#389 - Nuclear Physicist Goes Public with NEW Evidence on Lost Ancient Tech | Max Zamilov

Welcome back, Max. Well, thank you, Danny, thank you for having me again. My pleasure. I just finished reading your paper published in Nature, all about the Vases. Correct. Amazing. I am amazed. You read it because I didn't really expect anybody to read it because when you write a scientific paper, you think just two or three in nerds would read it and that's it. But that paper has like 4,000 downloads by now. Wow. Yeah, and it's trending really high and I was surprised to see how many people interested in the topic, because by definition, scientific papers are supposed to be boring. Right. But I guess one of the topics is fascinating as ancient Egyptian Vases. It's anything but boring and that's honestly what kept me through it because it's a lot of doing research is one thing, writing it up as a paper is quite different because the amount of requirements that go in is a lot. And one thing you got to do, you got to put it in the context of the broader research on the topic because when you publish a paper, it needs to fit within the existing knowledge on the subject. And if it doesn't, you cannot get it published, which means you have to research all of their references and literature and see what other researchers and scientists explored about this topic and tie it all in and see how your research fits, how it adds additional knowledge or returns established notions and whatnot. And of course, as you recall, the biggest outcome of that paper was that there is no such thing as precise ancient Egyptian Vases. There's no such thing as precise ancient Egyptian Vases. Yes. They're all handmade. So the outcome of my research, which was like 180 degrees flip in my thinking, in my understanding, that all of this fascinating ancient Egyptian Vases are handmade. And this is a very high quality manual work, but it's not like machine work. And that's, I guess, where, you know, the rift developed between myself and, let's say, you know, Ben and Matt, to some extent, because they, you know, I cannot speak of now because haven't been a while, you know, since we talked, but last time we talked, they still, you know, believed that some of those Vases were, you know, precise and genuine, whereas all of my research point that, you know, to the opposite. And I can tell you more about it in just a second. But that's, I guess, what happens sometimes in scientific exploration. So you start, you know, it was one idea. And as data comes in, you're forced to change your opinion on it. And that's, you know, the very definition of open-mindedness. You've got to be able to change your opinion when facts demand it. And when I started, you know, this phase project, I was entirely sold on the idea that they were, you know, genuine, you know, precise, quote unquote, precise ancient Egyptian Vases that were machined, you know, with space-like precision. And I was really excited to, you know, characterize them and, you know, prove the points. And, typically, about months, I started, you know, researching the point. I wasn't finding any evidence of that. And, in fact, in all of the data points, kind of, we're stacking up higher and higher to tell me that, you know, the genuine museum pieces are handmade, whereas, you know, some pieces from the private collections aren't genuine. And that's, unfortunately, is a sticking point. So if you own, you know, one of these, of course, you don't want, you know, the authenticity of your object, you know, challenged or questioned. Right. But that's kind of what I've ended up, you know, doing in the end, because this is, you know, where the data points to. So the basis of this paper, this research that you did, was you took a bunch of bases from the museum, the Petri museum. Correct. You took a bunch of bases from private collections, the people who bought them off the antiquities markets. And then what was the other subset of bases? Vases are bought on the internet. Vases that are perched on the internet. Yes, basically I want crazy on eBay. And I bought a bunch of stone vases. And the issue is, there's no way to actually prove and put a timestamp on when these are made because they're stone. There's no way to do carbon dating. Exactly. So that's, I guess, the principle issue with stone is it's not easily dateable. Right. And there are some experimental techniques, like thermo, thermal luminescence. So if you have a granite surface, that's been, well, let's say, aged, you know, just naturally. And then you take a sample of it, put it in an oven, and let it like relax under heat. It will emit some light. And you can measure the amount of that light. And you can say, well, based on the amount of light, you know, this surface is so many years old because what happens is, you know, granite has quartz in it and quartz tends to accumulate radiation damage. So natural background radiation strikes quartz. And you got these electrons that are captured in it. And then when you heat it, it gives off, you know, those accumulated electrons as light. Yeah. I'm over simplifying it, but that's in an actual, what it is. And then if you, you know, machine the surface, you take off that, you know, surface layer, and then you have this virgin material that hasn't accumulated, you know, this is very melt or radiation. And then you take a sample of it, it will give off a lot less light. So that's how, in principle, you can date, you know, granite or other in a similar-- Oh, interesting. You know, quartz reached stones, but I haven't found a lab that was, you know, willing to do it. And in fact, back then, when I was still working with Matt Bell, we reached out to a lab that looked like they could do it, but they said they do it on ceramics. So for ceramics, it's actually an established technique because you find a piece of pottery, and it's the same thermal human essence applied to pottery, can tell you when that pottery was baked. And that's like a routine procedure that's done a lot, you know, for ecologists, you know, whoever to wear, you know, you sent your samples to the lab, and they'll be able to tell you the age of that ceramic. So the more, so when it comes to granite, the more glow you get out of the quartz, the earlier it typically is. Yes. Yes. But, you know, I asked, you know, if they would look at the piece of granite and characterize it in the same way, and they kind of refused-- Who refused? The lab. The lab. Yeah, because it's not a common technique. What happens is, in science, when something is not common, you know, there is a big, like, learning curve and, like, set up and everything goes into the process. So if there was a lot of demand for it, I guess it would be worthwhile for somebody to set up an operation like this wherever you calibrate everything and go through the grinds of getting, you know, reliable data, and then you can start dating, you know, those things. But nobody, you know, to my knowledge, you know, provides that service, and my knowledge is not extensive. So, you know, maybe somebody out there, there is. But the way science goes, nothing is easy, you know, carbon dating is hugely complex. And the only reason it's done, because there is a lot of demand for it. And then it's been, like, perfected sufficiently to where you can, you know, get reliable information. But if you're just starting it, like, my wife sometimes says, you know, Max, why wouldn't you, you know, do your own carbon dating until, look, it's the amount of learning. And equipment and everything I need to put in is like, you know, years of effort. Right. But, you know, once you do it, it becomes like 10 minute job. Right. But after, you know, two years of prep. Right. So, how many total basis did you measure for this paper? Boy, good question. I think it was over 60 or 80, you know, something of that nature. I think about 20 from Petri about 20, oh, okay, 20 vessels that were handmade in Egypt from that you knew for a factor hand made need. Yes, okay. Yes. They were made from, in correct term is in Egyptian alibaster, but correct term is travertine or calcite. So, travertine or calcite vessels that are handmade in Egypt, you know, to this day, you know, for tourists, basically. There are two cool things about it, the tradition, the stone working, you know, stone, you know, vase making tradition, survived for millennia and this fact actually is described in the scientific literature. I wasn't the first one, you know, by no account, who discovered it, you know, some other, like almost 100 years ago, you know, archaeologists, it's no good for probably, you know, discovered that they are still making these vessels and now that evolved into like a tourist business where they make them for tourists and you can go into shops and you can see, you know, how they're made and they're using, like, augers to hold out vessels and they use rubbing stones to shape them. So, it's basically same, you know, tools and techniques and as depicted, let's say, somewhere in a, in a tomb, right, on the wall, you see someone, you know, barefoot, Satan and grind in this vessel. It's exactly the same. The only difference is instead of like copper or bronze tools, you know, they use steel tools now, but that's the only difference. And I don't think they use flint chisels anymore, it's like, you know, metal chisels. And so, all of the ones that you measure that you knew were handmade in ancient Egypt, in these museums, none of those were perfectly symmetrical. No. No. And in fact, that was, you