
Yeah, it's the engineers that come along.
And in a lot of cases, the whole like all of the problems that come up with that orthodox story when it comes to engineering topics, that's been raised by engineers.
It's a strange thing to me.
It's like you wouldn't ask an archaeologist to design the chair that he's sitting on, right?
Yeah.
But if it's an ancient chair, he's going to claim domain over it and dominion over it and say, I'm the expert.
I don't care what you say.
So a lot of that happens.
And that's not to say they haven't tried to make studies into it.
And that's part of my work.
I dive into these studies and kind of tear them apart because they're ultimately really silly.
And when you go to Egypt, you take engineers, construction experts, architects, people look at it and they just see it immediately and go, this is nonsense.
This isn't the work of a primitive civilization or a Bronze Age civilization with simple tools.
And then, yeah, you come back to the pyramid and when you start to realize like there's so much more involved in this, there's evidence of this of the people that build it having cosmic knowledge, having a knowledge of the planet, the dimensionality of the Earth to a crazy degree.
The Age of Pisces and Latitude00:03:19
So if you take the, here's an easy statistic.
If you take the height of the Great Pyramid, you multiply it by 43,200, you get the polar radius of the Earth.
What does that mean, polar radius?
So from the center of the Earth to the North Pole, polar radius.
If you take the perimeter length of the Great Pyramid, you measure around the perimeter of it, and you multiply that by 43,200, you get the equatorial circumference of the Earth.
So the length of the equation is 43,000.
This gets into Randall Carlson territory.
It's a 43272, 7, it all relates back to, I guess, the cosmic sort of cycles and all of these processional numerology when you talk about procession of the equinoxes.
Are you familiar with this term?
So it's the great year.
Right now we're in the age of Pisces.
It's that 26,000 year cycle that's defined by where the sun rises on the solstice.
And it's like under what constellation does it rise.
So right now we're in the age of Pisces.
We're transitioning into, there's a whole song about this.
You know what the next age is?
Aquarius.
Aquarius.
The age of Aquarius, right?
And in fact, there's references in the Bible about this.
It literally, this, and think about like Jesus kind of represents the age of Pisces in a lot of ways.
You can have the fish on the city.
Yeah, to have the Jesus fish on the car, it's always a giggle because it's like, okay, it's Jesus, but you're actually, it's an analogy for the age of Pisces that we live in.
And, you know, he was, you know, he was a, part of his disciples were a fisherman.
He fed people with bread and fish.
The age before Jesus, 2,000 years ago, was the age of Aries, the Ram.
So think about another biblical figure that existed in the old time.
Well, yeah, Moses as well, right?
And he blew the ram's horn, you know?
And before that.
I wonder if that was him trying to talk because he had a speech impediment.
I wonder if they thought it was a ram's horn, but he was just like, it may be.
It just sounds like a ram's horn.
Yeah.
Yeah, it could have been.
Yeah.
But that's okay.
It's some Jesus.
Yeah.
Well, and it goes further too.
It's like you go back further and the age before that, another 2,000 years before that was age of Taurus, the bull.
So the sun's rising under the constellation of Taurus on that spring solstice.
And the story about Moses, do you remember what happened when he came down from Mount Sinai with the commandments from God when he was, you know what he found his followers doing?
Worshiping Ball.
Yeah, worshiping the golden calf.
And he murdered all those motherfuckers for it and they smashed the idol up.
It's sort of representation of age of Taurus is ending.
Now we're in the age of Aries.
Now we're in the age of Pisces.
And then there's a part in the Bible.
I can't just going from memory.
They're talking about Passover or the Last Supper.
And one of Jesus' disciples asked him, you know, what will we do without you, O Lord?
Like, what happens when you're gone?
He says, you know, have no fear.
Go into town.
Find the man bearing a pitcher of water.
Follow him to his house and there you will find sustenance.
So, you know, how is Aquarius described or shown?
It's like a man bearing a pitcher of water, right?
They're literally telling.
So it's this cosmic knowledge that's encoded in these stories.
Okay.
And it's encoded in monuments like the pyramid.
It's not, you know, they even have knowledge of the pyramid.
It encodes the specific shape of the earth.
By that, I mean the earth being this oblate spheroid, right?
Cosmic Knowledge in Monuments00:14:14
We're a little bit fatter around the edge than we are around north-south, right?
Because we spin.
So we're not a perfect sphere.
That ratio, you'd call it the ratio of latitude to longitude.
So if you take that grid of latitude and longitude, you spread it out on the planet, you go down to one quarter of one degree and you measure it.
So it's a little bit further sort of east-west than it is north-south.
That ratio of latitude to longitude is expressed in the pyramid.
Because it sits on something, you know, talk about the foundation.
It sits on something, sits on the foundation called the sockle.
So it's like they call it a cubit height.
It's about this high, sticks out about this far.
So it gives you two ways to measure the perimeter length, right?
You can measure the base of the pyramid or you can measure the base of the sockle, the sockle being slightly larger.
And when you ratio or you compare those two numbers, it's latitude and longitude.
And bear in mind that we couldn't figure out how to measure longitude accurately in our own civilization until the turn of the, what, the 19th century.
I think that's when it was.
James Cook's second voyage of discovery.
We could not measure longitude to save ourselves until we developed chronometers and watches accurate enough to do so.
And you're saying, according to the traditional archaeologists 4,500 years ago, and you believe probably much longer, they knew longitude and latitude.
If they knew the shape of the earth.
If we're accepting traditional archaeology, there's just all these crazy coincidences.
And none of that, they had no idea that if you multiply, it's a longitude, longitude, and latitude.
At the time, they just were not aware.
They were not privy to this information.
There's no proof to show that they were.
They say it's a coincidence.
All of these things, you keep coming up with them because there's other, you know, some people make an argument that the speed of light is encoded in the damn thing.
You know, there's all these crazy golden ratios and metrics when you get into like the king's chamber and the geometry of that.
It relates back to the meter.
There's so many interesting studies about it, but it's generally all described and hand-waved away as well.
It's just coincidence.
And it's like, you can find this stuff and you can analyze anything.
You're approaching this and like a lot of people in your position are going, these are a lot of coincidences.
And it might be easier to look at these people who built the pyramids as a different group of people than the dynastic Egyptians that lived, you know, 4,500 years ago.
Exactly what I think.
I think what we're looking at, and it goes so much further than the pyramids to me, we're looking at the remnants of a lost civilization that left stuff.
They might have left cultural knowledge.
They might have left architecture and objects that were inherited by essentially a Mesolithic people that developed into a Bronze Age culture that we call the dynastic Egyptians.
I think we have a good understanding of the dynastic Egyptian civilization.
The tools that we found, the way they live their life, that's the job of the Egyptologist.
And I think we're right about those guys.
I just don't think you can say they made everything.
And in fact, they themselves don't say that.
Like their own history goes back 40 something thousand years.
So when do you think they're made?
Oh, it's a lot of, I think pre-cataclys, a lot of this stuff, and I'm not saying the pyramids as they are.
You do have to kind of look through all this stuff with the lens of, I need to preface this because it's like there were thousands and thousands of years of renovation, reuse, rebuilding, adaptation, and then thousands of years of deconstruction, quarrying.
Like they've literally been ripping stone off these pyramids for the last couple thousand years and selling it up until about 50, 60 years ago.
Oh, wow.
So it's just that, you know, you have to look at it through that lens.
And the Egyptians spent many thousands of years working on this stuff and renovating it, using it for their own purposes.
But I think a lot of this stuff goes back to before the cataclysm, like the Younger Drys period, which we can talk more about.
But potentially goes back way further than that.
If I'm going to speculate, I mean, hundreds of thousands of years, potentially, 50, because even, and this is where it gets interesting, because there's so many other vectors from modern science right now that should be affecting that story of history, right?
The last 20 years, we've seen incredible advances in our knowledge base.
Not just the cataclysm stuff, to me, that's the key that kind of unlocks the whole picture, but even the history of the human race itself.
We thought for the longest time, if you're creationist, 6,000 years, okay.
But for the longest time, Victorian era, like, well, maybe it's 50,000 years as a species.
Then once we start dating human remains, we get to like 190,000 years old, like we found some stuff in Ethiopia.
And then recently in the last 300, right?
Morocco, they found a modern anatomically correct.
Yep, Morocco, you nailed it.
And that takes it to about 300,000 years old.
That's still the oldest actual thing in the fossil record.
But now we've got DNA studies.
There's a study that's done recently that shows like we diverged.
Us and Neanderthals like diverged from a common ancestor, somewhere in the 800,000-year-old range is what they're guessing.
And then the latest thing in the last couple of years studies into teeth morphology, like the really nerdy studies into how teeth evolve and grow over time, and they're putting it back at 900 to a million years old as a species.
So there is a chance that human beings have been here for a million years in our current form.
Yeah, modern anatomically correct, humans.
You could shave one down and put him out in the street.
It's like Brenda DeFraser and Cineman.
Yeah.
Now, yeah, that's crazy.
Now, we see how much changes within a thousand years.
We see how much changes within 200 years.
Yeah.
Right?
Like from the 1800s to now, a lot fucking changes.
So it is very possible there could be a civilization that pops up, achieves immense success, gets wiped out, happens again, like almost on some matrix shit.
Yeah, it's a cycle.
I actually do think that's, it's a long, convoluted thing to get to about why this stuff's important.
I do think there's a cycle almost of civilization and catastrophe or cataclysm.
And we've been through it.
Can you just explain?
I think it was Robert Schock had the theory about the Sphinx with water erosion.
That's right.
And I think that kind of begins this conversation about younger dryas.
Right?
Isn't it?
Yeah, it begins.
It ties it back to an era that happens to coincide with, yeah, the younger dryers.
And also, for that matter, Atlantis and Solon's and Plato's story of the destruction of Atlanta.
All of a sudden, the dates start lining up.
They really do.
It's amazing.
So break this down.
What is his theory?
DeGray, we shouldn't forget the, rest in peace, John Anthony West.
Oh, yeah.
So he and Robert Schock, he's the guy who invited Robert Schock.
John Anthony West looked at it at the Sphinx.
So the Sphinx, you know, it sits down at the end of the, there's a causeway connected to the middle pyramid complex.
It's in this big enclosure.
The Sphinx is not like a built thing.
Like they carved down into the ground and then they, you know, they shaped it out of bedrock.
It's what it was originally what you would call a yardang.
Yeah, it's a crazy name.
But it's like this limestone outcropping that sticks up out of the ground.
That was essentially its head.
So they carved this big pit and they shaped this thing out of limestone, out of bedrock.
So there's been a study done.
So Robert Schock is a geologist, I think, the professor of geology at the Boston University, if I'm not wrong, went and looked at the erosion that is present on the enclosure walls.
Now, the Sphinx itself has been repaired and worked on for like the Old Kingdom.
There's records of, there's another thing.
There's actually records of the Old Kingdom people fixing it when they supposedly built it, which is like, how does that make sense?
The Romans did it.
The New Kingdom guys did it.
You know, our modern guys have done it.
The British were working on it.
So the Sphinx itself is hard to get those indicators.
But the walls of the enclosure are untouched.
So he went in and studied it and he's looking at these vertical fissures and going, that's rainfall erosion.
It takes a tremendous amount of rain to create these vertical fissures in the limestone.
And remember, we're talking about the Sahara Desert.
It doesn't rain a whole lot.
I've seen it happen.
But you're talking about a lot of heavy rain, thousands of years of it.
Now, studies of the climate and the history of the region, we know that takes us back to fissures if you go to look at any of the canyons in the United States of America.
And I'm sure there's other places.
But you see these cracks in the stone.
And that's exactly how it was described to me.
It was like, this is water erosion, sometimes heavy rain, or sometimes there'll be like water actually coming through the canyons.
But these are these vertical cracks that exist in it.
Fissures.
Sorry, yeah, vertical fissures.
And so it was really cool when it was pointed out on the Sphinx.
And I'm like, well, where the fuck would the water come from that would create these?
Because it's intense amount of water that has to create.
It's rain, usually super heavy rain.
It's a different, if that was like filled up with water, you'd get a different type of erosion.
That's a whole other thing.
There does seem to be some evidence for that in some other areas, which is like, holy crap, because the evidence for mega floods in Egypt is there as well.
But this specifically is like rainfall erosion.
So that's where he dates it back to, you know, 10,000 to 12,000 sort of years ago, right in that period.
Now, when he presented this, and if you, by the way, if you take that, an image of those fissures and that limestone wall and you present it to pretty much any geologist without the context of the Sphinx.
Oh, yes, this is the Sphinx enclosure.
They're going to take it's rainfall erosion.
Even the arguments to this day, because they don't want to admit it, they're really weak source arguments against Schock's theory.
But when he went and presented it, he kind of got laughed.
He thought he was doing something that's going to really advance our knowledge base, but he kind of got laughed out of the room by the old boys network.
In fact, it was Mark Lehner who's like, show me the pot shards.
What is this date of like 10,000 BC?
Now, the funny thing about that is, is then along comes Gobekli Tepe, because that's a site in Turkey, ancient site, discovered mid-90s by the German Archaeological Institute.
And Klaus Schmidt, he's like trying not to say Klaus Schwab.
Don't say that.
Wrong Klaus.
Although he, yeah, sadly, Klaus Schmidt has passed away too.
But that site's been carbon dated and they know it was deliberately buried.
It's bang on in that, in that time period, it's not very far away.
They built giant stone megaliths and pillars and stuff, 10, 20 tons.
There was a culture doing that at that time.
It's like the tears around.
It's 10,000 years ago.
For a long time, 9,000 BC.
9,000 BC.
So 11,000 years ago.
Yeah.
Around that.
And there's not only Gobek.
Now it's Karahan Tepe and all these Tepees.
There might be dozens of sites now.
They're even bigger than Gobeka.
So you know that there is an ancient civilization creating some cool megalithic shit around 11,000 years ago.
And then it just so happens if you look at Egypt around 11,000 years ago, it was kind of wet.
Right, in that period, yes, there was rainfall erosion.
But, you know, look, I also know that it wasn't just that period.
And I know like Shock has had to be pretty political and cautious in his estimates.
But I do know that he also does push it back further.
Like when pressed, I mean, he can go back for like 50, 60, 75,000 years old.
Because, you know, there's other correlations with the Sphinx, the age of Leo.
Okay, explain that.
So this is what I think is quite interesting.
So let's just say we're operating in that like 9, 10, 11,000 year range.
The Sphinx, as we see it now, is this like lion that has a human's head.
Yes.
Right.
But the head is too small for the body.
That's crazy.
And if you were a brilliant, what are they called?
A stonemason?
Yeah, what you call it?
Stone carver, stone carver like that.
You're not going to make a mistake like that.
If you're the same people that build a pyramids to exact proportions, you're not going to have this tiny little head and be like, oopsie, I guess we didn't figure that one out.
So what a common theme is, is that they came across the Sphinx and it had a lion's head.
And then which pharaoh chopped it up and made the human one.
Yeah, we don't know.
Well, it's attributed to Khufra, the middle owner of the middle pyramid, the son of Khufu, the big pyramid, fourth dynasty.
That's generally what they say.
You're absolutely right about the head.
When you go there and look at it, the head's too small.
And the Egyptians, and look, they were master craftsmen and they built a lot of, they made a lot of statues, did a lot of work, absolute masters of proportion.
I don't think they would have got that wrong either.
And there's an interesting thing about that too.
It's like this story about the erosion because it goes back to the fissures on the wall in the enclosure.
They say, oh, that's wind and sand erosion.
Like this is what they say.
And you're like, okay, well, if you give that thing 50 years, you know what happens, right?
It fills up to its neck in sand.
It's just in sand.
So how long?
When we discovered the Sphinx, I don't know how long ago.
Oh, yeah, I mean, Napoleon ran across.
I mean, we knew it was there.
We've known about it for a long time.
It was buried up to the head.
How did you even know it had the body?
Yeah, it's like this head sticking out of the ground.
All the pyramids, too.
Like, they've had to excavate to get to the bottom of these pyramids.
Oh, yeah.
To get to the actual bottom layers, yeah.
Yeah.
So I thought, I thought, so you're basically saying it was protected by sand.
Well, it can't be eroded.
So, well, that's the thing.
How long does it take for this to be exposed, for it to be to get this wind and sand erosion on it?
And then you know what you don't see on the head?
Wind and sand erosion.
You don't see these vertical fissures.
But that's the part of the Sphinx that's sticking up above the sand that would be hit by wind and sand all the time.
So what is this telling you?
It's like, okay, so is it this all of us, is this top, is this head just, it's the same type of limestone?
I mean, it varies in layers, but it's like, this is way fresher.
The head's way fresher than the rest.
So let's assume they did carve a head out of the lion's head, right?
A human head out of a lion's head.
Yeah.
And let's assume the Sphinx, like the pyramids, had some sort of astronomical connection.
It does.
It does.
What does it line up with now?
Well, now, I actually, I don't know.
So it faces the sunrise, right?
So it's, it's, well, I guess it's, I guess it's Pisces.
It's where the, generally the way these goes in terms of the astronomical age or pointers, it's like the spring solstice or it's, you know, it's one of those dates where it's basically mysterious.
What was it 10,000 years ago?
Age of Leo the Lion.
So you have...
So it literally lines up as a marker.
It lines up 10,000 years ago with we're talking about the age like the sun rises in now.