know, one of the things I, you know, introduced in my paper, I introduced a technique on how to characterize a vessel. Because when you look at a vessel like this, what does perfection mean? In order to define the perfection, I had to define the metric of quality. And metric of quality is basically a sum of concentricity and circulary metric. So you take this object and then forgive me for repeating this from our previous discussion, but you basically take a 3D scan and you slice it into perpendicular to the axis of symmetry. And you get a more or less circular slices. And each slice, you can characterize it how round it is. And those slices, when you superimpose one on top of them, how concentric they are? Do the old center on the same axis, or are they slightly off? And you get a number. And you add these numbers together and you get a value in which tells you how perfect your vessel is. The value is like real low because I'm looking for deviations. The real low values tell you it's a high-quality manufacturing process because it's very round and it's very like concentric. But if it's a handmade, the value is not going to be very low because it's not perfectly round and it's not perfectly concentric so you get higher values. And all handmade vessels that were made in Egypt, they form like a cloud and they want to plot the points on a chart. And one axis is concentricity, they are circular, there is a cloud. And then I take vases from the Petri museum and I crunch the numbers in a similar way and I get another cloud. And the biggest surprise to me was that both clouds are virtually indistinguishable. They map on top of another. So which means that the quality of the Petri vessels cannot distinguish from the quality of the handmade vessels that were made by hand in Egypt. Where is the so-called the precise vases, let's say from Math Bell's collection? Yeah, so where did you get the most precise measured vases? Right, so the most precise were the so-called precise vases from Math Bell's collection. From Math Bell's personal collection. From his personal collection. He has about 80 and maybe a 10 or so were qualified as precise. Okay. 10 out of the 80 were perfectly precise. Really, really, really. Within what was the deviation like a boy, a good question. See if I can remember. I thought it was one thousandth of an inch or something crazy. Yeah, it's like few thousands of an inch. Okay. And anybody interested can look at the actual numbers in the paper because it's free, like open access. Anybody can download and see. We'll link it below for folks that are listening. And forgive me if I don't remember the numbers. But the point is the precise vases in a form a separate cluster, a separate cluster of very low values. So when you plot and I call this quality map, so when you plot this handmade Egyptian vases, you've got like a big blob. And then you plot the Petri museum vases, you get another big blob and the two blobs overlap together. You cannot distinguish them. But when you plot precise vases from Math Bell's collection or from some other people I've made and befriended. It's a different, you know, tightly packed cluster of low concentricity, error and low, you know, roundness, error, values. That's very distinct. So you can easily tell them apart. But where, you know, the biggest surprise was that all of this eBay vases that I bought. eBay vases. eBay vases. And by now I probably have 50 or 60 maybe even more. I mean, my house is just any new Ukrainian, you know, there is a vase in it. How much can you, can you buy one of these for an eBay? I'd like 10 bucks, no way. And their granite? Some are, yeah, I think for granite vases, maybe like 50 bucks and I'll explain why. But the point is when I analyzed the inner mortar, you know, eBay vases, you know, they formed the same cluster as, you know, the vases, precise vases from Math Bell's collection. No way. Yeah, it was exactly the same, you know, no difference, you know, whatsoever. And of course, you know, to me, you know, the only conclusion I sick and draw is, you know, those were made in modern times, as opposed to in the ancient times, because, and the ones that you purchased on eBay, the description was how do they describe they were made? Oh, most didn't have any description. And really sometimes I would buy a vase and it says one thing, but you know, when I look at it, I know it's another thing. The most common material, of course, is marble, you know, because it's beautiful. So mostly very soft, right? Yeah, also very soft. So most vases are marble because it's a beautiful material. It's easy to machine and the way they're made, you know, you just put it in a lathe and you run like a steel cutter, typically that's in a good enough to give it the outer shape and you know, give it the inner shape. And it's all perfect and nice and looks beautiful. Some vases are made out of what is called like Pakistani onyx and one that, once again, it's a misnomer because it's not onyx. It just looks like onyx and reality is calcite, but it's very beautiful. It looks like onyx, but it's the same, you know, softness is marble, but beautiful texture. So those are made in Indian, Pakistan. And of course, I wanted to have some harder stones too, like granite. And granite isn't like typical for your gift shop vases because it's hard stone and can be machined. No problem machining it, but it requires a diamond tipped tools. And in fact, there are multiple companies that make, you know, this kind of product out of granite in the typical application is outdoors stuff because, you know, what happens to marble outdoors, like very quickly, it degrades because acid, you know, in water and just soft stone in a watery road that unbuzz acid even faster, you know, so it's very unstable. So that's why a lot of marble structures, you know, Greek Roman ruins are in terrible shape. So if you want something to last, you make things out of granite and where people want something to last that like funerary stuff, you know, monuments and a lot of granite vases are actually urns or vases for flowers that you put at a tomb. And there are shops in China and India that like mass produces it in a furniture area. New seasons means fresh starts. And with ira stores anniversary sale running from April 13th through April 27th, it's honestly the perfect time to upgrade your hair and skin care routine. I restore has been leading the way for red light therapy for over two decades. And for April only, you get a bundle discount on two customer favorites. The ira store elite and the alumina mask, the ira store elite is clinically proven to help regrow hair using 300 lasers and 200 LEDs that send light therapy directly to your scalp. And the ira store alumina is a dermatologist recommended face mask with double the power than most competitors. It targets fine lines, breakouts, stimulates collagen and boosts blood flow. I've been using my ira store elite to research and read up on guests is the coolest looking and least invasive method I found for hair growth. I restore is kicking off their anniversary sale with some huge discounts on their red light therapy devices. And right now, you can say on customer favorites like the ira store elite helmet and the alumina face mask. Just head to irestore.com and use the code Danny Jones to take advantage of the sale. That's D-A-N-N-Y-J-O-N-E-S, no spaces at the letter I-R-E-S-T-O-R-E.com. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Give your hair and skin the upgrade they deserve so you can feel confident and refreshed. Why did I never think of that? Those things are like the same size as urns. Mm-hmm. Yeah. So urns. I wonder if they were used for that back then. No. Actually, I have some idea of what they're using. I wonder if you did any cremation in ancient Egypt. Not to my knowledge, I guess, my modification was the go-to thing. Yeah, that's what I thought. And we know from studies that a lot of the ancient Egyptian vases were used for cosmetics so cosmetics and specifically coal. But they pull, sorry, interrupt. I thought they pulled organs out before they did the moment. Maybe they could shove the heart in one of those ways. They're like canopic jars. Okay. So when you have a mummy, or burial, it was a mummy, organs were typically put in canopic jars. But if we talk about like heartstone vases, predenastic, those were primarily used for like, ointments and cosmetics. Because some of them that I even, that I analyzed using X-ray fluorescent spectroscopy, I was able to find traces of coal. And coal is this lead-rich black substance they used, you know, for eyeshadow and whatnot. But kind of finishing to answer your question. So I bought a lot of this granite in a vases from the shops that make funerary implements. And shout out tonight, Scarab, you know, he bought some, I think one on X-rays and one, should I forget the word, the glass, volcanic glass was the word obsidian, obsidian, obsidian straw glass. He shared his hands with me. So there was, you know, a good sample of really heartstone vases there. And once again, what I realized is, you know, the manufacturing quality is in distinguishable, in distinguishable between, you know, those eBay vases that were made on a lathe or in case of this, you know, granted. their bases, they were made on the mill because to turn them on the outside, you use the lace, but then, you know, if you need to hollow out, you use the mill. And the quality was indistinguishable. And, you know, how come I didn't find any of that at the in a Petri museum? And ever since, you know, I've been actually in a posting some of my findings on X and on my blog and other people were going back and forth. So I went again to a Petri museum. So I've been there three times now. So I've been twice in May of last year. And that information is published in my paper. And then I went again in December of last year. And I also went to Manchester Museum. And by luck, a colleague of mine was able to go to the Pushkin Museum in Moscow and Russia that has a substantial Egyptian collection. And they scanned like 20 more bases from it. So all in all, we have like 50 or 60, you know, museum vase scans. And none of them are precise. So none of them are in like nearly in the same ballpark of what you get, you know, when you buy a vase from eBay, you know, it's been turned on a lathe. And that to me is, you know, conclusive proof that, you know, this so-called precise bases from private collections aren't of ancient Egyptian origin, just just based on their in a manufacturing quality. Because there is nothing in museum that is like like that. And when people say, well, you haven't seen all of them and it's true, you know, haven't scanned like every single and a vase in the world. But in the research thing is statistics. Sure. And if we, you know, the reason the world functions is because we believe in statistics, right? So when you develop a drug, you know, it helps one out of, you know, 100 people. But that's good enough, right? Because it's a proxy, right? Yeah. A million people sick. And you know, 1% is 10,000 people. It's a lot. So we know that statistic works. And if you like sample sample and sample and you don't get any of this in like an usual objects in your sample, you know, they likely don't exist. And then the question becomes, you know, what are they? And I don't know if they were made like in modern times or they were made in 19th century. So the lathe and machining tools in our ability to work hard stone at very high quality and existed for at least 200 years. So I cannot tell you whether those wages were made in modern time or in like 100 years ago. But I sure as heck, no, they weren't made in ancient Egypt, just because they're so different in their manufacturing quality. But that's not, that's not maybe even, you know, the biggest argument to me, it's the biggest argument scientifically based on on the quality, you know, on the manufacturing quality. But there is another, you know, very important observation that we made recently. And that has to do with the stone itself. For example, you know, perdenastic stone visas, they are made of predominantly of four stone types. And a basalt is one. Then you have your diorite and undesired, and you have your, you know, break here. And sometimes, you know, calcite. So maybe like five predominant stone types. And every like museum you go to British Museum, you know, Oxford, you know, Cambridge, you know, met in Boston Museum, it's in a same stone type, you know, four or five stone types. And that's how it was. And if you want to, you know, read more about it, there is an excellent book by Barbara Austin. It's actually her PhD thesis. And her book is like 200 pages. And she studied every, you know, hard stone vase in existence. Pretty much. Really? Yes. It's unbelievable. What was her name again? Barbara Aston. Barbara Aston. Yes. Aston. Yes. And her book slash and dissertation thesis is called ancient Egyptian stone vessels. And the amount of work she's done is just unbelievable because she cataloged over, you know, 1000 vessels. So most of that book is a catalog. She says vessel, so in some material, such and such, museum, specific place. So she cataloged all of them. And out of like 200 or 300, she got permission to take stone samples that she studied under like electron microscope to figure out the stone type and where that's stone came from. So that's like the go to resource for your stone vases, very exhaustive exploration. And she was able to establish where the stone came from in Egypt, so specific like quarry sites. And, you know, which vases are made of which stone and gives a complete catalog. And guess what, how many granite vases are in that catalog of 1000 out of 1000, how many granite vases are there? 200. One. One. One. One. Yes. And that was a big shocker because you know, Ben was in the term OGV, so like original granite vase. And then like all over internet, it's OGV's original granite vase. And then Matt Bell has this precise vessels and most of them are granite. And you know, none of ancient Egyptian vessels are granite save for one. And by granite we mean us one granite, which is, you know, this characteristic, you know, pink granite that Egyptians used. And they use this as one granite a lot for sarcophagi for various sculptures for columns. But not so much for vases because only one vase is known to exist that's made out of us one granite, you know, that's documented by Barbara Astam in that book. And she says, yep, you know, only one, you know, us one, you know, pink or red, you know, how we want to call it, pink us one granite, red us one granite vase. And she was able to find in museum collections. And if you go like to online resources and you look for granite vases, you'll find some, but it's all mislabeled. It's not granite. It's some other type. It's either die right or undesired or or something else because those materials, you know, look similar. But when you look closer, you know, it's not granite. And this as one granite has a very specific, very certain texture. It's like big splotches of black with pink in a felt spot around it. So it's very characteristic. It cannot really miss it up with anything else. And that's, you know, one thing in a Veronica, my lovely wife, has done. She took a lot of pictures of as one, you know, granite objects from in various museums and put them on her blog, like side by side. So you could see what the, you know, pattern is. And then, you know, you compare against the OG vase or against male bells vases that are in a granite, like entirely different pattern. So just to clarify, out of 1000 vases that Barbara analyzed, one out of a thousand were a swan grain. Yes. Yes. Yes. But others were granite in general. No, no, no, no, granite at all. No granite at all. No. No. No, no, granite at all. No. It was just how your map bells vases are as one granite. I don't think has any as one granite at all. Not has a, you know, fewer red granite. But it's not as one granite. You know, when I look at it or when anybody look at it, in fact, you know, you can take a picture of his vases, you know, versus as one grant, you see that the pattern is doing. So that's another red flag. It's red granite. All right. But it's actually Indian red granite. Indian red granite. That's what it looks to me. Is it possible that any of the granite in his collection came from Egypt? You know, I'm not a geologist and I cannot speak in absolutes of that nature. But you know, when I look at his, you know, granite red granite vessels, they look a lot like Indian in a granite to me. And I'll show you in just a second. Although, you know, I cannot establish the variety for sure. Or I can say for sure, for sure, it's not as one granite because it looks like very different. So and to me, that's a dead giveaway because, you know, ancient Egyptians, they just didn't use, you know, red granite or as one granite for stone vases. They used it for sculptures. They used it for columns. They used it for sarcophagi. They used it for building blocks. They just didn't use it for vases. And that, that also, let me ask you to start. Sure. Yeah. This may be a very dumb question. What kind of granite is inside the Great Pyramid? Probably awesome one. Yeah. Can you confirm that, Steve? Yeah. Not entirely sure. But okay. So, yeah, and I think this stone choice makes sense because once again, if you read like Barbara Astons book or, you know, other publications, they trace how different types of stones were used throughout Egyptian history. So, you know, oldest vessels are basalt. And then you get, you know, diorite and desite. And and desite porphyry is, it's just beautiful. You know, black and white, you know, splotchy vases. That's indolent. And desite porphyry. Yeah. Aswan red-pink granite, sourced from quarries and Aswan. And then you get some calcite vessels too. And as time goes by, you know, different tastes set in. And like early, domestic, Egypt, you know, Gnase was all of the importance. And all of those, you know, bowls were made out of Gnase. And tens of thousands of them, you know, there was like massive manufacturing of really beautiful Gnase bowls that you can see everywhere, you know, they're not pretty nastic, but they're really dynastic. And that towards, you know, later dynastic periods, the shift was to Travertine, you know, which was incorrectly labeled as alibaster, but it's Travertine and some serpentine and some other stone type. So it's like fashion. You know, this started with one stone type and, you know, switched to the next and ended up actually with metal and glass and, and finance. Because as technology progressed, you know, demand for stone vessels kind of dropped because you know, metal implements looked more beautiful of the glass, you know, was exotic or finance was exotic. And it makes sense. Like we don't drive steam cars, right? So even gas engines are, you know, getting out of fashion with Gnena towards electric and who knows maybe in a year or so now we'll be fusion cars. That, that all makes sense, but kind of