It's Pisces.
It's going to be Aquarius.
And the constellation that was fucking rising on was Leo.
It's got the body of the Leo.
It's got this tiny little shrunken head.
Yeah.
Right.
Which could have been carved out of a lion's head.
There's a lot of things that are making sense for this time.
Question about the head.
Is the chisel marks on it?
Are the chisel marks as precise on the Sphinx's head as they are in the rest of the pyramids?
Good question.
Because if they're imprecise, that would speak to the ancient civilization technology.
I don't think there's any of what I would call the advanced tool marks on the head of the Sphinx.
Leo Rising and Ice Age Events00:12:54
No.
What about the limestone ones?
Yeah, are they like kind of jagged heads?
Yeah, it's similar.
It's very similar to a lot of the work and the quarrying that you see.
Because it's so big and it's relatively rough, it's huge, right?
But it's also limestone, which is much easier to carve than granite.
But there's not, I mean, when you get into the tool marks, maybe we can talk about that in a bit, but it's like these tubular drills and the actual saw cuts, the circular saw cuts.
You see all that stuff in basalt, granite, you know, diorite, the really hard stones.
You don't see it as often in limestone.
That was much easier to work.
I do think it was very, very likely the dynastic Egyptians who recarved the head of the Sphinx.
I 100%.
And dynastic Egyptians, for everybody listening, that's 4,500 years.
From the start, yeah, up until about 30 BC.
So their civilization spanned like, you know, a good 3,000 years or thereabouts, like from like 20, yeah, 2,500, 3,2,500 to 30 BC with Cleopatra with the snow.
Game over.
Okay.
Okay.
So, okay, now that takes us to the Younger Drys.
So what the fuck is happening?
Well, let's first, can you explain to people why an ice age isn't like the movie?
I think the common perception for humans is when it's an ice age, everything in the world is completely frozen over.
Nothing can live except the little squirrel with acorns.
Called the ice age.
And it makes sense.
Well, we're in the fucking ice age.
We're still in it.
We're in an interglacial period in an ice age right now.
So if there's glaciers.
53 degrees in New York while we're filming this.
Ice Age is actually ice.
Ice Ages are great.
Well, yeah, it's not Snowball Earth.
Like, it's not this planet snowball idea.
You know, millions and millions of years ago, there may have been periods like that.
But no, Ice Age and the glacial maximum refers to like when we had the Laurentide, the Corderan, and the European glaciers, you know, these two miles of ice that were sitting up on top of the northern hemisphere of the planet.
It was generally colder, but there were plenty of temperate zones and even tropical zones.
Essentially, it's a percentage of glacial ice that qualifies a time period to be an ice age.
They generally go on like the extent of the glaciers.
And so we can see from glacial till and the moraines and all of these geological features about how far the glaciers extended.
You know, you would have been buried under a couple miles of ice right here back in that period.
But it's also, you know, the sea levels were 400 feet lower because all that water's up on the land now and all that mouse sea levels rise, all that stuff.
And yeah, so that abruptly ended.
And so we've known, it's kind of interesting.
It's all work that's happened in the last couple decades, really, that has really advanced our understanding of what occurred at the end of that last glacial maximum.
Because it was violent.
Like that's the thing.
It turns out it was tremendously violent.
Again, so we understand this.
The younger dryest is the ice age or is the violent time?
The younger dryest is essentially the boundary between what we would call the Pleistocene, which was the glacial, like the end of the, like we would generally call it the ice age, but that's the like the glacial maximum and the Holocene, which is the era we're in now.
This nice warm weather that's been pretty stable for 10,000 years or so.
Like that's that's where we live.
It's the reason why we've got a civilization.
Gotcha.
The younger dryest is the transition point between that and it gets crazy wacky in terms of.
So something happened 12,000 years ago.
Yeah, 12,800 years ago.
It's a period between 12,800 years ago and 11,600 years ago.
And if you go back, it's this tumultuous time.
So we kind of have learnt this from ice core data.
So we go and drill down in Antarctica and Greenland and we drill down layer because right down into the ice and you extract these big tubes of ice because every year, you know, the snowfall gets laid down on there and it's compacted and you can do analysis on it and look at things like oxygen isotopes and determine temperature and accumulation of snow and all these different things about the past.
So a similar thing almost like with trees and rings.
Yeah.
Pretty much.
You're doing that with ice.
With ice.
And you can go back hundreds of thousands of years.
So what we've learned is that something happened.
Like we're coming out of this more or less warm, gentle, we're warming up from this glacial maximum.
But then all of a sudden it just goes boom down to these severe cold for like eight, seven, eight hundred years.
And then it's boom, jacked back up again by another event.
And then it's sort of, it's this gentle warming thing that gets us up to more or less the temperature we have now.
But there's this really violent period in between called the younger drys.
You go back further, there's ups and downs as well.
But the other thing that correlates to the younger drys is this extinction event.
We've known about that forever, right?
We've dug up mammoth bones and saber-toothed tigers and American lions and short-faced bears, like all these giant animals.
It's not the dinosaurs, but they were here.
Animals that exist now.
Animals, well, no, it's no, animals that were here, but only some 12,000 to 13,000 years ago.
So it's the megafauna extinction.
Think about the mammoths.
Like some people get megafauna for the people.
Well, megafauna is like any mammal or large animal with a body weight, I think, over like 40 kilograms, 80 pounds.
Yeah, woolly mammoths.
We are megafauna.
Yeah.
Oh, usually.
100 pounds, 40 kilograms.
Definitely megafauna.
Yeah, so any, that's the, yeah, 80 pounds-ish, something, 90 pounds, something like that.
So, and the crazy thing is, as many species of megafauna that there are alive today, that's basically how many went extinct in a very short period of time.
Also in that younger dry period, like 11,600 to 12,800.
So younger dry ice is not the event, it's the time period during the...
That's after the event before things start to normalize.
Yeah, so it's this period of time where it's this tumultuous time.
We've got these crazy swings in temperatures.
We've got these massive sea level, like these meltwater pulses where the sea level rises tremendously, very violently, and we've got an extinction event now.
All tied into this one period from ice core samples.
And now, since 2007, there's more than 160 papers that have also shown there was a cosmic impact at that time.
So digging in that layer.
So in that same layer in the dirt, you dig down the strata layers, you can date all that stuff, where those megafauna bones are, a lot of the extinction bones at that same layer, that's where we find what you call impact proxies.
So shock synthesized nano-diamonds.
So it's basically the impact and it's the byproducts of extreme heat and pressure and like soot layers and carbon and like all of these different indicators of basically cosmic impacts, like these gigantic explosions.
So this is what the Carolina Bays thing is.
Well, the Carolina Bays may or may not, it seems like it ties into this event, but no, let's not go there then.
Yeah, it's like a fall.
It's almost like splash damage.
Carolina Bays is just a byproduct almost of a big cosmic impact.
This is like the same, this is like just unimaginably violent events, these cosmic, either it's airbursts or it's huge impacts of stuff that's like a mile, two mile wide coming in at 40,000 kilometers a second kind of thing and just pounding into the earth.
And then it creates these tellers, these microscopic telltale signatures like magnetic carbon spherols, shock synthesized nano diamonds.
There's a whole list of them.
There's all these lot of these scientific papers that have now figured out.
It's evidence of impact.
They call it impact proxies, yeah.
So it's the thing we don't quite have are craters.
Now, that's stuff that Randall is working on, but you've got to also imagine some of these impacts.
They might not have all been impacts.
There might have been airbursts.
There was a good blows up before it hits the ground.
It's kind of what we see now with like, what is it, shooting stars and stuff like that?
Yeah, there was a big one in Tunguska in Siberia.
Yeah, that's the Russian one here.
Yeah, the Russian one.
Wasn't that impact, though?
That's a good thing.
No, it wasn't an airburst.
It was an airburst.
But I thought it flattened a giant area.
It's only a tiny little rock compared to what we would say.
So it flattened an area despite it being an airburst?
Oh, yeah.
Think of like a big bomb going off.
It's just a shockwave comes down and just goes, oh, you can't even get a picture up of that to show up because it still hasn't even recovered.
Yeah, in Siberia, right?
Well, there's pictures of all these just trees locked down by matchsticks, but you know, like acres and acres of it, yeah.
So some people go, well, where are the craters if there's this massive impact?
And what you're saying is you don't need a crater in order for the impact to have extreme damage.
Well, that's right.
So you'd still, you might have some remnant.
It could have been an airburst.
A lot of people mistake the research.
The latest research really shows it was a series of impacts.
It was a or airburst.
It wasn't just like one big one.
There was a whole range of them.
Yep.
It's like an asteroid belt almost.
It was actually a disintegrating comet.
This is a funny thing.
So it's a comet Enki.
Now, this came into our solar system a long time ago.
It's been broken up.
There's actually a it's formed what's a meteor stream.
It runs around the sun and loops out.
We cross through it twice a year.
It's the torrid meteor stream.
I think it's like June and October.
So we sort of cross over it twice, right?
I think Graham talked about it in his series.
He does.
And it's like, we don't know if there's large chunks still in this.
Like we do run into this same period.
And there's a lot related to that time period in October.
The Chicago fires of, I think it's like 18 or 19 something.
The great Chicago.
The Great Chicago fire.
Was it started by a comet?
It may have been an airburst or it might have been a remnant or even a gas bubble that came in from something because it also on the same day you had the Peshtigo forest fire, which was like, I think in southern Canada or somewhere like that, it's one of the craziest stories you'll ever hear because this huge area in the same timeframe, there's massive fire spread, like it's unimaginable conflagration, as well as what happened in Chicago, all in that same time period, the same time period when Tunguska hit, the same time of year when we're crossing this meteor stream.
So it's like, you know, this is not always the, you know, these little shooting stars aren't always the friendliest of things.
I think a lot of that ties back to this meteor stream and potentially this, yeah, this is.
This blew my mind a little bit when I was watching Graham's piece because I think my perception is probably similar to most people, which is like, there's been a couple comets that hit the Earth, like one or two every 65 million years, and then it's done.
And then Mark showed me this picture of all the comets that have hit the Earth, right?
He just sends me the picture.
He goes, hey, look at this.
And then I look and I go, wow, that's a lot of comets.
And then on the bottom of the picture, it goes, since 1994.
Yeah.
I thought this was all that ever hit it.
So, and I think it was, I don't know if it was you, but I know Rogan was messaging me about this too.
Yeah, here's a picture.
2013.
Just in 2013.
What, 19 years?
That's crazy.
So, so, and then Rogan said this as well to me.
He's like, yeah, we're in a shooting gallery.
And it's better we don't think about things like this, by the way.
It's better we assume it's just a big one hits and then like, okay, that's why there's that little hole near Cancun and then the dinosaurs go away and then we're back to normal.
Yeah.
It's better for the average person because I don't recycle as it is now.
But if you told me it's possible that next year we're going to get hit by some big shit, I'm not recycling ever.
I'm not going to do a single good thing for the environment.
Yeah, I was thinking that.
Like, I do.
These political arguments we have, like, how many genders are there?
Have a million.
Who gives a fuck?
Yeah, yeah.
We're going to die.
It's all over, baby.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay, so this this is happening between 12 and 11,000 11,000 years ago.
So that's that's the younger dryest period, right?
So and that's that is the category.
That's the true key to me that unlocks the story of civilization because if that event happened today to us, our civilization is gone.
If we survive it, we will be knocked back to hunter-gatherers and in a generation or two, we'll be sitting around the campfire telling ghost stories about plasma TVs and dancing around with black shiny rocks, trying to turn it on and say, well, this thing will give you an answer to anything and you can talk to someone on the other, you know, it's magic.
Can you paint that picture a little bit?
Like if Younger Dryas happens today?
What happens geopolitically?
Like, does a wave of the entire world?
It depends where it lands, what happens.
I mean, if you're anywhere near the actual impact site or the areas, I mean, you're just gone.
Every building.
Oh, done.
I mean, if you're anywhere near it, it's just instantly disintegrated.
The entire planet?
Well, if it's big enough, I mean, that's the problem is that you go back far enough in these extinction events.
I mean, some of them have eliminated like 99.9% of Earth of life on the planet.
If that happens, it's game over.
Like, we're back to microbes and let's start again.
But it's, you know, we're back to rats.
It's whatever.
Whatever the hell crawls out of the pond the next time and give it a billion years and see where we end up.
But it's, no, if something mediums or relatively small, younger dryas, I mean, that's an extinction event, right?
It knocked humans around, knocked off half of the big animals on the planet at the time, all of the woolly mammoths.
I mean, there's literally anything near that event.
We see this in some of the bones of these mammoth graves, right?
Ancient Tsunamis and Mammoth Graves00:15:39
It's absolutely crazy.
Think about an elephant's femur, how much force it takes to break the femur of an elephant.
There's literally these elephants had their feet in mud and their leg bones are just snapped clean off and there's hip bones up near their heads and they're just jumbled up.
There's whole cave.
There's whole caves.
Oh, oh, oh, I get what you're saying.
You're basically looking at this skeleton and you've never seen an elephant skeleton being absolutely destroyed like this.
There isn't an animal big enough that's alive that's going to do it.
It's not like there's some King Kong that's running around snapping elephant legs, right?
Yeah, it has to be.
They're either falling off a cliff.
Well, their feet are in the ground.
Like there's literally, they're stuck.
So their feet are still in this mud and then their bones are snapped off and they're all jumbled up.
I mean, there's.
Oh, so they're standing there and then they just got like this, this, yeah, this shockwave hits them.
In other places, there's all these megafaunas mixed up, bears and tigers and cats and trees and just this like forest just all smashed up and jumbled together.
They found something like that.
Like a landslide, but it's much more violent.
Like essentially, I think what you're looking at is these things were hit by a shockwave as a result of this.
Now, painting the picture, if it hits anywhere near an ocean or if it lands in an ocean.
Tsunami.
Tsunamis.
So you have these giant tsunamis moving at the speed of sound that might be half a mile high or whatever.
It's just going to water destroys everything, knocks out all the cities.
You probably have, I mean, forget electricity and grids and stuff.
I used to think this is why some governments around the world are making these giant underground bases, which may have also been what happened in the past.
That's what happened in Turkey, right?
Well, Derring Kuyu, yeah, but also Egypt.
There's evidence for this all over the world.
And, you know, there's all sorts of strange tasks.
Colorado, the airport.
Yeah, Colorado.
Exactly.
The airport, the Cheyenne Mountain up there in Colorado.
That's like where NORAD is and everything.
There's giant underground bunkers.
You can go.
I saw a TikTok of a guy driving a big-ass truck and you can just like huge cats.
And this isn't even conspiracy.
This is known, right?
It's like a doomsday bunker.
I don't know if you say doomsday, but yeah, it's an underground bunker that's as big as, or twice as big as the airport or whatever.
Yeah, and they can hold like 4,000 people or something like that.
This is end of civilization shit.
The government's thinking about it.
I saw an RFP.
I know a guy who knows a guy who is involved in some government.
They put out an RFP.
What does that mean?
Like a request for proposal for tech companies to go, we need a drone system.
You know, Prometheus movie?
Yep.
Where they throw it up in the air and runs off and maps these underground environments.
They wanted that type of system that can work without GPS because they're interested in fighting wars in underground cities.
Because they think that they think that maybe where it might go in the future, so they're trying to get it.
It's crazy they're thinking about war even after a mass is taking them.
That's us, man.
If there's an extinction level event, there's going to be violence followed very quickly.
For the last that survives.
You would love a series about this.
Yeah, it depends where you are on the planet and how your luck holds wherever you are.
What were you saying about the Turkey thing?
Derankuyu?
Yeah.
Well, so there's evidence for underground cities, ancient underground cities as well.
Yeah, all over.
Yeah, I think so.
Definitely places like Cappadocia and Derrin Kuyu in Turkey, they could have held hundreds of thousands of people.
Have you seen any of these?
No, no.
This is incredible.
So they basically carve cities out underground with access to air and water.
There's underground rivers.
So they knew where the river was and the water line was.
So you have everything you need, but I think it speaks to being very advanced.
One underground city, and we know where the water is, we know how to access the water.
And how many people could they hold?
Well, Darren Kuyu, I'm pretty sure, was the figures.
I think that's only a tiny part of it.
I think it could have been 100.
I've heard up to like hundreds of thousands of people, certainly more than 50,000 people.
But same thing in Egypt, and there's rumors of this stuff all over the place.
I mean, there's giant underground networks of tunnels underneath Saqqara, I think underneath Giza, all over Egypt.
Now, is it possible that they're using this during the time where there's tons of comet impact?
I think that's probably why.
I mean, it speaks to someone who they may have known it was coming.
Like, you've got these indicators.
Like, if the Sphinx is marking the age of Leo and you've got these alignments, I mean, they're pointing at that for a reason because that time period is also that of cataclysm, right?
It's at least in the last processional cycle, the last 26,000-year period.
It kind of lines up to it.
And Gobekli Tepe has a lot of research done into that side as well.
It may be an astronomical calendar and a historical one, but it seems to point at this time.
It's like they're transmitting a message down through time.
It's possible.
That's telling us, look at this time.
Like this time means something.
This was bad.
Like, figure it out.
And if they knew it was coming, maybe they were preparing these things as, you know, the doomsday bunkers, a place you could survive until it was, the outside was nice enough to come back out and go, holy shit.
What's the stone that has the different constellations on it and Gobekli Tepe?
Ram talked about it.
Yeah, it's like Pillar 13 or Pillar Pillar 5 or whatever.
Yeah, I'm not sure.
But basically, it has this like, maybe he might be taking liberties on it, but like they have an organization of the constellations that happens to the last time the constellations were organized in that manner, there was a global cataclysm.
Right, right, right.
So it's like, they're not usually organized like that, but when they are, this is when it was, it was basically go time.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know, and it lines up with the younger drys.
Okay, and where do they think younger drys did hit and what do they think the damage was?
So I think it was a northern hemisphere impact.
I think you're mostly looking at ice impacts onto what was the Laurentide and Calderan ice sheets covered most of like North America and Canada.
I actually think that some of the Great Lakes region, Randall's doing a lot of really good research into what could be actual impact formations in the geology of the northern United States and Canada today.
Because the other thing is we know that that's where a lot of the meltwater from these glaciers came out, right?
This is the evidence for, have you guys ever been up to the scablands, Eastern Washington State?
No about this place?
I've seen the videos.
It's crazy.
Amazing.
These giant coolies, you're talking one of these coolies, just one of several of them.
What's a coolie?
A coolie is like a canyon but with no water.
Yeah.
So it's like this giant like thousand, think of like the Grand Canyon, but you know, much super wide, thousand foot high or 800 foot.
It's also a racist term for Indians in South Africa.
So I got a little bit uncomfortable when you kept saying that.
It's with a U in it.
Okay, God.
But it's, yeah, it's the channeled scab lands.
And it's basically the outwash of this water, there's tremendous floods.
We know now that this all happened at the end of the ice age, but it completely destroyed that environment.
It carved up, it ripped through this land.
I mean, you're talking about a single one of these channels, and there were multiple of them.
It's like 50, 100 times the volume of all the rivers on. the earth at once.
Oh, wow.
Like, you know, just almost like a billion cubic feet per minute at where it all gathered up.
It's just the catastrophic flood in this world.
It just tore through.
Like the flood, so where it's carved that channel, the actual water was probably three, four hundred feet above that, and it just, it just ripped through here.
All the national parks in the United States of America are just remnants from the latest cataclysm.
Yes, America.
Cataclysms make some cool shit.
They do.
Like, this is stunning.
And if you go down to, where was I in?
Like southern Utah and stuff like that, you see these like, even they're not cataclysms, but exactly.
Like the damage from the water damage from canyons creates some like stunning beauty.
Why can't it just be like gentle erosion over a million?
Well, that was the argument for a long time until you had guys like Jay Harlan Bretz was a catastrophist.
And then Randall Carlson's doing a lot of good work in this space.
And now this, at least up here in the Channel Scab lands, they have swung around.
So it's a long story.
It comes back to religion, funnily enough, because the story of religion was always catastrophism, right?
What's the story in the Bible?
It's Noah's Flood.
It's the great flood, right?
So that was always where we got our answers from.
So you have the age of enlightenment, the age of reason starts.
Science has its beginnings.
Geology emerges as a fledgling science.
And for something like 60, 70 years, a stated goal of geology was to get as far away from the catastrophism of religion as they could.
So think of it as like a massive overcorrection.
They went out there and said, you go out and you have to explain every feature we see on the landscape with gradualism or uniformitarianism, which is the gentle, slow, erosive processes that we see in place today.
Like the streams slowly eroding stuff, hills and shapes taking form.
So that's what ends up in all the textbooks.
And some stuff is still explained like that.
And it's frankly nonsense.
But now we're sort of coming back in the other direction and going, you know what?
Some of these landscapes and features are the result of catastrophic flooding.
And at least up here in Washington state, they're like, yes, there's still arguments going on.
Some people think it's like 50, 60 floods.
Randall thinks it was one or two.
I think Randall's right.
He has significant evidence for it.
There's all sorts of problems with like how ice dams reform.
It's kind of a convoluted long story.
But this does align this model.
This environment aligns with like the meltwater pulses.
So everything wraps up and shows that in that period, that younger dry period, when we had all this ice on land, it all ended up in the ocean in a big bloody hurry.
It's like, and it just, that's, we, and we don't, you need, you need an external source of energy for that.
If you took that lump of ice that was on top of North America and you plopped it down in the warmest waters at the time, say somewhere around Indonesia, it'd take 30,000 years to melt.
It would still be here.
But it melted in an incredibly short period of time.
So you need this source of energy.
Turns out, then you combine that with all of the strata work.
So it's like the macro scale and the micro scale.
The macro scale, we've got these catastrophic landscapes, the work of Randall Carlson.
The micro scale, we've got all the work of the Comet Research Group, 160 plus peer-reviewed papers looking at the science.
So we've narrowed in.
We're like, God damn, this was a violent period.
It probably knocked our species.
Graham says we're a species with amnesia for this very reason.
It's a great analogy.
So you turn all of this around.
I think that's why catastrophism, the Younger Dry Ice, is the key that unlocks this longer story of civilization and human history.
Because now you've got all this other evidence, these stories that are embedded in religions and origin stories and cultures that speak of earlier times.
Every culture out there is like, hey, our ancestors went through either flood or fire.
It knocked them down.
They had to rebuild.
It's like, is this all bullshit?
Yeah, there's a flood myth in Mayan mythology.
There's a flood myth and like Christian.
I'm sure there's Indian, I mean, everyone.
And this makes sense if these comets were hitting more regularly and then you were experiencing these floods.
I think some of these towers include basic eyewitness accounts of these floods.
If you go to the other vectors directory on there, you can pull up a few.
The Mahabharata literally talks about swarms of meteors coming out of the sky.
Revelation 8 and 9.
What's the Mahabharata?
It's Mahabharata.
It's a Hindu story.
Hindu epic, yeah.
Yeah, you go to other vectors in there.
Oh, in this one?
Yeah.
It's third one down.
And I guess my question is if there's a gap between Hinduism's 4,000 years old, the Younger Dryas period is as many as what?
12,000 BC?
So that's 12,000 years old.
12,000 BC?
No, just 12,000 years ago.
12,000 years ago.
12,000 years ago.
So there's that 8,000-year gap.
How does that story hold up for 8,000 years?
If theoretically we went back to, and I'm not saying this to kick at you, I'm just curious, and I'm sure you've thought this through.
If we went theoretically back to a stone age, how did we maintain these eyewitness accounts for 8,000 years?
Well, I think that's, they get deified.
They get put into stories.
That's how we, that's like the oral tradition.
That's how we transmit the data down through time.
Not only, I think, are there eyewitness accounts and stuff like this, I mean, Revelation 8, Mahabharata, all of these stories, I think it's an oral tradition.
And there's also evidence in all of these stories for celestial knowledge, for those, that same processional numerology I talked about.
There's a whole book called Hamlet's Mill.
It's a complicated book, but they essentially showed in that from all these cultures all around the world, there seems to be that same processional numerology, these 72s, this stuff that correlates to the cycles of the heavens and the cosmic world, is also encoded in these tales, in some cases in civilizations where we know they had no clue about this.
All of it points to like these, like a common ancestor, a common progenitor of this story.
I think that, I mean, to be fair, some of these things, the biblical flood, the flood of Moses, for example, might have been related to an event that happened called Berkle Crater, which was about 5,000, I think it was 5,000 BC or 5,000 years ago.
They may be smaller events that have generated floods.
Like this isn't the only impact.
Like Berkle Crater was a, I mean, it would have flooded the Middle East right around the right sort of time.
It landed in the Indian Ocean.
800 foot tsunamis hit Madagascar and the coast of Western Australia.
Yeah.
That probably fucked India up too.
Yeah.
It would have washed up north.
Yeah.
So I think that a lot of this stuff gets transmitted down through time with oral traditions and it gets put into these stories and characters and deified because that's how we retain that data and transmit it down through time.
And what was the timeline of the pyramids, the Great Pyramids and the Younger Dryas?
Well, I mean, they're not, if you ask the Orthodox Egyptologists, they're not related.
So Younger Dryas, 12,800 years old to like 11,600.
Pyramids started about 4,500 years old, according to the mainstream story.
So, you know, 2,500 BC.
But it's possible that those pyramids could have been made 30,000 years ago.
It could be, or at least the structure, the base of them, a form of them that was there.
Like I said, you can't really...
It's very difficult to distinguish what the dynastic Egyptians did to it.
They probably worked on them, repaired them, maybe have done some of the work.
We just don't know.
That's part of the challenge of looking at this stuff.
You have to factor in that a lot of it's been reused.
And we have strong, strong evidence of that.
When it comes to things like statues, because it's not just a pyramid, you know, it's like recently a lot of work in looking at the precision that's evident in these vases that come from the earliest times.
Yeah, this vase stuff is...
Can you get up some of the vase images?
I mean, this is the vase directory.
This is mind-boggling.
Because really what you're trying to do is if your argument is that there was an ancient civilization with much more sophisticated technology, you can prove that through artifacts that existed at the time that were beyond the scope of the technology that traditional archaeologists believe existed.
So if you have, it's hammer and chisel, is that the term?
I mean stone pounders and chisels.
Okay, so stone pounder and chisel.
If you have stone pounder and chisel, but you also have an artifact that couldn't possibly be created with stone pounder and chisel that comes from that time or time before it, there either is another technology that is now long gone or the timing is off on the pottery.
Yeah, you've just summarized it.
Or not even pottery, the vase.
So explain this vase thing.
This blew my fucking mind.
Yeah, so that's, you did a great job summarizing it right there.
It's there are these artifacts that exist from, I would say, pre-dynastic times up until the very earliest of dynasties, like the old kingdom, right?
But you talk going back 15,000 years.
Some of these have been found in sites that are dated back 15,000 years.
So they've been found in sites.
They've been found in dairy.
Primitive burials that date back to 15,000 years.
And everything else about these burials, they seem Mesolithic, right?
It's a guy curled up in the fetal position in a shallow grave, a place called Toshka, for example, is one of these sites.
Prehistoric Engineering Industries00:04:03
They found this.
And there's primitive pottery in there.
Very much matches the, you know, Mesolithic times.
But they also found...
With the primitive pottery.
And keep in mind, this is not pottery.
This is not pottery.
These are vases that are made from extremely hard types of stone.
Granite, diorite, porphyry, shit.
If I'm an archaeologist and I see some pottery and I see this vase, I see it in this grave site.
I'm going to go, okay, it's probably made around the same time.
This all makes sense to me.
I'm not an expert in fucking geology.
I don't know what this stone is or that stone.
What's that?
Engineering.
Or engineering.
I'm going to throw them all together.
This makes sense.
Then you get some fucking engineering nerds to look at it and they go, wait a minute, this isn't pottery.
This is granite.
Well, hardest.
Or even, right?
Okay, so random.
So what was this?
Yeah, so this one right here.
Yeah, I mean, and so these vases display remarkable engineering characteristics, also precision.
And so there's a lot of challenges when it comes to making this sort of stuff.
It is tremendously difficult.
So it's very hard to explain with the primitive tools and technology that we know those people had.
So as you said, it either means there was a whole other technology and engineering process available to them that we had no evidence for, or the timing's off.
And so they may have inherited them.
Because again, you're also writing about how they date stuff in ancient Egypt.
If it's buried on a site and somebody wrote something on that site and they say, then they just pretty much go, everything from here is from this period, this time.
Based on the writing or based on the context of where it's found.
It makes sense.
But these guys aren't experts.
Well, they're not engineers.
It does, but it also rules out this idea of inheritance.
It's funny enough that there's so many of these have been found, like 40,000 to 50,000 of them were found beneath one pyramid.
50,000.
40 to 50,000 of these hardstone vases, these remarkably engineered objects, beneath one pyramid, Joseph's step pyramid, supposedly the first pyramid, at Saqqara.
And even then, the mainstream Egyptology has been forced to admit that, okay, most of these were probably inherited.
Like he didn't have them made.
They have to admit that.
And they say, well, they're probably first and second dynasty, which is also nonsense because they go back thousands and thousands of years before that.
But after that period, like the third and fourth dynasties, what's so important about these vases, I think, is that they kind of disappear from the record.
Like they don't keep making them.
And why would you stop making something that was so?
It's so easy.
And well, they make an inferior product after that, made out of alabaster.
You can see it's all handmade.
They're beautiful.
There was a whole other industry.
But doesn't have to be.
It's not remotely the same thing as that.
Explain some of the precision, though.
This is where it gets wild.
This is crazy because most of these are under lock and key.
Look at that.
This is one of my favorite.
Yeah.
So they're remarkable, right?
Hardstone, very, very harder than steel.
Put it this way.
Some of these vases, there's even a corundum one, or a lot of them have like inclusions of corundum.
That's a nine on the Mo scale.
The only thing hard on that.
It's a diamond.
Wow.
Is diamonds.
They've shaved it down with this level of precision.
And symmetry.
It can stand like it's standing on like a...
There's no flat bottom.
Right.
Yeah.
This is the rounded bottom.
So the vase needs to be evenly distributed in the weight in order for it to stand like that.
If I saw that today at a Creighton Barrel, I'd be like, how y'all do this?
A million dollars.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, dude, some of them on the market, they go for big, big money because there are people understand the value in it.
And I think the ancients understood the value in it too.
Well, that's why they're buried under the fucking thing.
Like if you have 30,000 of them, they're treasures.
And they knew that they were treasures.
And that's why they took such good care of them.
They knew that there was something different going on when these vases were made.
And that's why you find them all in the same place.
They never looted.
Well, in some places they were.
I think Joseph probably looted them from older tombs and buried them with him.
And a lot of these were looted.
He buried so many of them.
I think a lot of them were smashed up, probably had, at some point when they were looting down there, at that point, the tomb raiders are probably trying to break them, looking for like a these full of gold.
What the hell's in here?
Like there's so many.
And then some of these assholes would scratch their names into them with a chisel and it's just horrible writing that's on a couple of them.
It's like they lack the precision and all that.
Precision Vases and Hidden Treasures00:06:33
100%.
So the precision is what's interesting.
We've been able to eyeball these things.
You can kind of look at them.
No one yet until just recently has been able to actually analyze one of these things in detail.
Now, and I've put out a couple of videos recently about this, been working with some guys, professional metrologists who work in the aerospace industry, making like turbine blades and super high-end precision.
Like these are guys of no shit professionals in this space.
They have taken one of these vases that belongs to a guy who actually lives here in New York in a private collector because you can't get to these in a museum.
They're not interested in studying the engineering of these things.
But we got one of these pre-dynastic granite vases and we scanned it with a structured light scanner that scans it down to like the thousandth of an inch or for all the people out there that hate the imperial system that harass me all the time, 25 microns.
No, no, no, we don't do that.
Yeah, yeah.
It's thousandths of an inch.
I'm fine with that too.
It's just, this is just, nerds go crazy about this shit.
But it's, and the results are truly astonishing.
What we found by analyzing these, the scans of one of these vases, it has to have been designed and manufactured with a system that is incredibly precise.
They can get things down to a thousandths of an inch.
Now, bear in mind, the width of a human hair is between two and three thousandths of an inch.
So you're talking about precision and levels of geometric sort of sophistication that's half the width of a human hair.
What is down to a thousandth of an inch?
Well, so what you do is, and if you go to vase scan, there's a directory called vase scan.
This is just pictures of the vase, but I've got a directory called vase scan.
You look at it and you go, okay, so the top of the vase, we can define how flat that is, right?
And we can also say, well, think of that as a horizontal axis.
And then there's the mouth of the vase.
And what they do, if you go to vase scan, the directory, when you scan this thing, that's the vase that we scanned.
So if you go to like the second and third picture here.
So yeah, so essentially we're taking the top of that vase.
We've mapped it like a horizontal axis to it.
Now we're mapping a cylinder to the neck of the vase using more than, I think it's 10,000 points of reference.
So a very accurate representation of that neck of the vase.
And you can compare it to that top.
So we know, okay, that cylinder, once you map a geometric object to it, you can perform geometry on it, figure out what's its center line, what's its center point, all that stuff.
It's perpendicular to the top of the vase, perfectly within one thousandth of an inch.
Oh, wow.
And then so, and then you...
Basically, the top is really even.
Well, it is super even, but now you've got, think of it, now this vase, we've defined an X, like a horizontal axis and a vertical axis.
Now we can go and map geometric shapes to other parts of the vase, the cylinders to the lug handles, cones to part of the vase body or a sphere to part of the vase.
I just want to make it like digestible because I heard you talk about this before.
And so just for that top part, basically, if we assume the bottom is flat, the top is almost perfectly parallel to the bottom or the ground it's setting on.
That's what you're trying to say.
Yes, in terms of precision.
Well, perpendicular and parallelism.
Perpendicular is when this is what you guys are doing.
But I'm just trying to explain like how flat the top is.
And that's why it's so impressive.
It's flat.
I think if you go to the first one, it's flat within like four thousandths of an inch or something.
It's insane.
And then no ancient tools as we know them would be.
It's a level with the best.
The point of this is this is so far beyond the realms of some dude banging on it with a rock or grinding on it with sand and a stone, which is how they say they were made.
It's impossible to explain this with hand tools.
But this is the thing that's so interesting to me is that there's this sophistication bestowed upon a quite meaningless object.
Right.
Right.