returning to the, a simplicity subject. So the granite, you know, wasn't used and besides, that's not an us one granite, you know, upon my examination. Omni to miscarrier is the third most popular microdose psychoactive in the USA with 3 million people reportedly using it, that's more than LSD or DMT, but there's a wave of dangerous gas station fakes out there and who knows how many people are getting cheated out of the real deal. Omantara is the complete opposite of all those scams and that's why I only trust Omantara. I never would have touched Omnita if it weren't for Omantara. They are the trusted Omnita supplier in the US, totally legal, no synthetics and 55,000 happy customers. All doses put you in a calm, focused, almost flow state headspace, while medium doses is more like a jolly alcohol alternative, great for sleep and dreams. Some people even call it nature's wine. I take a few of these capsules most days after work and it helps me get rid of all the stress from the work day and be more engaged and in the moment with my family. Imagine being in a stress-filled environment and not feeling triggered, that's what Omnita does for me. They are the largest Omnita miscarrier supplier in the US, totally legal, ethically sourced and lab tested. They had the largest Omnita miscarrier selection from oils to capsules, chocolates and the rock caps. It's not just a store or a single product. These guys are helping pave the way for a new legal medicinal psychoactive mushroom in the US and I'm happy to be a part of it. Go to Omantara.com/go/dj and use the code DJ22 for 22% off your first order. And something that even Matt agreed was me that the surface of this so-called most precise vase is it's pristine, there's not a nick, not a scratch, and it just trains corduility that after five or six thousand years, they're just so pristine. And all of the invasions and collections are just, I mean, in museums, I want to say terrible looking, but they show the age, there is a weathering and there is damage and a bunch of imperfections. You have no doubt looking at an old thing just because it's so worn and no wonder, they've been traded so much, they spend so much in the sand, sure, they show their age. But yeah, you want to ask questions? No, I have so many questions running through my head right now. Well, one other thing I'm going to say, and then you can ask questions, I think a popular theory was the one that Dan from didunking, kind of dwelled upon considerably is, and for that matter, Ben also said that all of the best objects were given by Petrie to private collectors. Ben, Ben Kirkwick, and Dan from didunking, said all of the most precise vases were given away by the Petrie Museum to private collectors. By Petrie himself to private collectors. Oh, by Flinders Petrie. Right, yes. And that's kind of a popular theory that's discussed by- Is there any evidence of this? So my point, because of my work that received good reviews, the director of Petrie Museum helped me a little bit with this question. So she directed me towards invaluable resources that contained in the notes and publications on how the artifacts in and trickle down from, let's say, the excavation site to museums and in eelsware. And there is an invaluable book called "Skettered Fines." I think this book was written by, I believe, one of the curators of the Petrie Museum, which documents the process of how excavation took place and then how these objects were invented and moved around and ended up being scattered, but not irregularily or unaccountably, but rather how Petrie Collection formed the core that was split and shared among other museums and institutions. So Petrie had incredible integrity, along with all of the people he worked with, and all of the objects were accounted for. There is a record for everything, and you can go to the archive, and you will find- There's a paper trail. There is a paper trail. And the deal was, the expeditions were sponsored, obviously, and you cannot go to an expedition without having sponsors, you know, backers. And those sponsored and backers were primarily other institutions, like in a Boston Museum of Final Art or someone other archaeological society. They were private patrons also, but at the end- And what year were we talking? This was done. Beginning of the 20th century, maybe late 19th century, early 20th century, you know, somewhere in that ballpark. And the agreement was that backers, you know, get portion of the collection, and the backers were other institutions, other museums, other universities. So that's how you have, you know, collection of the British Museum. That's why you have Ashmolian. That's why you have in a Manchester. That's why you have in a collection of the Boston Museum of Final Arts. So all of those places received portions of the Petric collection. We weren't able to find any records of objects, you know, going to private collectors, like all the books. They wore a lot of objects given away, but those were, like, shachties. And if you know, shachties are a little, like, blue figurines, that were so numerous, they weren't even considered valuables, valuable. And there were like thousands of them, you know, given as gifts for subscribers. And subscriber were someone, you know, who contributed money to this, you know, foundation or fund that, you know, supported, you know, petries or their archaeological explorations. And as a token of appreciation, they would, you know, get these shachties. So there was no record of, you know, I wasn't able to find any record of Petric giving away, you know, just objects indiscriminately. And if he did, as I said, it went to a museum. Right. Well, it's possible, some of the, I mean, it could be possible that some of the big institutions that funded the excavations could have had some big shots behind it that were like, hey, we're going to fund this, but, you know, you got to pay us a tax or something like that. So, I cannot comment on that, but what I can say is this, I mean, I don't have any evidence for it, but you can't rule it out. This stone vessels weren't even considered like a valuable artifacts. Oh, really? And also in the 1800s, they have the technology to measure the stuff to see how precisely that was. That's exactly another point. I'm glad you're making it, but let me finish kind of the first point. So the stone vessels weren't even considered like valuable. And frankly, until I guess Ben started popularizing them, I don't think anybody cared much about them because, you know, pottery and stone vessels look very similar. You know, pot is a pot, you know, what is so unique about it? So the popular objects of the time were mummies, so everybody wanted to have a mummy. So when P3 or the archaeologists, you know, were giving up, you know, the finds, the squabbles were about mummies in this book that I mean, shouldn't it has a story where Australian, you know, museum received their share of finds, and there were no mummies in it, and there were no like sarcophagi or bigger objects, and they were like very upset. They said, you know, what kind of trash you send us, you know, you send us the shards and pots and whatnot, you know, where is the real stuff? So everybody wanted to have mummies and, you know, big objects. Right. And nobody cared about it, and the other point is. I, myself personally, when I went into a petri museum for the first time to study. I bought the vessels, stone vessels by looking at the pictures on the museum because I had to say which ones I wanted to study. So I bought them. And I divided them in two categories, one I called Precise and the other I called Imprecise. Because when I went, I had a theory in my mind that, you know, Ben was right all along and there were like two industries, one was making Precise objects and the one was. That was your mindset when you went into this. Yes. I bought in, you know, Ben's narrative, 100% that, you know, tale of two industries and the bad ones are really handmade by Egyptians and, you know, the precise ones are. Basically for folks that are listening to this, that bend into a series of videos on Ancient Egypt and some of the stones and artifacts that come out of Ancient Egypt. And basically the story is that the older you get, the more precise stuff is and the more recent you get, the closer you get to, you know, year zero, the more rudimentary and crude the stuff becomes, right? And less precise the stuff becomes. So the idea is that maybe there was some sort of a technology prehistory that we're not aware of, that we have no evidence for. That was responsible for some of this precision stonework, like the pyramids and the bases and all that stuff. I mean, you have those giant circular saw blade cuts and those big rocks and it's like, what the fuck is this? Maybe there was some lost industrial civilization that could explain this. Yeah. And I really, you know, believed that because it's a fascinating idea and it goes against the grain and I got to give you know, Ben Credit, he's an excellent storyteller. You know, he's an inspirational figure, I'd say in a great storyteller and when he presents in his story, it's very compelling. So I bought it like a hook and sinker, you know. Yeah. So I went to the museum with the idea that I'm going to prove in his theory. And that's why I looked, when I looked at the pictures, I sorted them like into bins. And by the way, I still buy it. I'm not, I still think that he's dead on with that. Even if the bases are our moderns, the precision ones are moderns, there's still a lot of