It's a whole other thing.
A pyramid is different.
And 50,000 of them.
It is.
And 50,000 of them.
Yes.
So you need to be able to replicate that.
Maybe they have a factor.
And over and over again.
Now we're talking.
There's an industrial process at pointing.
And so there's a long discussion you can get into about the relationship between precision and function.
You only develop this type of ability to work in these precise measures if you are getting a functional return.
Think about it this way.
And then once you have that capability, your manufacturing capability can be very precise, you can then apply it to everything, right?
So I think there were functional objects.
Some of these, either it's the sites, might be the pyramids, might be these giant bloody boxes that are underground everywhere.
I think a lot of that seem to show the same type of precision, I think they had a functional purpose.
I think that's why they developed this level of precision.
But then they just applied that manufacturing process to everything.
Think about it, like, have you ever owned a car from the 60s?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah?
Like, you have to turn the wheel this far to make it actually the wheels before they start to turn and the panel gaps are wide and the rain gets let in and cars today.
They're beautiful.
They're all put together.
It doesn't, we don't need that, but our manufacturing capability has robotics.
It's much better.
That precision in manufacturing gets applied.
And I think that's what we're looking at here.
I actually think there may be functional purposes for these things.
They could be, they could have acoustic properties.
They might have been parts of other machines.
We don't know.
That's the other crazy part about this is like it's the temptation is always there to look to look at us and say, how would we do it?
Evase to us is not evasive.
It might not be.
It might be more than ours.
Exactly.
It might be.
It might be something else.
Here's a question I have for asking for a frame of reference.
This civilization was much more advanced than we were up until recently.
Around what time did our modern civilization become as advanced as they were, if at all?
No, I think so we could do, if we put the time and effort and money and resources to it, I think we could replicate a lot of this stuff.
We haven't ever done it.
It's too expensive.
No one's got the backbone or the resources to do it.
That's not to say we couldn't do it.
And our technology, I think, is different.
I think we, when you look back at technology, think about like, you talked about the progression of technology over a couple hundred years, right?
We've gone down this electromechanical route of how we work and the world works.
The temptation is there to then apply that to the past.
But think of like in 50 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, we're going to know so much more about all these other realms of science and technology.
I just think some of the answers and the paths that this civilization may have taken could be outside of our current understanding or perspective.
I think they may have taken different routes.
Their technology might have been very different.
So it becomes really hard to connect.
We have to assume that because there's no evidence of the electromechanical technology.
Mainstream Egyptology vs New Routes00:14:49
Well, yeah, there's nothing.
Like there's no computers.
There's no, then there's the whole where are the tools argument is one that gets raised all the time.
And that's a reasonable fucking argument.
It is.
It's you've got these things that can't be made with these ancient tools.
The ones we found.
The ones we found.
So where are the fucking tools?
And I think you hear this a lot of times with like the skepticism about ancient civilizations.
It's like, okay, well, where they live?
Where are the homes?
Where are all these things?
These are good questions.
And I think that we should be asking these questions.
And I think it's good that you don't get defensive about those things.
I think, yeah, they're valid questions.
And I think there's a lot of, we haven't looked in a lot of the places where I think this stuff's going to be for starters.
And where do you think it's going to be?
Well, I think Graham Hancock makes a great point about this, but it's like sea levels rose 400 feet all over the world.
There's like 10 million square miles of land that went under that would have been coastal and inhabited during these periods when the sea levels were far lower.
We don't look at that stuff.
Marine archaeology is 100% focused on shipwrecks.
We just don't, we don't look in these places.
Like the Amazon, the Amazon, thanks to deforestation of the Amazon, we're finding the remnants of cities.
Thanks.
Well, thanks to one good thing.
One good thing of all that.
We're finding the remnants of cities that have no place in the story of history.
Yeah.
But they're the size of like London in the 1800s and there's hundreds of them.
Like we have no clue where they're.
They're finding these massive pyramids still.
I think the biggest one they've ever found is La Danta in Guatemala, I believe.
Yeah, I'm not sure.
I thought the biggest one by mass might have been Cholula.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
That was the one that was also in the Cholula, Mexico.
But yeah, it is just fascinating to see it.
Like how much is covered up.
Yeah.
I mean, if you even see like the, where are the pyramids outside of Mexico City?
What are those?
The Temple of the Pyramid of the Sun and the Moon.
Yeah, I've forgotten the name of the...
Whatever.
I went over there and they showed images before they started scooping out all the land and everything.
They just look like mountains.
How many mountains, how many hills exist right now that little kids are playing on top of stone structure?
That there are fucking houses built on top of that are actual old pyramids.
They say that thing about one in, I think, Albania.
Yeah.
That one's disputed.
It's disputed.
It's Bosnia, you mean?
Yeah.
Bosnia.
Yeah, so I personally think that's a natural formation.
That's not to say that there's not tunnels.
There are tunnels and structures in it, but that one, you always see it from that one angle.
It's just the one picture.
Get on Google Earth and spin around.
You're like, oh, this is just part of the mountain of a mountain range.
But there are pyramids all over China.
This look exactly like this.
They literally have been deliberately planting over them since the 80s.
I mean, trees and hills now.
It's just, but they're pyramids.
If we assume that the Sahara back then was completely lush, if it looked like the Amazon, if that's true, right?
How many cities, pyramids, other megalithic structures are just covered in sand dunes?
It could be tons.
Even today, archaeologists in Egyptology will tell you 70 to 85% of ancient Egypt is still buried beneath the sand.
I mean, think how big they need to make the pyramids for us to even see the tips of them.
Just the tips of the fucking pyramids and barely the head popping up of the sand.
That's how massive it had to be to weather, what, thousands of years?
Well, yeah.
I mean, yeah.
I mean, at least thousands of years, potentially a lot longer.
Because those dunes shift around too, right?
They do.
Well, in fact, yeah, you can, I know guys that bank on that.
You actually go and as the dunes shift, you kind of every few years, you might go and look at the area between the dunes because it's kind of uncovering more ground and you go and find like Arab stone, you know, tips and arrow points and heads and stuff.
Yeah, so there's a lot of parts of the world we haven't looked.
A lot of the areas, there was a lot of devastation.
I think we don't, it's hard to comprehend just how much work with the end of the younger dryest, like the sediment layers, like stuff might be buried at the bottom of the ocean under hundreds of feet of water, but under 200 feet of sediment as well.
Is this one.
That's the Pyramid Of The Sun.
I think it's Teyahuatakan yeah, Teahatikan.
So this is the one in Mexico City, right?
Yep yep, I mean, look at how it looked.
Yeah, there's the sphinx's head sticking out as well.
Yeah, I don't even believe in mountains anymore.
Yeah, they might not be.
It's crazy.
Some people think there's a pyramid Antarctica.
Oh, i've I, you showed me that crater impact.
We do know that there was a massive crater in yeah, probably many.
Yeah, it's probably been tons over the.
Yeah, so i'm curious, why is the pyramid so significant?
Why has it been replicated by every culture?
It's, I don't know.
It's a very significant thing though, isn't it?
It seems to be.
I mean, I don't a lot of this, a lot of the arguments that um, that the mainstream uses is what they call like.
It's like cultural coincidence, or it's like they're solving.
People all around the world solve the problem the same ways.
I think a lot of that's nonsense.
When it comes to megalithic building is like you're literally choosing the hardest and most difficult way to do something, but like fire every, every culture develops fire yeah fire, or like all napping and making a spear right, and that's all coincidence that I, that's not.
Yeah, that's all like that's, we're solving this particular problem right, and we're about to apply it.
That happened around the world around the same time, right?
Yeah, more or less people got there.
Yeah, I mean, it's just that's.
I mean the pyramid thing like everybody developing a pyramid at the same time doesn't really strike me as is the most, um I, peculiar thing, because that's just how you would build something, right?
You can't build straight up, it falls over.
It's also very difficult to build straight up, so we just build in this kind of like what is what are?
They called the step, step mastabas.
So it started the way they described.
It's like well, we started by digging a hole and burying people and that.
And then we started, you know what?
We'll just we'll build a little mound over the top of the hole, and then it became this step structure.
We'll call it mastaba, like a platform yeah, and you know what?
We'll start stacking these mastabas.
And then you see that in Central America and South America, where there are like these pyramid structures built on top of pyramid structures right, which makes it much easier to build, because now you're not redoing this foundation, you're just kind of building on top of it yeah, and they've become massive.
It's strange, though I don't buy in a lot of ways, the tomb uh, the tomb theory.
With this stuff too, it's like I had a conversation with someone recently that said, you know, the easiest way and tons of less effort is, if you really want to hide a burial tomb for someone, is you dig down into the ground and then you, once you're done, you collapse it all in after you.
It's so much less work than building a giant pyramid and trying to bury someone in there and hope that no one's ever going to get into it.
It's not the most efficient way.
Oh, was the idea that the pyramid would provide protection for the person?
It's supposedly.
Well, it's a monument and then yeah, it's supposed to like stop tomb robbers from getting.
That's what they just goes with the tomb theory, which I don't think these were tombs.
There's there's all evidence that they were.
These big ones were tombs.
Some of them were used later on, undoubtedly as tombs and repurposed that way, but not these ones, the big ones.
I don't even think the dynastic Egyptians got into them to.
Frankly, I I think they couldn't get into them, because I think we'd see, we'd see a lot more evidence of it if they.
If they did, you don't think they could, because of just the sand, like blocked.
I mean, you got to imagine like when these things were covered in the, in the, the casing stones, it's like super white, it would have like reflected the sun like a mirror and there's no visible joints, it's you cannot pry those stones out.
There's no obvious entrance to it.
You know, it's just, it's It's really difficult to look at that.
The top of the middle one still has some of those casing stones that are weathered over time.
But can you imagine these just perfect pyramids that are just like the tomb?
The noise doesn't need some giant triangles.
If it's not a tomb, what would you conjecture is the purpose of it?
I think I personally, and it's speculation, I think they were functional.
I think they did something.
I think they're all broken now.
They don't work anymore.
I think they were a functional device.
What that is, I don't know.
There's lots of theories out there.
Guy named Chris Dunn, a good friend of mine, a very good author, engineer.
He really has moved this whole field forward in a lot of ways when it comes to ancient precision and technology.
He has a theory that it's like the Giza power plant.
It does explain, his theory does explain all of the elements of the pyramid.
He used it to correctly predict what was behind Gate and Brink's door, which is one of those little things in one of the shafts in the Great Pyramid.
Can you explain this to us?
Yeah, so in the, there's really weird aspects to the Great Place.
These are not functional, by the way.
These are your bracelets?
Yeah.
You know, like clang them together.
Yeah, oh, dynastic Egyptians, not that functional.
Exactly.
Dynastic Egyptians did not get it, dude.
Yeah.
The ancients have once.
It looks great, though.
Yeah, they understand visuals for sure.
Yeah.
They did.
Okay.
Yeah, so Gaton Brink's door.
Well, there's these strange features in there, right?
You've got the pyramid.
So you go in, there's three chambers, right?
There's a subterranean chamber that's down way below it in the bedrock with a shaft that goes through the pyramid.
Can we access that?
Because I don't think I went.
I went inside.
I don't know if I went inside.
No, so not unless you do like a special permission.
Every time we rent it out for two hours, they open it up for us.
Oh, wow.
So if you go in on a tourist ticket, you can go into like the Grand Gallery and up into the King's Chamber.
That's where most people go.
There's also a chamber below that called the Queen's Chamber.
Now, both the King's, the so-called King and Queen's Chamber, have these shafts, right?
So there's the ones in the King's Chamber go to the outside.
We know this because at some point, you know, some of these crazy British guys were rolling cannonballs down them and they ended up in the King's Chamber, like, oh, that connects.
Oh, wow.
So fucking connected.
They just found cannonballs in the tomb and they were like.
Well, they were just like, hmm, there's an opening.
We think it might be on the shaft.
Let's find out.
Oh, yeah.
They're probably damaged.
I mean, there's rods.
There's explorations of these shafts.
There's like big long steel rods that have tried to probe them with.
But the ones in the Queen's Chamber are more interesting because they don't go to the outside.
They terminate somewhere inside the structure.
Now, this is like a four to six inch square shaft, right?
Wait, wait, wait.
It's this big.
How the hell do you make that?
It has to be made when you're building the structure.
Like it has to be planned.
We don't know where they go, but eventually we sent robots down them.
And it turns out they go to what looks like a little door.
There's a little door at the end.
It's a limestone plug, and it looks like it's got, if you go to like Gate and Brink's door, maybe there's pictures of it there.
I don't know, but maybe this.
Gate and brick.
Yeah, that's it there.
Well, that's after they drilled through it.
So they're actually, and on the door are these two, what they say are copper handles, but one of them's eroded more than the other.
It's almost like it's an anode cathode.
Like it may have been part of some sort of function.
Like a fucking battery?
Yeah, something like that.
So part of Chris Dunn's theory, that's it there.
So you had, this is what's at the end of this shaft.
Get the fuck out of there.
Yeah.
And then eventually.
Yeah.
It's like a cycle.
Well, those little copper things that are on there.
No, the hole, they drilled.
Do you see the drill bit there?
So Chris Dunn, anyway, so he explains all of these features of the pyramid in his Geezer power plant theory.
And using his theory, before they drilled through the hole, he said, what they're going to find is another void and another little door.
And they drilled through the hole.
They drilled through this wall, and guess what they found?
There's another void and another little door.
There's a fucking door.
Holy shit.
So I think he was onto something.
And again, it lines up with your theory.
It's too advanced forward not to be functional.
Yeah, there's no per there's no people say like oh, this is where the soul would have escaped and gone up towards like this.
This is nonsense.
It's such an achievement.
Building a pyramid, that shape is the most functional to build.
This is a functional thing.
That's why we're going to build it in a pyramid shape.
100%.
That is fucked.
And they haven't drilled past.
Is it battery theory?
They didn't drill past the second door.
No, as far as, well, so no, there's, God, yeah, there's a lot of nonsense going on about this for a long time.
Like Gayton Brink sent his robot up the wrong shaft as well.
He went and had a look in there and Zahi Wass threw him out of Egypt.
And so there's been a lot of intrigue.
There's a dark, like there's all sorts of stories when you dive into Egyptology, in particular in the last, let's say, 30, 40 years, of what's gone on in these pyramids and on these sites and about who's done what, where.
It's a lot of stories that all revolve around certain particular characters that have been in charge of some antiquities departments in Egypt.
Speak to the politics of why you can't start just excavating more of these.
It's controlled by the Council of Antiquities.
It used to be called the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt.
And for a long time, a guy named Zahi Wass was in charge of that.
And this comes back to the labyrinth story as well that we mentioned before, or we talked about before.
And they really tightly control what goes on on the sites, right?
So you can't just roll up there and say, hey, I want to dig.
The way that works is you have to partner with the council to do anything.
And part of that is also they will want to know what your purpose is, what are you trying to find.
And then they get to control the release of information at the end of it.
So typically what happens is you have institutions like universities from France or Belgium, Austria, America, wherever, Britain, they have access to a particular site to do research in a certain way.
And then that information is very slowly released whenever the Egyptian authorities deem it necessary to do so.
Why are they so protective of this theory of history?
Because why are the people who are kind of claimed to fame, my boy?
That's all they got.
I guess, but to me, science is constantly disproving other science.
They don't give a fuck about science.
They give a fuck about like, yo, we're Egyptian.
These pyramids are fire.
Everybody loves these pyramids.
We made them.
And if this dickhead comes over there and goes, nah, it was some other people 30,000 years ago.
You just bumped in on it.
They're like, man, shut the fuck up.
I guess they'll let you discredit our whole shit.
I guess in my mind, they're still Egyptian and it would still be like, yo, we survived motherfucking apocalypse.
We came back.
We're still here.
That's a good, there's a good argument to that.
But I think they might look at it like, man, we didn't really do shit since back in the day.
It's not even necessarily Egyptian that's driving this too.
It's kind of mainstream Egyptology.
Also, yeah, they don't want to do LGL.
And also, I'm sure there's a religious component, which is like, you know, if you're dating the world, you know, 6,000 years ago, and then you come in and it's 50,000 years, 100,000 years, millions, millions.
Yeah, yeah.
It operates a bit like a religion, to be honest.
And unfortunately, there's a lot of domains of science that suffer from that type of embedded dogma to one extent.
And it does tie back to these, essentially, what's history, right?
It's a story that you cobble together from a collection of incomplete facts.
Now, when more new facts come up, and younger dryers and all this new scientific work, we should be taking that into account.
But the problem arises when it starts to pull the rug out of the people that have really set what that story is.
And honestly, the story of history and civilization hasn't changed for around 100 years.
It still hasn't changed.
Even with Gobekli Tepe, we still say, well, civilization started 6,000 years ago with the Sumerians, then the Egyptians, and then the Greeks and Romans, Chinese, all this other stuff.
Resonant Chambers and Harmonic Tones00:04:12
Is there a framework here for how this could be conducting energy and power and what that RG is for?
Chris Dunn's geezer power plant theory takes into account all of this stuff.
I'm not an expert on it, but it's like It has a lot to do with acoustics.
The Grand Gallery has a bunch of these Heimholtz resonators in it.
It's a really interesting theory.
There's like different fluids and chemicals used in these shafts.
There's a lot to it.
And there's a lot of evidence for it as well.
Like those shafts in the Queen's Chamber, for example, I mean, they don't even come out into the Queen's Chamber.
They terminate like six inches from the wall.
So it was a guy running around, like literally tapping on the wall.
So that sounds a bit different behind there.
So they get a sledgehammer and they bust the wall open.
They find the shafts.
Like there's nothing.
And when they first found the Queen's Chamber, by the way, it was covered in like six inches of these crystals that may have been the byproduct of some sort of chemical reaction.
And in fact, there's a, I've got in here, actually, I shouldn't have gone in there, but they've been doing these experiments.
So they unlocked one of these gates.
There's like a shaft in the little grotto area that goes in because there's this alcove in the Queen's Chamber, but you can go right into the masonry behind it and opens up into a little grotto area.
I crawled in there and I filmed and you can still find chunks of this crystal and all these weird growths that are because they cleaned it all up and carved it all off when they cleaned up the inside of the pyramid.
And there's a lot of this weird evidence, like something else was going on.
And what is his theory as to what this power could have been used for?
Some form of energy.
I don't know.
Some sort of microwave energy that they could have used if they had a receiver for it.
They could have done it.
Essentially, they think it may be coming from like this harmonic tone or this generation.
It comes from the earth.
It's a lot of complex theories on it.
I don't know.
Like I think his theory is the best one that we have that explains it with our tech.
My personal opinion is I think it's probably broader than that.
I think we don't quite understand what it's for, but I do think it was functional.
Can you explain this resonance theory that you shared?
I think it was on the concrete podcast that you did.
Right.
So, yeah, I mean, this one thing you find when you go in, and you would have found this when you went into the King's Chamber, like it's insanely resonant, right?
It's just like the acoustics in there are off the charts.
Yeah.
And there is, it could be coincidence.
It's also very underwhelming, which makes me feel like it wasn't a chamber.
The chamber?
The chamber itself, you're in there and you're like, oh, this is just like the awe-inspiring view of the pyramids on the outside.
And then you get into this king's chamber, right?
Yeah, it's a box.
It's a box.
So this is made up of like 70-ton granite monoliths.
There's no question.
The feet in order to execute placing these 70-ton granite blocks around it is very special.
But when you look at the grandiosity of like the dynastic Egyptians, it's not reflected in this room in any way.
And if that was the king's room, like for a king, then I think it'd be a little different.
It makes way more sense to me that this is a power factory because that looks like the source of the power or the batteries hooked up or whatever it is.
That to me makes way more sense.
Because if I'm the king and that's the room you made me, you're dead.
Do you know?
I'm not dying here, motherfucker.
I need more shit.
And it is just barren.
It's empty.
Bearing you too might.
It's functionalized place.
All right, guys, we're going to take a break for a second because today's episode is sponsored by saving your ass money.
Think about that.
Think about that.
You go buy something online.
There's always that little box that says, do you have the promo code?
Do you have the coupon code?
Is there a way for you to save money?
And you never do.
Let's just be honest.
You never do.
Well, you know what?
You can't.
And you can without actually doing anything.
Honey, okay, is a browser extension that's going to do it all for you.
That's right.
It scours the internet for all the coupon codes that are available for the thing that you need to buy.
All you have to do is use it.
It's free for you to use.
All you have to do is use it and you save money on the things you're already going to buy online.
I don't even need to convince you to do this.
You're going to go buy a pair of sneakers.
You use the honey browser extension and then boom, you save some money if there's a coupon code out there.
It is that similar, simple.
And also, honey doesn't just work on desktops.
It works on your iPhone too.
Just activate.
Granite Statues and Hunter Gatherers00:15:02
Do we know?
Granite has any functional properties that can be yeah, it's piezoelectric.
It's a conductor, piezoelectric.
If you hit it with enough pressure, it generates electricity.
There's a lot of quartz content in the granite.
I've done experiments with guys.
We've actually seen different electrical conductivity properties between granite, basalt, and limestone.
They have different properties.
So you see these types of stones lined up and sites made of these different types of stones that have these different electromagnetic properties to them.
I think there's possibilities.
I think that's where we should be experimenting and doing work to try and figure it out.
Does it make, is there evidence of cities close to every one of these pyramids?
Because that makes sense that if it's the power plant for the city, right?
But if they're just out there in the middle of nowhere and there's no city around it, then it doesn't, the power plant theory kind of like goes away.
We don't know.
The city's probably built on top of the remnants of older cities.
I mean, you see this, Cusco and other places too.
I mean, those, so each of those pyramids, that's the interesting thing about those pyramid sites, is that they are all, I call them like the sun belt.
From each one, you can see the next one.
So starting up at Abu Rawash up on the hill, you can see Giza, and then you can look down to see, you know, Abu Sir to Saqqara, to Dashur, and you see each other on the horizon.
So, I mean, I don't know, maybe they're all connected.
There's been rumors of underground infrastructure in between these sites.
I've heard that story.
Yeah.
Connecting all the...
Potentially.
I've heard that story.
I don't think.
It should make sense functionally if you need to power the whole city or whatever.
Something so monumental as the pyramids of Giza and the fact that perhaps maybe other people built them and then they were discovered by new people and then those people died out and discovered by new people.
Why was it eventually just left so barren for so long?
Well, it was used as a quarry.
Eventually, it's like, you know what?
You know what's easier than digging up stone from the ground?
Taking the stone from this damn thing.
It's just for anybody who listens.
It's just a sourcing place for stone.
Yeah.
There were sources of quarries.
People would just take stone from it.
Like people lived there.
Up until probably less than 100 years ago, people lived at these sites in Egypt, the temples, the pyramid places.
Before they became these tourist attractions, people would pitch their tents and they'd cut holes in the stone to tie the camels up, donkeys or whatever, and they'd live there.
Same as all the temples.
People just live there.
It turned into markets.
I mean, we blackened the ceilings of these temples from cook fires for generations.
And then eventually the government came along and says, you know what, you guys get all the F out.
We're going to turn these into tourist attractions.
So in some ways, we've inherited these sites today.
We use them as tourist attractions.
We've renovated them as tourist users.
I think the Egyptians did the same thing.
Around the pyramids would be like Central Park property.
You know what I mean?
It is not.
There are people out there who probably live in really lower income homes that have a perfect view of the most amazing thing that humans have ever created.
My buddy Yusuf, he lives in Naslat El-Samam, which is the village near the Sphinx entrance, and he's got his shop there, and his little balcony is on the fifth floor of this building.
And we sit out there and play music or whatever and just stare right at the Sphinx and the pyramids.
Like that's the view he grew up with.
It's insane.
Wow.
Yeah, it is cool.
And they're trying to knock it all down now.
The government wants to go and build hotels.
They want to build hotels.
But it is really interesting.
So it must have been like so normalized to them that they wouldn't try to build around it.
That's what's peculiar to me.
You know, it's a roof over people's heads in a lot of places in these, particularly the temples, man.
They just, they just, they would don't care and they'd cut holes in it and they'd take a lot of people would scoop out, get a blade and scoop out material and take it as some sort of, you know, healing powder or whatever, or you're taking a piece from the gods and stuff like that.
Right.
But the people that actually built this, how advanced they were, there's no necessarily a theory as to why they went away or why they left or were they killed.
I don't know.
I mean, the stories they tell was cataclysm.
That's all of these ancient stories come back to cataclysm.
Not Yogurt Drys for them, or maybe it wasn't.
I don't know.
We don't know.
Well, let's put it this way.
So the Egyptians themselves, I don't think you can separate the dynastic Egyptians from what you might call the builder culture, right?
The advanced culture.
The Egyptians themselves call themselves a legacy culture.
So they describe two time periods before the dynastic civilization.
The oldest one is called Zeptepi.
It's when the gods themselves walked to the earth.
They had mystical capabilities.
It went for like 25,000 years.
Yeah, it's like those were the gods that then get worshipped as gods in their pantheon.
They supposedly walked the earth.
This is Horus Osiris.
Yep, yep.
Yep.
And then after they went away, for whatever reason, there's a time called the Shemsu Hor or the followers of Horus.
Again, these semi-divine mystical beings with all of these crazy powers that you could interpret as magic or technology.
And they reigned for like 15,000 years or something.
As disciples.
Well, yeah, they have these kings lists of these rulers that then it adds up to like 15,000 years for the Shemsu Kore and like 25,000 years for Zeptepi.
And then Menez is the first king of the first dynasty and it goes right on.
Until we decide, they look at that.
That's our history.
And it's our academics that decide, you know what, Menez, that's actually where the history starts.
And before that's all myth.
And the Egyptians themselves didn't make that decision.
Now, let's assume there's a cataclysm.
Yeah.
Happens tomorrow, God forbid.
A thousand years from now.
And it brings us back to Hunter-Gatherer.
A thousand years from now, if people were telling stories about these ancient humans that had little blocks that they could see checking on, we would sound like the gods.
You would.
We would sound like the gods to people thousands of years ago.
We could send messages to people across the planet in one second on a, not even.
You know, it's the idea of a satellite.
It's so foreign.
It literally seems like we're just sending messages.
It's magic.
We have objects in space that could track people at any point.
You could have a self-automated weapon that would kill one person.
You know, like a drone sounds like the craziest thing.
The angry gods that would strike down the wicked.
Yeah.
And you might even imitate it.
You might find a black shiny rock and carve it to look like that and try and do it.
And that's, I think, what's happened in ancient Egypt because across these categories of artifacts and objects, you see like a tale of two industries.
You have the advanced objects and then you have the primitive objects that match the primitive tools.
So I think there was a lot of imitation and replication going on.
I think a lot of these places, like these ancient sites, the old kingdom sites, the pyramid sites, eventually became ceremonial sites by the ancient Egyptians.
They were the ones dancing around the campfires trying to turn them on again because they've got some cultural memory of something happening, of something working.
It's an oral story.
We would do the same thing.
It's human nature.
How do we get this?
So this is still Egyptians.
Yeah, because look, I think some of the statues...
We don't really talk about the statues.
The statues are astonishing.
There are statues.
Oh, you bring up these statues.
Yeah, go to like giant statues.
Yeah.
Unbelievable.
There's a directory of the giant objects or statues is another one.
But some of these statues have the same type of precision.
We've analyzed them for symmetry.
They're absolutely not makeable by hand.
They're very challenging.
And some of them range up to the size of...
Take the statue of Liberty, just the lady, and imagine it's made out of one piece of granite.
Like that's the size of these things, like thousands or 1,500 tons.
Imagine this is granite, you said.
Yeah, they're all granite, single pieces of granite.
I'm sorry, there are statues that are the same size as the Statue of Liberty.
Yeah.
More than a thousand tons.
There's a directory of in height?
Well, just the lady herself.
Yeah, like 100 feet high.
Yeah.
It's insane.
And where are they located in Egypt?
So there's a bunch of them.
There's at least, I know of at least three or four.
Again, if you go, the other directory of, I think it's huge objects, the third one down, there's some pictures of it.
But you find them at, there's a place called, one of my favorites is at a place called the Ramesseum.
And it's the big, probably the biggest piece of one of these things is laying over on its side.
That's it there.
So you see the head there?
You see the girl standing next to it?
That's its head.
So pan right and you see the human, like she's she's standing next to it.
Yeah, so that's that was a seated statue, single piece granite.
Just the pedestal it sits on is 450 tons.
But this thing out of rose granite was a single seated statue that's fallen over.
There's evidence for standing statues of a similar size.
Keep going.
Next one.
Yeah, so that's the shoulder and arm.
That's the shoulder and hand of a standing statue that's at Karnak temple that we're putting back together.
And that thing is made out of an even crazy material.
That's composite quartzite, which has chunks of flint in it.
And flint goes up to like an 8.5 on the Mohs scale.
That is a much harder material to work than granite.
Sorry, where did you say this was?
Karnak Temple, which is in Upper Egypt in the south.
And how far?
Yeah, go, Mark.
I was going to ask, just for these materials, how far away are those, those quarries?
Well, a lot of the quarries for granite was in Aswan in Upper Egypt.
But there's so if you if you go to the next picture, that's a foot.
That's about the same size as the feet of the statue of Liby.
You see the big toe?
Now that's made out of granite.
And that's in the north of Egypt.
That's at Tanis.
That's more than a thousand miles from the quarry for this stone.
So they moved a piece of stone that's probably 1,500 tons from somewhere down a thousand miles away, shipped it up to this place in the Delta.
And then there was a giant statue made from it.
Is it possible?
Mental.
Is it possible that the reason why there's so much evidence of the granite statues is because those are the only ones that made it?
I think they're so high on the Mohs scale that they weren't absolutely disintegrated like a limestone statue would be potentially over thousands of years of erosion.
Yeah, I think so.
Well, Granis, if you're going to make something, does you want to last, you make it out of granite.
Or you make it out of this tough stuff like this.
So it's possible they also worked with limestone.
They worked with the other one.
A couple of other things.
Those are just gone.
I think so.
Well, and so this is where it comes back to that question about are they Egyptians and why I don't think you can separate the dynastic Egyptians from that's the Colossi of Memnon.
Fucking hell.
And that's all granite.
That's all granite.
Well, actually quartzite.
It's been placed back together.
It has, yes.
The Romans actually rebuilt all of these.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
Yeah, they're uncovering big statues here all the time.
This is at the, I think it's the Temple of Amenabap, something like that.
It's on the west bank of the Nile, near where this is.
And so this, so here's the connection to me.
I think, and it's one thing you see, you go into all the temples from the old kingdom to the new kingdom.
The consistent look and feel of these kings and pharaohs interacting with the gods, all of the iconography doesn't really change that much.
It's the same look.
It's that traditional Egyptian look.
I think they get that.
It's like, I get the question, like, well, if you think the statues are so old, how come they look like dynastic Egyptians?
I'm like, I think it's the other way around.
The dynastic Egyptians copied the old statues.
I think they inherited this iconography, that look.
It's like every time you see their rulers, they put themselves amongst the gods.
They're trying to become one of the gods, like take some of that power, that significance.
And they put themselves in those shoes.
Eventually, they got really arrogant and they'd take these big statues, they'd hammer their own name into them.
There's tons of examples of where they were with these overwritten names and they put their, this is me now, you know, like I'm the biggest.
That's Ramses the Great.
Ramses II did that everywhere.
He just graffited his name deeply into all this stuff.
And it's acknowledged that's what he did.
Oh, wow.
But I think that's where they get, just why you can't disconnect them from that from that culture.
I think they're part of it, but they have a gap.
And the gap's probably due to cataclysm.
Right.
Probably knocking them back to the Stone Age and hunter-gatherer.
And then when they came back, they had some knowledge and some artifacts and some understanding, but they didn't have the capability.
Right.
Now, typically with these types of like, you know, amazing monuments, there's amazing cities nearby, kind of like what he was talking about.
Now, I'm not familiar with Idra specifically, but are there great cities, great ancient cities that you can still see?
Or like remnants or ruins of those cities, or are they completely built over?
Thebes, yeah, I mean, Heliopolis, no, it's all, there's all still remnants, like up in the north, there's Memphis, there's a lot of like dynastic Egyptian cities that are there.
Yeah, still all part of it.
And I mean, they're built, they've generally built over the top of it.
Are the cities as advanced in terms of like infrastructure and city planning as the monuments are in technology?
Oh, you're talking about cities that reflect dynastic Egyptian cities?
No, no, no, no, pre-dynastic.
Like, let's say there's only the empire state building left.
We can look at it and say, oh, there's an equally interesting city of people that are using remnants.
So with the fascinating monument, is there a city with granite roads?
Is there a city with water structures in Aqueduct?
For example, go back, Li Tepe.
Right?
Exactly.
You saw that one spot, and then as you did that kind of LIDAR, what is it?
Like a subterranean scanning or whatever.
You found that there was a bunch of other versions of those structures that were built.
Do you see that type of city planning around the Great Pyramids of Giza?
Has that been covered by like Cairo?
Yes, it has.
Okay, so we wouldn't be able to tell.
It might be underneath.
It's inhabited.
Yeah, it's been inhabited.
That's the thing.
You change it over time, generation.
Even more so than potentially these pyramid sites.
Where you can see some of that, though, it was really interesting is Cusco, like in Peru.
In Peru, this is fascinating.
Cusco is like, I think, one of the most unique cities in the world.
Because it's the bottom layer there, it's megalithic.
So I think there's a similar story.
I think this builder culture was one that was probably global.
Incas?
Well, the Inca is who they attribute it to.
Gotchas.
The Incas are like the dynastic Egyptians.
Yes, but much, I mean, they're much closer to us.
Like it was like 1500s, 1600s, like not that long ago.
And that empire, as great as it was, the Inca had a fascinating and amazing civilization, but it was really like 150 years.
Go to woe, like when the Spanish came in and they all died as a result.
But they say they built everything, but that's really not what you see.
The difference between the technological levels in South America is night and day.
Can you bring up some images from South America, the directory, you'll see it there.
But Cusco is the only city in the world, I think, where you can see these different layers of construction civilization built up on top of each other.
You have megalithic, you have Inca, you have colonial Spanish, and you have modern all stacked up on top of it.
That's really cool.
That's Egypt.
The next one is...
What is it called?
Tehawama or something like that?
Sacsaywaman?
Sacsaywaman.
Sacsayhuaman.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
I've probably got.
So that's, that's, yeah, this is a good example.