stuff. There's still a lot of evidence that there was some lost industrial technology that we're not aware of. I would say, you know, we shouldn't conflate the subject of Vases, you know, with the rest of it. Right. Exactly. Because a lot of people who get upset with my work, they say, oh, you know, you say that the pyramids were, you know, given by hand. We're not throwing the baby out of the boundary. Yeah. I say, no, you cannot generalize to that extent. I'm just saying that Vases aren't it, you know, Vases are handmade, there's nothing special about them. Right. But I would love to study sarcophagy, you know, to venture my opinion. Mm-hmm. And I'd like to study, you know, the pyramids and some, a theory on, you know, some other artifacts. I want somebody to study that damn labyrinth. Yeah. So my point is, in order to answer a question, you've got to really study it because what appears on the surface, I literally, you know, may utterly deceive you. And that's how when I looked at the picture of the Vases and like categorize them into categories, and I couldn't believe it, that, you know, when I scanned these objects and I analyzed them, that both were of the same quality. And I say, but how come, you know, when I look, this vase looks fine and this vase looks crooked, but, you know, when I analyze it, it's the same quality. And that's, you know, how human eye in a perceives, if the surface is like smooth and not so much eroded, you think, oh, you know, this is a nice looking object. Right. But at the same time, you can have a much more like perfectly made object that surfaces a bit, you know, weathered, or even, you know, the color or texture of the surface is different and it doesn't look nearly as fine, or it might have some features about it that kind of throw you off, but computer is, you know, blind to the nuances of aesthetics and your computer just gives you numbers. And I was blown away to see that, you know, going by eye, I couldn't really tell, you know, which object was precise and which wasn't. They were all, you know, imprecise to the same extent, you know, granted, you know, some, you know, P3 museum objects were better made than others. And that happens all the time when you do, you know, things by hand. So some pieces turn out great, some notes. So, but in the end, you get the statistical distribution, you know, the bell curve. And as long as everything feeds on the bell curve, there is no problem, but you'll have a few objects outliers. Well, not exactly outliers, but, you know, as the bell curve goes, you have some objects in the front and some objects in the back. Right. And these are like exceptional pieces of craftsmanship, and these are like poor pieces of craftsmanship. But it feeds the curve, you know, it feeds the statistical distribution, and most of them, like 90% are somewhere in the middle, but occasionally get an exceptional piece when everything was lucky, you know, the, the artisan was lucky, the conditions were right, and it turned out, you know, more perfect than the rest. But overall, basically, you cannot tell just by eyeballing an object how well it's made. You have to analyze it with a 30 scanner and do the number crunching in order to tell, let's say a contemporary laser turn object from a similarly looking handmade object, you just, you know, cannot tell, and that's why even if collectors were trying to steal the most precise objects, you know, from Petri, you know, back then, when he was excavating them, he wouldn't be able to do it, just because they all look about the same. Right. And how did it make you feel when you, when you saw the data come through and analyze it? Couldn't belay it, because as I said, I went to Petri Museum and it was a certain mindset. So when I got the skins and the results were not what I expected, I like what the hell. I was looking for a mistake, because the first thing, you know, what was wrong, you know, how did I end it up with this data? But you know, when I scanned my object, I also scanned a reference standard. And that's another thing that, let's say non-scientists often overlook as whenever you do any kind of measurement. You know, how do you know that your measurement is correct? So you have to measure a standard. And in case of, you know, 3D scanning, you have to 3D scan a reference sphere, and the sphere of known diameter and known quality, right? And I scanned that sphere like four times throughout my scanning process. And every time it came out perfect, so I know my scanner was working right because every time I scanned the god damn sphere, it gave me, you know, the perfect one inch circle. And I included the data. It was my data set. So anybody can download and see what the sphere looks like. So I know my scanner was working right. So I thought, okay, well, maybe there is an error in my code. So I spent like two months rewriting my code. My analysis code. So every morning, I would get up like at six in the morning because I couldn't slip. You know, I really couldn't slip. So I would get up in the morning, not drinking coffee, not taking shower, not, you know, dressing in my boxer shirt, sitting on my couch, you know, rewriting the god damn code. And it took me two months to do it. And in the end, I couldn't find an error. And in the end, you know, my results are kind of cleared in the sense that the signal became obvious that the scans are correct. And what they're showing me that these objects are, you know, handmade and there is, you know, nothing unique about them from the standpoint of like lost ancient CNC machining technology. The hand made, you know, consistent with, with the same, you know, hand process, Egyptians pursue now when they make this travertine and calcite basis for tourists. And utterly inconsistent, you know, with the turning on a lathe or, you know, milling that we find in this, you know, eBay vases, or precise vases from, you know, Mad Bell's collection. So gradually, I started, you know, to accept this. I was already, you know, started writing a paper because, you know, I wanted the contents of my nature paper to be different, you know, I wanted it to say, Hey, I found, you know, lost ancient technology. So I wrote a paper like that. So I had to discard it and start writing a new paper, you know, the one that ended up publishing. So it took me like a while to adjust, you know, to the facts and make peace with them because they were entirely at odds with what, you know, Ben was leading us to believe. It's amazing how hard that is for us, huh? Yeah, it is. And that's why, you know, famous Conan Doyle, quote, attributed to Sherlock Holmes. You know, when you start an investigation, you should never have a theory because then you invariably make facts, bend facts to fit the theory, right? I was lucky in the sense that I was able not to fall into the same fallacy. And, you know, when I saw the facts that contradict my theory, I didn't throw out the facts. You know, I throw out the theory and I arrived at what I believe, you know, I correct theories. But, you know, psychologically, it's difficult. And of course, you know, Matt wasn't, you know, too happy to see, you know, me change, you know, do a 180 on his precise vases. So I think it was hard on him to, especially, you know, since there have been like three times on his show and, you know, every time we thought this was, you know, lost ancient technology. And then, you know, I can't say, well, I don't think it was. Yeah. So I think it was hard on him to, uh, I don't know where he stands now, but to me, it's It's pretty clear, but there was an additional, I guess, point I wanted to address, and that's why I brought all of this props here with me, because a lot of people, and once again, because Ben was saying it so many times, that you know, he can't make these today out of granite. Yes, that's the quality. Right. Right. And I heard this, you know, so many times. Does he still say that? Is that still his position? As of a few months ago, probably, but it's been a while since we talked, so I don't know what his views are now. And frankly, I was hoping that he would change his views and view of the facts that I uncover and present, but I don't know where he stands, maybe he can ask him. But by the way, Ben, the one who connected us in the first place, thank you Ben, obviously, for connecting. You know, he's a friend, I love him to does, but I'll cite, you know, the famous Latin saying, you know, Plato is my friend, but the truth is a better friend. So, you know, Ben is my friend, but truth is more dear to me, so I'm going to speak my mind, you know, honestly and truthfully. So there was a lot said, you know, by him and others that this precise vases are like airspace precision. We cannot make them today. Right. Chris Don was part of that. Yeah, anybody. So I was saying, you know, what a part of my French bullshit, so let me make them. So I went to like a few shops in China, of course, you know, you know, when you want to make something, you know, you go to China, right? Right. Probably would have been smarter and better going to places in America, but you know, you have to go to an artist because nobody typically works on hard stone because, as I said, it requires like diamond, diamond tip tools. Right. And it's difficult. And because shit you buy on eBay is like $10, $20 and how you're going to compete if you spend like 20 or 30 hours making something out of granite and you have to compete, you know, with this beautiful Pakistani, you know, Onyx vase, that's like $5 retail. You can't. So