Here's like the Intru Punku, the sun.
The bottom.
Megalithic work, and then you see what the Inca did on top of it.
Like this is, that's actually really good Inca work on top.
They continued it in a way that they could.
They were very respectful.
Tube Drills and Geopolymer Theories00:13:16
Yeah.
They rebuilt stuff and they repaired it, but the loose stone work, the small stone work is totally what their capabilities are.
This is down in Bolivia at Tiwanaku, which is an extremely unique place as well.
Incredible precision in the monuments down here.
These are called the H blocks for obvious reason.
But yeah, amazing flatness.
Like there's been some work done here to analyze this.
Frankly, all of this stuff needs deeper analysis and scanning and investigation.
I think they're in Cusco.
They go up.
That's definitely got them in there somewhere.
Yeah.
No, no.
It's the one with the polish.
That's opposite.
That's it.
Yeah.
There you go.
Yeah, that's the streets of Cusco, right?
This is just in the street.
Yep.
In the city center, it's made of granite.
There's a granite blocks.
And then you can see the...
Look at this.
That's Sacsay Huaman.
This is fucking outstanding.
Yeah, some of these blocks are like 150, 200 tons.
Very hard form of limestone.
And you can, again, you see the delta between the big technology and then the little rocks, right?
The Inca came along and did the little rocks.
Now, with these gigantic rocks, the megalithic rocks here, they seamlessly fit into one another.
Yeah, that's crazy.
So one would look at it and go, okay, there's been some stone work done so that these stones can perfectly puzzle piece.
Is it stonework or is this just 20,000 years of weight?
I really don't know.
Dude, this is the one place, you know, Egypt, a lot of the masonry in Egypt, it's kind of easier to look at because it's like flat lines.
It's straight lines.
You have the same precision here, but you have these compound curved surfaces, which is ridiculously more difficult.
More difficult.
It almost seems like they're flexing.
And it's not like, yeah, it's not like they're just like joining them up at the front.
It's like if you look behind, if you go on top and you look at the joints, like these joints are perfect all the way through the depth of the stone.
So it's like they're having fun.
They can make even cuts, but they're like, what would be sexier?
Yeah.
Right?
It is far easier to just cut these into regular, straight, like artistically done.
I mean, it's difficult still to get them so precise that you can't stick a razor blade in there.
But same thing here, but now you're curving surfaces and these mating surfaces are stupid precise.
If ever there was a case for when you get into this like molecular softening tech, like you said earlier, like this seems like make this thing like Play-Doh or Toffee and just shove it in there and have it form its shape next to it.
Do you explain this to us?
Well, it's just speculation.
So we were talking about this when I mentioned this before about the pyramids and like using granite and things like that and moving them from so far.
And he had mentioned this on a different show where he was basically saying that it's possible that the molecules can be manipulated to make it not have the same toughness.
Yeah, it's like science fiction, but it's science fiction, but it would be very similar to the idea of like heating up a metal in order to morph it.
Because we do do it with certain substances.
Sub-substances.
You heat up gold and then you can bang away or you heat up with a steel to make like a sword.
You would do the same.
Malleable.
If you could make a rock malleable, it would be much easier to do this.
Yeah, it could be.
Yeah, that's that's I just I look at it and go, I can't imagine a guy like, I'm going to shave a little bit off here, shave a little, like then I'm going to put this, you know, 15 ton rock back on and check my fit and take it off again and just shave a bit more.
Like I don't understand, unless you go the other route as like it's fully designed and mechanized and produced with a with a manufacturing rig similar to the vase other stuff where you can just, I design it, I click go and it just carves it.
Right.
If there may be some other tech involved and this almost looks like you look at the front of these things too and there's all these weird scoop marks and indentations almost like they were holding, it's almost like you're pushing stuff up or you can imagine some of these nubs that forms like almost like a heat extrusion nub.
It's complete speculation.
I'd be very clear.
Is there any type of like scientific basis for that type of theory or is this sort of just like a fun science fiction theory?
There's a theory called geopolymer.
It's a little different to what I'm talking about.
This was geopolymer.
Yeah.
You basically melt, you can go ahead and you melt stuff down and then reshape it.
Yeah.
Similar to kind of what you're saying now.
Like you get a bag of this mix and you put some add water and shape it into thing, right?
It's like concrete.
But there's challenges and then there's some interesting evidence for it.
But enough, I don't think that work that doesn't work for granite.
I don't actually think that's the case in Egypt.
But there is some interesting evidence at Tiwanaku potentially for some of that sort of technology being used.
I think it's a legitimate investigation that needs to be looked at.
But the problem is you do get a lot of these stones have fossils in them and all this stuff and we've got quarries.
But you look at it and you go, how is that not just like they made it like Play-Doh and shoved a shape into it, you know?
Is there any repetition in the polygonal blocks?
No.
That's another issue with the geopolymer.
Each one is its own fucking shape.
Same as the pyramids, too.
Same thing.
They're not a uniform.
No stone is uniform.
No, that's right.
Yeah.
Because how would you, yeah, you'd need to make a mold for every stone, which is think about, look at the wall here, right?
There's one mold and a billion bulls.
Well, hold on.
That means that every stone needs to be adjusted for the last stone that was placed.
That seems way more difficult than just mapping out the exact size of the stones.
Unless you design it up front and it just prints it that way or it cuts it that way.
And this doesn't even account for the shafts and the rooms and everything that I'm getting like goosebumps.
The shafts in the room also have to be cut out before they're placed.
That's right.
And you have to place those stones with some pretty significant precision for a four-inch square shaft through the pyramid to run, you know, hundreds of feet like it does.
Right, perfectly square that a robot in the modern day could go through.
And it has to line up, right?
Because that precision has to be held from where it starts to where it ends across all those layers of masonry.
Exactly.
Because you're going in a diagonal.
It's like it's horizontal courses.
Right.
So it's very X and Y axis of squares getting projected.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
And with each block, there's a new calculation made for the next block.
And you fuck up one.
It's gone, right?
I guess maybe they could chisel away as they're placing it.
That's kind of what I'm thinking.
Chiseling, but like, I guess whatever the machinery was at the time.
The machinery is advanced enough.
But still, if you have a different side, how can you have machinery advanced enough to create this, but not advanced enough to just make them uniform?
Because if it was uniform, we'd go, okay, forget it.
There's no way they did this with the stone and the chisel.
The fact that it's not uniform is what leaves a little bit of wiggle room for a not super advanced society to create it, just with tons of work and time and fucking time.
But I think the more you dive into what it would actually take, it kind of gets a bit silly with some of the time stuff.
Yeah, I think just with the primitive methodologies.
It's like, yeah, something else was going on.
That's the thing.
And we haven't done a lot of experiment.
Like we've never done, every time we've tried.
What would we need to find, Ben?
What is the, what is it called?
The smoking gun?
What is the smoking gun?
Well, we need to either find some tools or some records or some documents that talk about that may close it, but who knows if that stuff might have been found.
And it gets washed away.
I've heard rumors of that sort of thing.
We have evidence of the results of advanced technology.
We just don't have the advanced technology.
That's right.
The evidence for the tools is in the objects themselves.
Bro, the scoop thing and the core?
Yeah, the tube drills and the, yes.
So, you know what?
The whole where are the tools argument, by the way, not for nothing.
That applies equally well to the mainstream explanation for these saw cuts and these tubular drills, okay?
You got to explain the tube drill.
TikTok.
This is, you're not supposed to look at blocks from 4,500 years ago and find perfect cylindrical carve-outs.
Grooves.
Grooves.
I found them at the Met.
There's a couple pieces at the Met yesterday.
Oh, yeah.
There's a block in there with two tube drills.
It's pretty cool.
Oh, yeah, these are classic tube drills.
Is that in tools here?
It's in tooling.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
So there's some categories of stonework, again, coming from the oldest parts of ancient Egypt, like Old Kingdom.
And these things there, so this is a core from a tube drill.
And if you go to the next picture, you'll see the actual hole that they leave.
This has been split.
Right?
So what happens is you have a tube drill, tube drill, whatever.
Yeah.
And it cuts down, it creates this core, and then you snap the core off, and you're left with this hole in the granite.
Now.
How'd they snap the core off?
Well, you get a chisel in there, you wedge it.
I don't know.
You wedge something in there and you just snap back and forth.
Yeah, yeah, you snap it off.
You can see where it snapped off just at the bottom.
And so you see these in these old kingdom sites, and again, into extremely hard stone, basalt, granite, granite, diorite, blah, blah, blah.
And the, and they get quite large, right?
That's one that's about nine inches, eight, nine inches in width.
And again, this one's the block's been quarried.
So this would just be a hole on its own until somebody came along and quarried the block.
I think they looked for them for quarrying because it's like a hole.
So they try and split the stone on the axis of the drill hole.
Who would have quarried?
Oh, anyone later on.
At some point, it was Ramses II in the New Kingdom as quarrying stuff from the old pyramids at that point for thousands of years after that.
But to do it like that, you would need some kind of tool, right?
No, what, to quarry the block?
Yeah, split the block.
In a cylindrical fashion?
Yeah.
Yeah, you need a tube drill to make this hole.
But you see how the stone's been split down the axis of the hole, right?
Yeah.
So that's a very common quarrying technique that's still in use today, essentially.
You carve little divots into the rock, then you stick wood in them and you wet the wood.
You're trying to split the stone because you want to take the finished surface.
That happens everywhere.
You see that all the time.
And don't some stones have just a natural property where they do split pretty cleanly?
That's what they're trying to take advantage of.
A lot of times it fails, sometimes it doesn't.
Anyway, so you see these tube drills, thank you.
They have these cores.
And we found a couple of these cores.
Now, a guy named Flinders Petrie in the 1800s took one of these cores and analyzed it and looked at the grooves.
And he's like, you know what?
This is a spiral groove around this core.
It's not like just, imagine how we do it today.
You get this high-speed drilling.
This is spinning and spinning and spinning.
It takes forever to cut through granite.
Yeah.
Or like a tile saw or whatever.
It's not going to leave a spiral groove.
It's going to be these circular things.
Well, there's going to be a lot of circular lines as you very slowly grind down through the material.
This thing actually penetrates the stone at like a one in 60 rate, which means that for every, so if you take that spiral, that circular motion, you stretch it out straight.
So for every 60 inches of horizontal travel, it's going an inch in vertical travel.
Yeah, think of like a screw.
It's like a screw, right?
Yeah, it's screwing into the granite.
And we're seeing the results.
It's a hollow screw, essentially.
Yeah, it's like...
And that's where the core would exist.
And so Petrie looks at this.
He's like, what the fuck is this?
It's a lot of pressure.
Petrie was the first guy to apply engineering principles from the industrial age to this stuff.
It's a mind trip to me to think that it took us until the industrial age to even be able to put some of this stuff into a context that we can understand it.
Yeah, isn't that interesting?
We didn't, we were only then starting to develop machines.
You even have the machinery can explain it.
You found this in the 1700s.
You're like, no one's ever done this before, ever.
You don't know what it is.
You don't have the framework.
Yeah, it's like taking a cell phone back to cavemen.
I mean, it's just trying to, we know.
Which is a rock tail.
Yeah, we know with wireless networking and all that shit.
It's like satellites.
That context, you're missing.
But we have the context for it now.
And we couldn't do this today.
So Petrie said, well, shit, maybe they had two to three tons of pressure on the tube drill.
And then Chris Dunn, the same guy I mentioned earlier, has analyzed this core because it's in the Petrie Museum in London and they let people play with their toys, which is really nice of them.
So he's analyzed this and he's kind of furthered the work of Petrie to define this spiral groove that's on this thing.
What's crazy about it is, and again, this may not have been a high-speed drill, right?
It might have been slowly turning, but think that that penetration rate, that's 500 times greater than we can achieve with our drills today, right?
Our drills, these high-speed things, I mean, it might go faster, but in terms of that penetration rate into the granite, this rate is like 500 times greater than.
Whereas our modern machines, I guess, are going off like torque and friction, whereas this is going off just pure weight.
We don't know.
Yeah, it could be ultrasonic.
It could have some other mechanism of punching into the granite.
And you see these things all over the place in ranging from about this big, little tiny things to about nine inches big.
And there's those, and then there's circular saw cuts that seem to work in the same way where they're just eating away into this stone that we can't figure out.
What about the scoops?
Yeah, scoop marks in the quarry.
Same thing.
So there's all these categories of tooling and evidence.
I'm sure there are some pictures of the quarry in here as well.
So this long story to get back around to where are the tools.
So the mainstream's explanation for these tubular drills and for these, you know, saws and stuff.
Yeah, this is a scan.
That's fucking crazy.
They say, well, it was a copper bar or a copper tube and they rubbed it with sand and like a bow drill or they dragged it back and forth and they ground away with sand.
And now it obviously doesn't match the tool marks or anything remotely close to what we see, but guess how many copper tubes or copper bars they've found?
Climate Change and CO2 Levels00:09:40
None.
Zero.
Where are the tools for your exploration?
You say, where are my tools?
Where are your tools?
I mean, it looks like a mini excavator.
Yeah, this is, and that's straight into granite.
Like, that's at the quarry.
That's granted.
That's what I was wondering what stone is at.
That's fucking nuts.
That's at the quarry in Aspan, where they have the 1,200-ton obelisk that's still attached to the bedrock.
We got to get that one.
I think what's so interesting about this is like, this feels like a conspiracy that will be proven in our lifetime, that will really shake our understanding of history.
And it's really cool to learn about it.
It seems like there's tons of evidence that would at least show that there was more advanced technology.
And maybe at bare minimum, we understand there was more advanced technology.
Maybe bare minimum that.
And then we lost it and then we developed our own, but there was something else going on.
That bare minimum, everybody can get on board, right?
Because we can acknowledge that you can't do these things with a stone and a chisel.
It also theoretically turns government into doomsday preppers, which is kind of funny.
And also probably necessary.
Wait, what do you mean by that?
Because if you're like, yo, these guys got wiped out by a comet or whatever, and there was no evidence of them left whatsoever, we should prepare for such a scenario to happen in our lifetimes.
That is what it's, I think that's ultimately what's important about some of this work, really, is there's a fundamental, so we grow, you know, what's the fundamental understanding we have of our civilization, our place in history?
We all think that we went from cavemen to, you know, striped toothpaste and space shuttles in this 6,000-year period.
Like, which is what?
It's how many?
So, you know, 60 centuries, 25 years, a generation, like 240 generations essentially from stone man to today.
And it's like, so it's, it's as if we have this idea of like, well, this is what civilization is.
This is a preordained path.
This is how you do it.
We don't need to worry about it.
But I think if you had the same fundamental understanding in the same way we understand that, that, oh, no, there's a cyclical thing going on here.
We're just the latest revolution of the civilization wheel.
There's a relationship to cataclysm.
We've risen to great heights and we've been knocked down in the past.
I do think on the long term, that could change priorities, man.
We might actually start trying to solve and putting a bit more resources by trying to solve some of the bigger issues.
The analogy that I've figured out that I want to use talking about that is honestly is climate change.
Like whether you agree with it or not, or whatever it means to you, that's a movement that's changed people's behavior.
In a generation or two, it's a fundamental thing that's entered our understanding of what it means to be a human.
It affects our behavior, how we interact with others and the world around us.
And it's changed us.
And I think that's the type of understanding that if it gets into our culture and into what it means to be a modern human, then it might actually, we might stand a chance of changing our priorities, worrying a little less about fighting with each other and the next election cycle.
And then we're looking at the bigger picture.
Humans are so illogical.
I don't know if it works, but if you're thinking, we have an existential crisis at any given point, you probably don't care as much about critical race theory or whatever little government info, like, you know, these little things that we worry about.
That's what I was kind of joking about.
Like, who cares how many genders there are?
Yeah.
If the human species, if all of Earth is at stake at some point, we don't know when.
We should prepare for that instead of worrying about this shit.
Yep.
It makes sense.
Or you go with the expanse and it's like, maybe the universe is better off without us because we're just warlike talking monkeys that are probably no good for anybody.
You know, you can take two approaches to it.
But I think that because the long-term solution is to get off the planet, it's to spread out, right?
I asked you about this before, but do you think drugs or any type of mind-altering substances contributed to the creation of any of these?
Ooh.
Yeah, I'm pretty convinced of it, actually.
There's lots of use for particularly DMT in the ancient world.
I mean, the blue lotus flower is one that's represented in all the artwork.
I mean, you literally see images of like a smoking pipe almost.
And you're getting showered with knowledge, power, and stability, or life, power, and stability from the gods.
And some of those things that looks to me like smoking pipes.
Blue lotus flower is full of DMT.
The acacia trees, that's got DMT in it.
You see, I think there's some of those visions in those altered states, some of that geometry and things are represented in some of the artwork.
There's been mummies found with cocaine from South America, like in the linen.
From South America.
South America.
Go figure.
Yeah.
That's some trade, right?
They're probably trading the cocaine from South America.
Potentially.
There's definitely been mummies found with mummies in Egypt.
Yes.
Found with South American Coke.
Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't know.
Don't explain it.
But does no one else want to explain this?
Why are you the only one that's like, we got to talk about the mummies doing blow?
That's crazy.
They've got boomerangs in ancient Egypt.
The name for them literally translates to foreigner's weapon.
Like, they're in the museum.
You can see that.
That's not as cool as Coke.
As Coke in the museum.
This is true.
When are they found in Coke?
I'm not sure on the details.
You'd have to look.
If you look up Mummy Cocaine, you'd probably find the details.
Yeah, let's look that up, please.
Can I ask you, while he looks that up, what are your thoughts on climate change?
Because this could theoretically, a lot of what we believe is climate change could just be, you know, the younger dryest type things.
I think that if you want to understand climate change, you probably need to widen your scope of view a little bit and look back a little bit further than the last century or two, is what I would say.
Because in a lot of ways, to me, the modern climate change discussion is, and to borrow an analogy from my friend George Howard, it's like we're sitting in a car arguing about the radio station and what channel we're listening to, but we're ignoring the fact that the car's sitting on a railway track and the train's coming.
We've got bigger problems.
I think, and look, if we burn...
Wait, man, what do you know?
You know some shit.
Well, is there a comic coming?
I don't know.
I don't know.
On a long enough time scale, 100%.
It depends on what that time scale is.
I think he's just saying we are in this cosmic shooting gallery.
It's only a matter of time.
And it's, look, if we burnt every last ounce of fossil fuel and the end result of that was that we averted the next cosmic impact, then karmic debt paid.
There's nothing like the climate change that is a result and the pollution of a comet of a cosmic impact like that.
You want nuclear winter?
Like that's what it is.
Like it blocks out the sun for hundreds of years.
Everything on Earth dies.
You can't breathe outside.
Like the half of the world is on fire kind of thing.
Like that's it's apocalyptic.
And the words, that's what it means.
And that's not speculative.
Like I remember, yeah, you were telling me that like there's a piece of the bedrock that you could see that was on fire or the remnants of the fire.
And this exists throughout the earth.
There's like a black mat layer at that at that at that younger driest boundary layer in the soil, in the strata, there is an organic, it's like a soot layer almost, where it's in the calculations of something like 9% of the organic matter on the planet was on fire, which is at one time.
It's an astronomical analysis.
It's an ash layer in the bedroom.
It's literally, yes, it's all out from the fire.
It was either flood or fire.
Like you look at every ancient culture, it's flood or fire.
Like it's either cataclysmic fire or it's world-ending floods.
Kind of makes you feel lucky, huh?
Yeah, well, that's the thing.
You know, we've people complain about it, but honestly, our climate has been the most stable.
We've had the best climate in the last sort of 10,000 years that we've had for almost 200,000 years on the planet.
So when you talk about modern climate change and we're arguing about CO2 and like a tenth of a degree, I don't care.
It's fine.
Look, that's not to say pollution, bad.
Treat the planet good?
Yes.
Like, let's clean up our act, do all that stuff.
But the reality is also CO2 is not a problem.
More CO2 is good.
The planet nearly went into plant death in the little ice age.
Warmth is great.
We've been far warmer and had far more CO2 in our history on this planet and supported megafauna and megafloral likes of which don't exist at all anymore.
It's when it gets cold.
Cold is the problem.
Small cold periods associated.
Guess when the black plague was cold period.
All of the downturns.
Oh, because the heat is going to burn off a lot of the bacteria.
Well, just you just, cold periods are associated with famine and less plant growth, which means your immune systems are weaker.
You don't eat as much.
Bacteria can't grow in cold, and then we're very much like bacteria in that way.
Pretty much.
I was thinking it was going to get burned off in the heat, but you're right.
That makes sense.
And also just the weakness of the body if there's no like...
Famine, yeah.
Winters are just rough in general.
Yeah.
Yeah, cold's bad.
And cold is worse than getting warmer.
Like this whole planet's on fire is non-set.
It's fine.
In fact, the planet is greening.
Like we now, you've seen the evidence for this.
Like the planet's actually greening due to the slight increase in CO2.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
We shouldn't be demonizing CO2.
It's fine.
Like I said, in the past, we've had many times the number of CO2 that we've had, we have today.
It's not a big deal.
We've never had a runaway climate.
The climate on this planet's very stable.
Even when things like cosmic impacts happen, it recovers.
Like it's a very stable system.
And just to clarify so you don't get yelled at, that's not to say there's no problem with pollution.
Yes, there are other problems, but it's not necessarily what we think it is.
I hate having to preface that all the time by saying, well, if you somehow question any of the narrative, it's like, you're pro-pollution.
Like, of course, pollution's bad.
Let's clean up our hack.
Let's keep the oceans clean.
Let's do all these things.
Let's behave like responsible stewards of the planet.
But if polluting was making it colder.
Let's not tax everybody.
That's a big problem.
That's a bigger issue.
Yes, I think it'd be a bigger problem, too.
It would be.
Cold is bad.
Cold is bad.
Shipwrecked Peoples and Gosford Glyphs00:03:13
What'd you find here, man?
So this is a German toxicologist basically did a study on the hair of a priestess that they uncovered.
Coca.
And they basically found traces of nicotine and cocaine, which had been considered to be cocoa and tobacco plants native to the Americas that were not thought of been brought to Africa until after Columbus's voyage.
Well, I do think that Dynasty, we don't give the Dynastic Egyptians enough credit for what they did.
I think they were probably much wider ranging.
I mean, they had bigger boats than the Vikings, and we know the Vikings got around a lot of places.
I thought we haven't found any boats from the Egyptian.
Plenty of boats.
They're mostly river boats, though.
They wouldn't last a sea voyage.
That said, you can go to places like Hapshopshet's Temple, and there's literally scenes on the wall of ocean voyages where there's fleets of ships.
They're even drawn underneath.
It's like ocean creatures that you don't get in the Nile.
They talk about an expedition to what they call Buntland to go and get stuff at one point.
There's a place in Australia called the Gosford Glyphs that I happen to think is probably a result of a shipwrecked Ptolemaic period Egyptian crew.
There's these glyphs in this place in Australia in this little cab.
They think it's a hoax.
It's not a hoax.
Go to this.
Gosford Glyphs.
Yeah.
Gosford glyphs.
Yeah, G-O-S-F-O-I-Glyphs.
And you're saying that the Egyptians reached Australia.
Yeah.
Well, it's on their maps, too.
They literally show like horses in America and they show.
Those are dynastic Egyptians.
Yeah, yeah.
Ptolemaic period, like late period, Greek-Roman period.
That matches the glyphs that they did.
They look poor because the story that they actually, that it tells, we had some of it translated, was the scribe and the captain died.
I think one of them died of a snake bite.
They were shipwrecked.
So this is the results, the carving are the results of a guy that could probably read Egyptian, but wasn't a stone carver.
It's like you can probably read and write on paper, but try carving it into sandstone to see how far you get.
Anyway, so they've known about this literally the thumbnail for my video about it.
They've known about this since the 1970s.
The modern dogma on it, I guess, is say, well, it's a hoax.
Some guy came back from the war and was like, oh, I was in Egypt.
So I'm just going to draw some random collection of hieroglyphs on the wall.
Turns out that's not the case.
It actually tells a story.
It's coherent.
What's even crazier is there are symbols on this wall that we didn't decipher until like the year 2000.
So they weren't in Egyptian dictionaries until the year 2000.
Yet they're still on this wall.
They've been there since the 1970s.
And they still want to call it a fake.
I'm like, what's so hard to believe?
These guys were seafarers.
Maybe they just got a whole bunch of storms, blew them across halfway across the Pacific and they got shipwrecked down here.
They got looked after by the local Aboriginals.
They lived their life.
They buried their dead and they wrote something about it on this wall.
Do we know what the story says?
Yeah, it says that it was the part of it, not all of it's been decoded, but the part of it, it says that, yeah, it was exactly that.
It was a crew that got shipwrecked here.
One of them died from a snake bite.
The captain and the scribe died.
And then the locals were looking after them.
Like the Aboriginals would look after people.
It happened a lot with the white explorers too later.
You could make a pyramid.
You can make a boat.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
Once you subscribe to this idea.
Sorry, this would be dynastic.
Homo Gigantopithecus and Ancient Seafarers00:15:27
It is dynastic.
And we're not sure dynastic Egyptians built the pyramids.
Right.
They did a lot of them.
Look, Dynasty Egypt did a lot of amazing stuff.
They were, particularly by the New Kingdom and the Ptolemaic period, they had a lot of capability.
They were tremendously wealthy.
They built like Karnak Temple.
Sure, it's sandstone, but it's spectacular.
They built some amazing stuff.
Karnak Temple.
K-A-R-N-A-K.
You know, they embarked on maps.
They were a massive civilization that lasted a long time.
I don't want to undersell what they were capable of.
Yeah, we're just comparing them to the goat.
Well, yeah, there's just, there's as capable as they were and as magnificent as they were, there's just a few things that are outside of their technological capability.
And that one top left there is that red one, yeah, top left there.
This one?
Yeah, that's one of them.
Yeah, so this is like these giant sandstone columns.
That's beautiful.
And that's all dynastic work.
A lot of all those rams are dynastic work.
These big pylons and walls are dynastic.
There's huge structures.
Like the Karnak Temple and Luxor Temple, they're amazing.
I think they combine, like a lot of these structures combine both elements.
It's like they built a temple on top of an older temple or an older structure that I think does stretch back to, you know, these earlier times with these granite artifacts, the big obelisks and the single-piece statues made from granite that show all these signs of precision.
Like I'm, I'm pretty careful about what I define as being this is definitely older.
And, you know, to me, it has to, it's a couple things.
It has to show the machining marks, right, from these advanced tools that we know weren't around or we can't explain.
They have to show precision, symmetry, like anything.
And we have to analyze it to look at that.
You can't just look at it and go, I think that shows all this precision.
Like we need to do more work analyzing these things to define that.
And there's a bunch of objects we've done some of that for.
And then I also think that anything over, say, 300 to 400 tons.
I think once you get into those realms, I think it's, I don't think you move in those as a as a Bronze Age civilization.
Certainly no one's demonstrating.
Why is that?
Why is that weight?
Well, because, and it fluctuates somewhere in there, I think, because it's not like when you, as mass goes up, it's not like a linear difficulty scale that goes up with it, right?
When you get into really large weights, material strength becomes an issue.
You can't be using wood.
You know, it's like this, the difficulty level ramps up.
And so particularly once you get to like a thousand tons and more, but there's plenty of stuff that I'd say I think your upper limit's probably 300 to 350 tons.
People have demonstrated, oh, hey, we can move it 50 tons or 100 tons.
And I think they could totally do it.
But when you start scaling up to these big numbers, the obelisks and stuff, and particularly in the environments they are, like that obelisk in the quarry, man, is 1,200 tons.
What's that called?
It's Aswan Quarry, A-S-W-A-N.
I have a picture of it in my directory, but you can look it up.
Aswan Quarry and Obelisk.
And it's 1,200 tons.
It's made from a granite quarry.
It's literally in a granite mountain on an angle that there's no room to move this thing, but somehow they carved it out.
And they're, you know what, we're going to pick this thing up, lift it up 30 feet, and then move it across this rocky, mountainous environment and somehow transport it somewhere.
So this was an obelisk that was never completed.
It was never completed.
Right.
And how do we know it was an obelisk and not just some other type of...
It's shaped like an obelisk.
It literally has a 20n.
Oh, wow.
It's roughed out.
Like, they would often do this.
They would almost like leave a sacrificial layer of stone around the outside of stuff for shipping.
They would finish stuff in sight.
Yeah, they never detached it from the bedrock.
I mean, so it's still attached to the bedrock.
There's stones of this size in Baalbek and Lebanon.
And this is similar to the present obelisk that we see that are still erected.
This is way bigger.
Oh, this is way bigger.
Yeah, some of the other, I think the biggest other obelisk might be 400, 500 tons, something like that.
But those are still solid.
There's a single piece of granite standing.
Oh, wow.
Well, and there's rumors in history of an old kingdom obelisk at a site called Abu Gharab.
And actually, it is acknowledged.
It's not a pyramid.
It looks like a pyramid.
It's actually the base for what would have been a massive obelisk.
But it's all gone.
They just think it's been quarried and stuff.
Now, the hieroglyphs that we all know now from Egypt, you know, of like the guy standing, are any of those, do they tell a story of these pyramids could have been made?
What is that?
I don't know.
Did they tell a story of how the pyramids could be made?
Were they made by the dynastic Egyptians?
There's very little actually about the pyramids.
That's the funny thing.
There's no depictions or scenes that really show them ever building those pyramids.
There are depictions in the tombs of the nobles of them showing them making mud bricks.
Because after those stone pyramids, you've got to remember, that's one of the crazy things about those stone pyramids is that they're the first pyramids ever made.
Like it went step pyramid straight to like, what was it?
My doom and then the bent pyramid, red pyramid, great pyramid, second pyramid, third pyramid.
Like they're the first pyramids.
These are the most precise giant structures.
After that, they kept making pyramids according to the ship.
Well, they're all made from mud brick.
These little mud bricks and they're all eroding.
But they do talk about building those.
They don't really talk about building any of the pyramids.
In fact, there's a little tomb around at Om Giza.
There's an interest.
We'd like to take people there and show them the inscription.
It says, this guy was the overseer of the pyramid city.
He didn't say, it's very careful, Grammar.
It says he wasn't the overseer of the pyramid builders.
It was the pyramid city.
It was the city that sprung up around the pyramids.
As if the city was, or the pyramids were already there.
It's as if the pyramids were already there.
He's the overseer of the land.
And that would also support your theory if there's no, there's hieroglyphics, but none of them building the most impressive thing theoretically they've ever built.
Yeah.
They have hieroglyphics than building a less impressive one, though.
That's right.
And that's typically what gets you.
So you see the same thing.
For example, there's a depiction of them moving a statue, a big statue.
It showed up briefly earlier, and it's like, well, see, this is how they move the big statues.
It's like, wait on.
This depiction is of a statue that we know part of it still exists.
It weighed about 56 tons.
There's 180 guys here, and that statue is made of calcite.
It's not made of granite.
You can't use that to explain how they might have moved a thousand ton object.
You can move a 56-ton object with a bunch of guys dragging it on a sled.
Good luck trying to do that with a thousand tons.
And so it's like that's...
Couldn't they have gotten more guys?
Is that possible?
They got a city of men.
You would just, you would, no.
I don't think, not with a thousand tons, you just, the frictional coefficient you'd have to overcome.
It's like XP.
You just dig it into the ground.
Your wooden sled that you're sitting on, this thing is going to explode.
They didn't have access to the wheel, according to them.
Like there's no depictions of them using the wheel back then.
So it's like, and then you've got to get it across places like this, where it's like literally mountains.
There's a lot of this stuff, and I think they use the Nile because Aswan's on the Nile, but there's tons of granite artifacts that aren't like rose granite from Aswan.
They're like a black granite or diorite.
And there's these other quarries that are way out in the eastern desert.
Like nowhere near the river.
You're talking hundreds and hundreds of miles across mountains and valleys.
And like it's a whole other logistical.
It's also possible that there were like other river systems that existed back then.
Maybe.
Yeah, there's not a lot of evidence for it in terms of you sort of see something there, but yeah, the Nile's been there for a while.
Yeah, I saw one video, this ran a video on YouTube about them floating the blocks up the Nile, not on boats itself.
Ladders and things.
Yeah.
So, I mean, that, yeah, I mean, even that is just really tricky, but that makes more sense than loading it onto some like rickety little ship and having that hopefully not capsize.
Yeah.
You could, we can, it's an exercise I want to do.
Particularly at the quarry, they do say, well, see, this area here is this is the harbor where they loaded their ships.
I'm like, we have examples.
Briefly, it came up here.
There's the Russian Thunderstone.
So this is a giant 1,500 ton stone they moved in like the 1800s from Finland to Russia.
Part of that was across water.
And they had to make a huge barge to put this thing on massive.
And then they had to tie up warships on either side of it to keep it balanced.
This massive thing.
And you're talking about this harbor that's like two times the width of that obelisk.
And you say, you're going to put a ship in there?
Can you even get a ship that's going to displace enough water to take 1,200 tons and have its center of gravity in the right place where it doesn't just go, you know, which is probably what would happen if you tried?
I just don't think you could fit any ship in there that would be even close to big enough or stay alive.
Can we take like two minutes so I could pee?
Listen, what let's just discredit everything that you've just said.
Do you believe in giants?
I think there's a lot of evidence for it.
Yes.
Look, I've had this discussion with Hugh Newman, who's big into it.
And I'm like, man, show me one bone.
I mean, show me one bone, you know.
Didn't they find some in America?
Wouldn't they find these like lots of reports of that, but there's no bone.
Like, I honestly, there's nothing that you can go see.
Now, there's some legitimate stuff involved with the giant.
I've since learned, since I said that to him, and he's like, oh, actually.
But so the Smithsonian has admitted to there is some documents where they talk about having them.
They say they don't have them anymore.
What happened was it's this divine precedence of the human species.
So we had this attitude in Victorian eras where we were the superior version of humans.
Like there's no one above us.
So when we found evidence for bigger, stronger humans, there was some motives to try and cover that shit up.
So I think that might be at the origin of some of these stories.
Now, that attitude doesn't really exist anymore.
So I'm like, who cares if we find giant bones?
Like it would just, we'd add it in.
We have gigantopithecus.
Like we would just add it to our fossil species in my opinion.
Sorry, how big are we talking?
Well, what's gigantopithecus?
Just like one of the previous hominids.