nobody, you know, wants to do it unless you say, well, you know, here's $10,000, you know, do it. I didn't have $10,000, so I started like a post on X and said, hey, I'm going to make these vases out of granite. So who's going to, you know, pitch in, you know, a thousand bucks, if you, you know, give me a thousand bucks, I'll give you a vase. So four people, fortunately, you know, pitched in and that gave me, you know, budget to work with. So I went to a shop in China and I said, can you make this? And they said, you know, sure. So I sent them drawings. So I actually took one of the vase from the petric collection that I skied and I asked my cat designer, you know, can you just make an idealized version of it that, you know, I can send to a shop to get a cat drawing. And that's what I did. And I sent them to the shop and they made me a few vases and I brought them here. So here is one. This is one that you had made in China. Yes. And here is another, right? I've had two more, but I want to use this material, granite. So this is black granite. This is black granite. And this is red granite, yes. And you can see this vase has all of the attributes of the precise vase. It has log handles that people said, you know, cannot be made. It has a narrow neck that people say, you know, cannot be made. And it's hollowed out on the inside. So inside is a lot, you know, larger than the outside. The inside also feels similar to the other vases I've heard. Because it's machining marks. And in fact, I also have videos of how they were made and I've sent some to Steve. And maybe when this episode ears he will include a few of those, yeah. And I have a lot to say about it, but basically, you know, what kind of granite is this, right? This is red granite. And this is Indian. Yeah. I'm actually asking which granite this is. And this looks in a pretty similar to what meds vases look. And they basically turn the outside on a lathe. And then, you know, there is this room left where the lug handles are and then they manually shave them off. It was an angle grinder. And the inside, the user, you know, the shave. So this is all round. Yes. And then they shave off here. Yes. To make these pop out. Exactly. And you can tell it. You can feel it, really. No, because it's good. I'm sure you can see it on the heat map, but. Yes. Yeah. And obviously, yeah, that's how it was hollowed out. Yeah, that's the rough hollowing out. And then they did the fine hollowing out on the lathe. Mm-hmm. So the rough, they used this cutter and the, you know, more fine one they did on the lathe. And that's the polishing. Oh. Yeah. And frankly, how precise, excellent question. But before I proceed, I want to talk about logistics a little bit. Okay. So it's not really expensive to make this, you know, what is really difficult is going back and forth. So I'm here in America and I'm talking to a girl who is an intermediary in English is not an native language for her and Chinese is not a language for me. And then there is a time difference and then she relates this information to the guys who make them. So we have me, her, maybe somebody else on them guys and a lot of information gets lost. A telephone game. Yeah. Basically. So management was difficult. So making them, making this for them wasn't. But making them, you know, the way I want them was difficult because either I couldn't explain it or, you know, they couldn't communicate it, you know, by jumping through the steps. And when they do something, I wasn't there standing, you know, no, that's not what I want. You know, it's like kind of like remote work, you know, work was engineers remotely even with speak the same language, it's not the same when you're like on all in the same room. So that was like the only challenge. And that's why, you know, some of the Vases don't quite look, you know, the way I want them to look is just because it was like an impossible game off like tag to try to explain and then adjust or adjust. But anyway. So I scan this Vases and I'm going to publish the scans shortly and they're practically indistinguishable from the precise Vases and MedBets, yes, yes. And that was, you know, the objective, I wanted them to be of the same quality and, you know, some are better and some are a little worse. Can I see that one in the back? Yes. And that's another story. That's the spinner. This is the spinner. Right. And you can. Oh, yeah, because all of Matt's ones were rounded bottom well, some war and you can actually spin it. And you see, it spins, spins just fine, yeah, spins no problem. And because that's another people were saying, yeah, I think like, what's this bright inside guy? Chris, Cercetti. Sorry. Cercetti. Oh, yeah. Jimmy Cercetti, sorry. Yeah, he kind of pointed out. So you can't make this well, you know, I made this and it spins. Holy shit. But that's not it. Check this out. Yeah, can you see the light shining through? Oh, Steve, you want to hit the lights or if you don't, we don't have to, but it might be fun. Oh, you can see it. I don't know. I can see he's going to kill the lights so we can get a really good shot of this. I'll let you play with it just, just shine on the side and you can see. You can actually. Can you see it? Yeah. So we did this when Matt came on the show. We did this with his Vases and was doing this too. So you can actually shine the light through because there is quartz. Wow. And these are like thin enough to where it shines through and this is not particularly bright light. Yeah, and there is an interesting thing about this spinner Vases. So when I ask them, actually like this better than this, but you know, when you eyeball them, you know, which one do you think is more precise? All these? Yeah. Let's see, how your eyesight, which do you think is like more precise? I mean, circularity. My brain wants to tell me the shiny one is the most precise. And what would be your second one? The red one probably. Good. Yes. Your eyesight is really good. You got it. I got it. Oh wow. This is more precise than this one. And these are less precise. And the reason being, you know, when you look at the videos, they actually cheated a little bit. I asked them like to turn the whole thing, but instead they, they were like a big foot in here. Oh, really? They grounded manually. So although this is angle grinder, he's opposed to turning on the lathe and this section, you know, the also ground, you know, was the angle grinder and you can see it. See that? Oh, sorry. So, yeah, you see the, the foot is pretty large. So those are areas that they messed up because it's not like machine work. Sure. It's semi hand work. And then the end of the day, you know, this vase looks in quality, you know, pretty similar, watching it up with the vases from Petri Museum. Really? Yes. Yes. So this quality fell short of the machine work like this to it. Like this to it made in the machine work quality like 100 percent because these were like mostly turned in the lock handles of fairly small and they did a better job at polishing them. So with this it was so hard to explain them what I wanted to where they said just screw it and they use the angle grinder for most of the work and That's kind of the result that you see and I'm like, oh god Do I go through another round of management trying them to say no just turn everything on the lathe and polish it better You know I might is there another way they could do this more even more precisely like it like with a with a C and C machine or something Yes, they can and I asked you can you do that and to say sure, you know, would you order a hundred? You know if I order much of that cost probably will cost 20 grand maybe Yeah, because I think if I do a hundred and each one would cost about two hundred bucks All right, let's think about it 20,000 dollars. We get a hundred bases. We sell each face for 50,000 dollars. Yeah How was the profit? Yeah, I mean obviously you can make this work and in fact what I'm going to say if you want a vase like this made You know, you can steal you know donate a thousand bucks. Right still, you know make one for you Because I mean I if nothing else I fell in love with stone vessels So that's why I have like a hundred of them now, you know the old mortar right I do I didn't end up collecting some You know, Janon to but I mostly found that I am like a vase junk. I just like the shape and I was kind of fun to have this made But I was astounded that you can actually, you know shine the light through the how thin you know the walls were On the block you can't do it because you know the crystals aren't as big But on this one what those really tiny ones like this mm-hmm Yeah, I mean you can do it. Yeah, in fact, you know the machine shop that makes parts for me for For the for my fusion project. Mm-hmm. You know, they have a sense of mill That you know, we can use to make this and it's currently in disrepair and the guy said well, you know You fix the mill for me, you know, I'll make some of this for you. So I said all right, you know you captured my interest I'll help you in a fix the mill so we can make them here as opposed to in China And I would don't have to you know jump through the hoops and play this in a broken phone Right trying to explain what we need besides, you know, I'll just give you a CNC You know drawing right and we can just program it into the machine and I will grind everything perfectly Mm-hmm. And there is no problem for the modern industry because Think about machine tools, you know cutters, you know, and meals and whatnot You know, they