It's like a Homo gigantopithecus.
It's like one of the, like one of our cousins in the Homo series, like Homo species.
Yeah.
Like a doll.
But there's gigantopithecus.
And he was, you know, 10 feet to like giant, massive walking monkeys like these things.
Oh, just a monkey that walked on.
Yeah, John DeGuinnis is a lackey.
He's like three meters tall.
Yeah, like an ancestor, you know, we'd probably add in a giant to like our species somehow.
I don't think it'd be a huge, a huge deal.
But there seems to be plenty of evidence for it.
Put it up.
What did you just say, Akash?
What were you just asking?
How big were they?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I mean, you know, nine, ten feet or three meters, something like that is, I think, the realms of possibility.
Some people go a lot further than that with some of the giant talk.
Now, are the giants the same as those like weird kind of like conyx-shaped skulls you find on some of the elongated skulls?
Yeah.
Is that from the way that they're wrapped, or is that so?
So that is skull binding is the term.
Get their babies and do skullbinding.
There is, that is a thing that does happen, but that doesn't explain all the elongated skulls we've seen because even with skull binding, you're not changing the volume of the brain, right?
It's just squished into a different shape.
Yeah.
But we've found some examples of elongated skulls that have bigger brain pans, like bigger volumes of brain.
So it's not a result of skull binding, of cranial binding.
So this does seem to be some other version of humans that could have been involved.
I actually do think that, you know, I don't, it doesn't necessarily, if you go with the whole ancient civilization thing, I'm not, it doesn't have to be Homo sapien.
Like I, I think there's, we've found the Denisovan, like this whole, this is an emerging area of complexity for us now.
There's all these other species of hominids that are coming out.
You've the Denisovans, the Denisovans.
No.
So there's a whole new species that they've, that they've found, basically from a pinky bone, by the way.
Not a lot more evidence for it than that, but there's a whole other subspecies of essentially human, our cousins or hominids, yeah, from the Denisova cave, that we don't know much about.
And like we know that, for example, the Neanderthals had bigger brains than us.
We don't know much about them.
Like they're, you know, they're built like brick shithouses compared to us.
They could have lived for much longer than us.
They could have communicated in other methods.
Like I think if you go back far enough in time, it may not have just been us building stuff.
Some of these other species could have been responsible too.
Wait, Neanderthals had bigger brains, were stronger, just better versions of us, pretty much.
How'd they die out?
I thought we killed them.
Yeah, I think, well, that's the mainstream story.
I think fire was one of the things we had that was really effective.
I read this in Sapiens and obviously I forgot it.
And then also communication and like the tribe and the herd that we have through communication.
And apparently gossip is something that really binds humans together.
Our language is.
We could organize a little better than the Neanderthals.
Neanderthals were a little bit more ape-like.
Yeah, they didn't have the vocal box, like the construction.
We don't think that they could talk.
But we don't really know.
And who knows if there was other methods of communication with other versions of these species?
We don't know.
But yeah, that's what they say.
We hunted them out with group tactics.
But I mean, you wouldn't take one of these dudes on one-on-one.
I mean, it's, you know, bone density is like broom handles to, or broomsticks to axe handles.
Like, they were on a scale in the same way, like a chimpanzee, the powder weight is so much superior to us.
That's what the Neanderthals were like compared to us as well.
Like they're just their muscle attachment points and their bone density and their geometry was far superior to ours.
They'd rip your head right off if they wanted to.
So you think that the pyramids could have been built by a, what did you call them, a human, a hominid?
Hominid, potentially some other hominid species.
A human ancestor.
Potentially.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking about giant humans.
I was like, could it just be Neanderthals?
But I guess they're not that much taller.
Well, there's a few things.
So the rumors of giants is a thing.
Like you have a lot of that in parts of the UK.
You get a lot of that in Native American legends and the mound builders and all of that.
Even biblical history, right?
Biblical history with giants.
Yeah, Patagonia.
What makes someone a giant?
That's the thing.
Some of us could get lost in translation.
Potentially.
I mean, it's a relative term.
It's inherently relative.
Someone being a giant just means they're bigger than most people I see.
Exactly.
So if you're part of a tribe, everybody's around like four and a half feet.
And then you go to like the Sudan, you see somebody 6'6, you're like, these motherfuckers are giants.
Yeah.
In the same way that a cyclops might have been some guy who got his eye fucking poked out, and all of a sudden these one-eyed people, yada, yada, yada.
So, yeah.
It was, it is, they do describe it if you go, it's not just individuals either.
It is actually like a group of people.
Like there was, they're described as a type of people in a lot of these myths and legends and stories and depictions.
It's yeah, it is a bit, it's not, yeah.
I understand you have individuals that are potentially giants, but they do describe it as a giant.
There are certain culturals, there are certain cultures that are just taller than others and certain people that are shorter to this day.
So would we describe them as giants now?
Maybe not.
And obviously things are going to get exaggerated through time.
Sorry, this is not your giant theory, but I was going over your stuff and you have an interesting theory on aliens.
Goldilock Zone and Lost Civilizations00:04:17
Ah, okay.
We want to go and well, I mean, I don't invoke aliens for any of the ancient civilization stuff, but I'm like pretty convinced.
I mean, I think it's a mathematical certainty that other life exists in the universe.
But you said it was humans that have left the planet, correct?
Oh, you're just on the concrete book or something?
Yeah.
It's possible.
So this is, and there's some other people.
It's an interesting theory.
I wouldn't say it's my theory, but yeah, it is possible to analyze some of the historical accounts that there may have been an exodus.
And some of this may have even been depicted in some of the Egyptian temples and in stories that it could be taken in that light.
That yes, there may have been a branch of humanity in the past that left.
So would that be the first?
Oh, yeah.
Okay, go, go, go.
If we're having fun, pre-younger Dryas, some humans could have escaped Earth.
Yep.
And that's why alien civilization or technology, alien technology is so much more advanced.
It's just these humans from pre-younger Dryas that built the pyramids who got the fuck out.
And now we started over.
So the giants have had to start.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We're just the guys who left and had to start over and they're out.
They have all their technology.
Think about it like this.
They saw the fireball coming.
Yeah.
And they're like, well, no part of this.
We're going.
We're going to F out of here.
And maybe we'll come back when the weather's nice again.
That's the crazy part.
It's only some of them made it off, too.
Yeah.
The rest of them just had to wear that shit.
Yeah.
Yes.
Fuck.
Yeah, you want to win the lottery in that case.
It's like, yeah.
All right.
What's your social career number?
Do you think that's the obsession with space travel now?
You think that Elon and some of these guys, they know that it's only a matter of time before a comet comes and they just want to be ready to be out there?
You know, Elon is interesting in that he does seem to have this awareness of these ice ages and cataclysms and stuff.
And I'm sure, look, we're getting better at it.
Like, we are.
We did the DART mission recently.
You see that?
Where we fired off a probe and actually tried to deflect like a moon.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
So we just moved it like a 15th of a degree or whatever.
And enough to think, all right, theoretically, we could probably do something about this.
So we're starting to put some resources towards it.
People do understand it.
Back when there was Space Force and Colonel Matt Lomai was running it, he was going to get Randall Carlson in to talk to those guys about catastrophism.
So I'm sure people are looking at it.
Yeah.
But, and that's the, I guess that's the long-term goal for some of the space guys.
I don't know.
I mean, shit, that makes sense.
If it happens this regularly and it's this catastrophic, why would we not, you know, put some resources toward it?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, I just, the whole alien thing, though, it's, it's like, I don't think we need it to justify the stuff in the past.
You know, what Bob Lazar said on Rogan was interesting.
One of the things he said was, well, one of the aircraft came from an archaeological dig.
So this may be possible this stuff's been going on for a long time.
I don't see why not.
That's, you know, it's an awful lot of space and time out there, you know, for that overlap to happen.
We kind of think of things in our long term, is the span of a human life.
It's not very, and you know, in terms of the rest of the universe it's nothing it's.
You know, you've got a blank, billions of years and almost infinite distances, and to have two civilizations kind of peak and cross over and and match each other is is uh, it would be, it would be a coincidence, but mathematically it's almost certain that life exists right, like the Kepler missions when they they did that and they started to look at, like what, where they found planets in in the goldilock zone around stars.
They started to analyze the shadows in front of stars and they could determine, like the, the distance of some of these planets and they thought they wouldn't find them very much, but then they just the exponent went up exponentially.
It's like planets are in goldilock zones everywhere.
So if you could explain the goldilocks well it's, it's the distance where a planet's orbiting like a, like a habitable solar system with a sun that works for us, and you're in basically a zone where liquid water can exist right, because you're either too hot and it balls off, or you're too cold and it's just rock hard, and so there's a little Goldilock Zone, like where Earth is, where you have liquid water and everything we know about life is, you know, requires that as a basis for it, and then whatever else takes place to to start life and evolution.
And I mean, if they find one Scarrick of bacteria or something on Mars or or even something else in this titan, for example, in this solar system, I mean that's, that's case closed.
If you find life in more than one astral, one body in one solar system, it's everywhere.
Forget it, it's got to be everywhere.
Antarctic Maps and Ancient Knowledge00:02:06
So are you interested in Antarctica at all in terms of uh, like geological research and pyramids and things like that?
I know that there's a big like looming conspiracy regarding Antarctica, where you know people can't go and visit there's, it's super restricted and cut off and it's blocked on google Maps and a lot of places.
So i'm curious if your thoughts on that.
You can go to and if you want to go skiing in Antarctica or go climb mountains, you can.
There's like a summer camp, you can fly down there and and do that.
Stuff just costs a fortune.
Uh, I am interested in it and I do think that it's a pet.
That's actually a potential zone for investigation, for a remnant of of, if there was anything left of say, a builder culture.
I think Antarctica is one of those places we should look.
We know parts of Antarctica have had ice on them for a very long time, like a million years.
But there's also some weird shit that comes down from like ancient maps.
You know this like there's.
It's one of these evidences.
It's like this fragment of advanced knowledge.
We talked about longitude earlier.
Right there are.
There are ancient maps that were made, like the Piri Rays map's a good example made by a Turkish admiral named Piri Rais in the 1500s.
He drew it from a collection of older source maps that he got from like the Library OF Alexandria that are now all lost to us.
So we don't have the source maps.
We have his map, which is a collection of other maps, but parts of it show both very accurate longitude and it also maps the coastline of Queen Maudsland in Antarctica super accurately, like and that today is under the ice.
It's like a mile of ice or something, and this was confirmed by, like the, the?
U.s.
Like AIR Force Geological MAP Group in the 1960s, as a professor named um Hapgood John um, was it John Hapgood?
But uh, Charles Hapgood?
Uh worked with the the, the U.S UH AIR Force and these guys to the Topographical Department to confirm like yeah, that's the explanation for this part of the map.
It's it's the coastline of Antarctica and what's under the ice, and that map also shows like rivers and trees and things.
So it's like there's little fragments that come down of like what the world may have looked very differently in the past.
I mean, the idea that it's habitable 500 years ago seems pretty surprising to me.
Well, I don't think it was 500 years ago.
High Tech Nature and New Perspectives00:07:10
So so this is.
This is the thing so Piri raised was he was using maps from, he was using ancient maps.
Yeah yeah, that we don't.
That may have been redrawn from other ancient maps.
It's like this, there's a couple other maps, like Arontius Phineas MAP.
It's another one.
It shows like America and Antarctica and Australia and continents before they were ever technically discovered.
And they show very accurate longitude, whereas the parts that are drawn by the sailors of the time are all over the place.
The accuracy is horrible.
So it looks like, and Pyramid shows this as well.
We were solving some of these problems, like longitude, way back in the past.
And we get these little tidbits of information that get transmitted down through time.
One's in architecture.
Another one seems to come through these ancient maps, which, again, they're all comprised of bits from older maps that are all gone now.
So it's like, ah, we don't, it's like little tiny bits of information.
But it all seems to point to like, we had some pretty significant capability back in the day.
And military power as well.
That's the other thing that I'm very interested about.
Like, it seems like most of our society, a lot of the advancements come out of military, where we have these big wars and then we were able to, you know, sort of democratize all the technology into society and it gets dispersed.
Is it, do you find that these societies had advanced militaries in the same way?
And these tools, I'm sure if they can build a pyramid, they can also use to cut off a bunch of people's heads.
Potentially.
Yeah, I don't see any evidence for that.
And Graham Hancock has a he does, he does definitely think that this civilization may have functioned differently to ours and had different values and systems.
I don't know.
I think if it's human, I have a hard time thinking we get away from our nature, you know?
And our nature, to be honest, is nature's nature.
Like it's one of the reasons when you get alien stuff, I'm like, don't yell in the jungle, bro.
Like we're in the jungle and we're transmitting this shit out there.
Like don't we should be good.
We're not going to be besties.
Dude, look at any the top of the food chain in air, sea, you know, on the ground.
What's it involved?
It involves a lot of violence.
You don't stand for competition.
You eradicate your competition.
It's nasty.
Nature's violent.
What makes you think any other life out there is going to be benevolent?
We aren't.
We aren't, right?
So these space programs that are just blasting radio signals and sending capsules with depictions.
We're peaceful.
This is us.
Careful what comes back at you.
I don't know.
It's just like yelling in the jungle.
I'm not sure.
I think if we know the look at nature on this planet, it's all I'm saying.
Like the top of the food channel it's savage.
And we're a representation of that too in a lot of ways.
Yeah, of course.
Ben, anything else before we wrap this up?
This has been amazing.
Thank you.
I have one.
I've had a lot of fun.
Last question.
Have you come across any piece of information or anything that made you question what you believe?
Ooh, great.
I've certainly come across stuff that's refined what I've been thinking.
Like it's changed my opinion on certain things, but I can't say if, look, and my whole perspective on this like ancient civilization that's lost with a high-tech whatever, that's a great way of saying it.
I still think it's the best explanation for the evidence that we have.
I'm willing to have my mind changed.
And if at the end of the day, you know, getting to those answers and investigating these topics means I'm proven wrong, I'm fine with that.
I just, I kind of want to get to the truth of it.
Yeah, like I've learned stuff about different sites.
I've learned things about the Serapium and some of the boxes and stuff that's changed my opinion on some of those here and there.
But it's like, it's more a refinement than anything else.
I really do think that when you look at all these vectors, right?
The scientific work, the human timeline, our own history, cataclysm, the stuff that's in all of the religious tales, the ancient maps, the connection with these architecture and all of this advanced knowledge.
Then you look at the stonework and the evidence for high-tech.
I just think the best explanation for that, when you put it all together, is this idea that our history is a bit longer and more complicated than we've thought it was.
What that actually looks like, I don't know.
I don't really claim to know how the stuff was done or what it looked like.
I'll speculate.
But I still think it's the best.
It's the best explanation for what we're seeing.
And again, but I'm willing to have my mind changed.
For sure, the dynastic Egyptians and other civilizations, I'm not saying all of that's bullshit.
They were there.
They did stuff.
They worked on stuff.
They were great.
They achieved a lot.
But you can't explain everything that we see in history by them, the Inca or the dynastic Egyptian.
Something else is going on.
And it's an interesting story.
I'm personally fascinated by it.
I think it means something for us as a civilization if we can come around to this idea with this and with cataclysm.
So, yeah, I don't know.
I think it's to me endlessly fascinating, but I think it actually means something to us as a species if we can figure it out too.
Do you think we do?
We do figure it out.
I'd love to say yes in my timeline.
I've got some hope for the next generation of, I don't know what shape that answer takes.
Is it when the academics say yes or the textbooks change?
Because to some degree, it's like the nature of the discourse has changed.
Do we even need to have this in textbooks anymore?
I think a lot of people can evaluate the landscape and they can figure it out and make up their own mind.
That said, I do have hope for the next generation because I've been contacted by a lot of students and people that will be the next generation of academia and the establishment.
And I think they're being forced to deal with guys like Graham Hancock and Schock and Beauval, the stuff in the books and all of this evidence.
And that's why I'm really hopeful for things like what we did with the VAS scan.
It's a super nerdy technical topic, but it's, I genuinely think it's game-changing.
Like this is hard data you cannot refute.
And you cannot say you literally have to go and prove that you can do this by hand.
I think it shatters the whole primitive tool story, which in turn then has this domino effect on all the assumptions and what we think was going on in the ancient time.
So I'd like to say yes.
I hope we figure it out.
I hope we at least change our and open our mind because ultimately we need to look at this stuff with an open mind.
We're going to learn things too.
That's the other thing.
We might actually learn stuff from it.
We might find out something about technology or something that we don't understand today.
So yeah, ultimately that's what I hope.
It's just like we open up our minds, we can investigate this stuff and try and figure it out.
Amazing.
Awesome.
Brother, thank you so much.
Cheers, man.
Everybody go check out Uncharted X.
This is Ben's YouTube channel.
He has tons of pieces on there.
You're doing interviews.
You're doing like these in-depth pieces on certain sites.
I've watched a bunch of them.
They're great.
And check out his episode, Rogan, and obviously all the other cool stuff he's got.
You do tours as well, right?
Yeah, yeah.
So I love taking people to these places, going to Turkey in a couple of weeks here.
Egypt, Egypt later this year.
Nice.
It is good fun.
Cosmic Summit's coming up too in June.
We're doing a big conference, Randall Carlson, Graham Hancock over in Asheville.