they don't grow from the ground. You know, they don't fall from the sky. They are machined and And this guy he can machine, you know tool steal no problem and how you do it? You have been a diamond tip cutters And as you know, the flutes on the cutters are a lever, you know, there is like complex shape to it and whatnot So none of that is problematic, you know for CNC and you use diamond tip tools to do it, right? So it's just You know, the approach I took It's ended up being like semi machine like half of it, you know, was turning the rest, you know Was machine with an angle grinder and then this, you know, as I said they turned out to be the same quality as maths You know most precise pieces Mm-hmm. And you know this in the interest of full disclosure and honesty aren't as precise But you know when you look at the manufacturing Process, you know, I so where they didn't follow my instructions, but heck, you know, they balanced they spin And you can shine the light through it. Yeah, it's fastening man. It can absolutely make them today and this looks pretty much You know like math spinner and that's where I got the Inspiration from the regular season is wrapped and the NBA playoffs are finally here and there's no better way to get in on the action Then prize picks a preferred partner of the NBA and right now if you pick live squares during the NBA playoffs You can win a trip for two to the NBA finals to enter just make a $5 lineup with at least one live NBA player pick during any part of the 2026 NBA playoffs live player picks are picks made after a game is already in progress I love how simple this app is you open the app you pick more or less on your player projections You build a lineup in under a minute and then suddenly the game is way more fun to watch no draft no season-long Commitment just daily fantasy whenever you want to play and yes prize picks is available in all 50 states The early payout is probably my favorite and most used feature if your player gets off to a hot start You now have the option to cash out your winnings before the game even ends that kind of flexibility during the playoffs is huge Download the price picks app today and use the code Danny to get $50 in line-ups after you play your first $5 lineup That's code D.A.N.N.Y. to get 50 bucks in line-ups after you play your first $5 lineup Prize picks a preferred partner of the NBA So let me ask you this the vases that we know were made in pre-denastic Egypt Would it have been possible to do those with the tools that we attribute to them? Yes, and here is the interesting like really interesting story behind it I would say it goes like this one my third visit to Petra Museum I actually looked at some of the unfinished Vases and they had a couple and I actually asked one that I photographed I think it was Diorite maybe like an unfinished vase and you could see and if you go like for their catalog You will see all of them manufacturing steps because it's a large collection like thousands of objects And that's a thousand of objects. There are some vases that were started but not finished and by started You mean an artisan like was a chisel gives the vase its initial rough shape. So basically sculpts it With all of the handles with all of the like essential parts, but it's not smooth It's rough and there are plenty of it or an extent of plenty examples like this in petric collection The one that I photographed was the vessel that already was in the in some stages of smoothing polishing and I am actually writing a new paper on Reconstructing you know the technology and I think How it went is after the object was Chiseled and chipped and sculpted it was mounted like on a shaft and it was submerged into a sand slurry Like a brazen sand, okay, and then it was rotated and The reason I believe this is the case is when analyze when analyze the skins I clearly see that the outer surface of the vase of the predenastic vase Was shaped by rotation of the vessel itself. It's a it's like glaring, you know from the day Interested because the yes, that's the unfinished object and The reason I know that the entire vase was rotated is because Concentricity is excellent, but circularity is poor and The thing is once you submerge this entire object in abrasive slurry, so it's wet sand basically and rotate it Uh-huh, you know the longer you rotate it The more around it will become it's like stones on the bitch like pebbles on the bitch Mm-hmm, you know just naturally sand and water it gives everything around shape So you start with a random shape, but this Natural grinding gives you round shapes the more you rotate it So the rotation here was abandoned in a midway and you see how the handles were Like smootched out yep because that's what happens, you know when you turn the thing and I think you know That's that's what they did they turned it and I think the objects got really hot in the process Because once again, so that's what ass one grain looks like no, that's that's direct. Oh, direct. Yes one granite looks Similar to this, but it's got like big splotches got it of black in it So when you rotate it like an islory it gets hot and what barber observed in her dissertation She says with all the samples she ran through electron microscope. She says that the chemical composition of stone was altered Altered by presence of heat and water That's that's what she observed. It wasn't like a virgin stone. So the stone was altered by heat and water and and when I read this I said, but of course This is what's going to happen if you deep this into sand wet sand and rotate it It's going to get wet. It's going to get hot and the surface is going to receive this glaze So most pretty nasty Egyptian vessels at least in the basalt ones and the right ones They have this glaze on top which you don't know what it is But it's the same you know freaking stone is just been you know chemically altered by by heat and water and I submit in the process of This is abrasion basically right in the process of abrasion and this is a lab laboratory technology where this thing is rotated and of course And once it's done they would Handwork you know the handles to define them better and you just use you know grinding you know grinding stones for that And I was able to identify a bunch of grinding stones too in what I think you know we're grinding stones in the Peter collection and I Posted some on my blog More interesting is is how did the do the inside right? So that's more interesting because What does my analysis tell me my analysis tells me that the outer surface the whole object was rotated by the inner surface They used a grinder tool that was rotated hmm, and it's also very clear from from the data that I published is because Roundness is very good, but concentration is poor and this happens when you have a tool like a milling bit boring bit, that rotates and gives you, you know, nice, round cuts. But you know, you move it, and this cut is here, this cut is there, you know, they're not like we actually. Right. And that's the thing I see on all pre-denastic vessels. So none of them, like a perfectly straight inner part, it's this way, that way, even a ways that looked like you could do just a cord drill, wasn't done through a cord drill. It was done with this grinding bit, which I think was a mace head. So there are, there's a lot of this, you know, mace heads that, you know, were fit. And that was like Matt Bell's observation, actually, when we were discussing. He says, oh, I think that, that foot, because this was clamped and there was a foot here, that was, you know, cut off. And it looks exactly like mace head. And when he said that, I thought you got it, you know, I think that's the mace head they used, but I think they also used it for grinding the inside because it has the perfect shape off of the boring bit. And I found a few of this boring bits in Petri collection, in Manchester Museum and I published them on my blog. I see, you know, they have this elongated, some have this elongated shape, some of that what you need to introduce it vertically, you know, then you rotate it horizontally because then the neck is narrow, so you put it vertically and then you rotate it. And then it's in a shaft and you rotate the shaft. And that's how they hollowed it out. And the other interesting part is I actually, I speculate, I don't believe it was manual labor. I believe they used some sort of automation for it. And it's actually very well established that they use bow drilling and in bow drilling you have a shaft and you have like a leather strapping that goes around the shaft and you have a bow. And just this year, a paper was published where they discovered and intact like bow drill complete with a leather shaft and discovered this discovered in a museum, they didn't know what it was until because you know, museums have so many objects that have been excavated and just stuck to weight and researchers stumbled upon like a perfect set of a bow drill, you know, complete with the leather wrap and even a bronze bit. So clearly it was not meant for stone drilling. But you know, if you replace the bronze bit with let's say a diorite or a flint, you know, that will be suitable for stone. But the point is, you know, the bow drill was known in pretty nasty times. And I think they could have used a bow drill, you know, when they made the pots, let's say when they hollowed out the inside or I actually believe they used water. And this is not like a wild idea or unprecedented idea because we know Egypt was a lot wetter, you know, back then. And you know, Giza Plato had water works and channels and whatnot and the water level was a lot higher. Yeah, you got it. This is it. This is the bow drill. You might need to scroll up a little bit. That's a leather. He's just the leather implement, scroll up how a 5300 year old bow drill is rewriting the story of ancient Egypt. This was published like one month ago, exactly. An examining the 5300 year old Egyptian artifact, artifact, remarkable new research has confirmed the existence of far more mechanically sophisticated technology than we ever thought possible from before the age of the pharaohs. Yes. And it's not high technology. I mean, it's low tech, but engineers use in researchers at Newcastle University in the academic academy of fine arts, Vienna, reexamined the ancient artifact excavated a century ago from a grave at Badari in upper Egypt. The artifact was only 63 millimeters long and weighed 1.5 grams catalogued as 1924. A A in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology University of Cambridge. The object was described by the original excavators as a little all of copper with some leather thong wound around it 63 millimeters long, tiny, well, not that tiny, but you got it. So yeah, copper bit with leather around it, so the brown thing is leather, oh, what's left to it? Where is it a bow drill for ants? Well, if you make furniture, you know, holes, you know, things of that nature, or kind of any implement, you know, as a whole, even like pallets, pellets are very common, predenastic Egyptian objects that you see in every museum. And they usually have holes for eyes, where they invade other inner materials, like a fish shape. So that could have been used to drill a hole and then, you know, you can lay another piece in it. But the point is, I think they used, you know, some kind of automation, I think it's incorrect to think of, let's say, predenastic or ancient people as primitive. They were not as technologically advanced as us, but they were in general. And it means they found ways to automate tasks that, you know, that were difficult and laborious in line with the technology available to them. And it's a very well-known that in Turkey, here, Coppolis, there was an ancient sawmill for cotton stones that was automated by water. So there were water mills that were spun by, you know, flowing streams of water, which is reciprocating the saws for cotton stone. And that is like 2,000 years old. So I would argue that, you know, something similar existed in predenastic Egyptian times, where they used flowing water to actuate, you know, this stone grinding, you know, implements for the vases, so you can have a mill, a mill that turns and then, you know, some maybe a leather belt or something or a cogwheel that would, you know, make this thing turn. And you don't care, you just put it in stone, I mean, put it in sand at, yes, exactly. Right. Here, Coppolis. Yes. Put it in sand, you know, add some water, you know, set it in a shaft and let it turn. And eventually it will be, you know, put it down smooth, depending on when you, you know, take it out. And how do you think they did the, like, the Petri core or those cores? Good question. I don't know for sure, but one thing I can say, if you're talking about this quarter and quote, famous core, there is one famous Petri core, I don't remember its number, but it's, I think it's a red granite, number seven, number seven, the last one granite that arguably has the thread, the spiral, the spiral, spiral groove, well, I will disappoint you. I don't believe it's a high tech core for two reasons. One reason is when you use core drilling with, let's say copper tubes, operons, tubes, even copper tube will work or even bamboo tube will work. Everybody knows it's not like the bamboo or the copper that does the drilling. It's the grit. It's the abrasive that you introduce and this copper, it just drags it. And then when you do this, because this is a fairly primitive process, your core ends up being tapered. It's thinner at the top than at the bottom because the top portion was in contact with the abrasive slurry for longer, so it ground more. And this has actually been recreated by scientists again myths and by many other researchers who studied, you know, cord drilling, you know, with copper, copper tubes, you get the tapered core always and that's how petry core number seven is it's tapered. So that's like one, let's say a trait that matches the idea that was cord drilled, you know, using a copper tube. The other one is where the groove is observed. Well, a low and behold, when you cord drill using, you know, copper tubes, you get this grooves, but these grooves aren't continuous. And in fact, all researchers have done it, observe these grooves. And even there was a study at UPN by two engineers who did some cord drilling and put the resulting cores under SEM to look at the grooves. And they observe, you know, the pattern of them to match exactly, you know, what's found in the, you know, cord drills, core drills excavated in Egypt. So there is a like 100 visual consistency and that's another point. And the third point is the, you know, groove on the famous petry core is not continuous. You know, a lot of people looked at it and yes, and scientists against myths looked at it. And somebody else looked at it, oh, I think Nightscare have looked at it too. I know Chris Dunn looked at it and he said that they ran a string all the way around it. I dispute that finding because the other people who've done it show that there are multiple non-continuous grooves there. Yeah, that are entirely consistent. Yeah. Just looking at the photos, it certainly does not look like it's a continuous spot. No, it's, it's a bunch of different grooves because tiny little stones, bits of grit, you know, were dragged and you get this, you know, discontinuous mess of, you know, big and smaller. grooves. So to me, it's, it's not that particularly fascinating artifacts, but there are other cores that I've seen at the Petri Museum's Basalt cores that appear to be more interesting because I didn't see tapering on them. You know, I haven't scanned them. I haven't studied them. But when I looked at the pictures, they looked like, you know, just tubes. You know, it was like, you know, how the heck do you do that? So that was more interesting. So maybe in one of these days, I should scan and study those. But, you know, because this so much in work was going on, I couldn't do it this time around. But the Petri core number so and there is nothing fascinating about it. And I think it's time to, you know, quit claim in it as an evidence of high tech because if it is evidence of anything, it's evidence of cord drilling. And we've been able to reproduce all of the characteristics of that core exactly on more than one occasion, as I said, scientists against me. And then there is another book everybody should read. It's a book by, let me try to remember the name. My memory. It's it's a British researcher. He wrote a book on recreating ancient stone work in techniques. Okay. I can't remember his name. Well, it was published or how recently maybe like 20 years ago. Okay. Sure. I have a reference to everywhere and I can't remember his name. Hold that thought. I got to get p real quick. Okay. Yeah. Maybe it's here. We'll be right back. We're back. Yeah. So here's the book. Yeah. So the book is by Dennis Stocks experiments in ancient Egyptian archaeology, where he recreates ancient stone work in techniques and clothing, you know, drilling, you know, taking cores, shape, and vessels, and hidden stones using copper saws. So I guess the point is whenever you study any subject, you really got to study literature on it because a lot of people have done research. A lot of people, you know, Dan analysis and you got to absorb all of that. You can never ignore, you know, the body of work that may have existed up to the point where you decided to enter the field, right? And that's kind of what I ended up doing over the past year, you know, had to study all of the sources, you know, read these books and dissertation to see, and even, you know, talk to people, we actually, you know, bother to and recreate in the techniques. So can you cut a granite with a copper saw? Absolutely. It's not the copper that does the cutting. That's the abrasive degree, the slurry. Yeah. For a lot of matter, you can cut copper with a string. I mean, you can cut granite with a string. It's not the string that does the cutting. It's the, you know, slurry, the abrasive slurry that does it. So things like that and the bigger point, so ancient people were ingenious. You know, when you don't have the technology, you use your brain a lot more. You see, you know, how you can do less work. So that's why I never buy the mainstream archaeologist's explanations when they can clog this elaborate techniques of how, you know, the blocks were hauled and how much labor went. Yeah. Because when I look at it, it's ridiculous. It's like to labor intense. I don't necessarily believe aliens, you know, have done it or Atlantians, but I don't believe that, you know, people who are hauling, you know, these blocks, because in the humans are lazy, right? So we don't want to do the work. And then somebody would say, well, you know, pharaohs would command you to do this. And pharaohs weren't stupid because every slave who is doing stupid work is not doing something useful to enrich the pharaoh, right? Or not fighting the enemy is not, you know, conquering lands, not mining, you know, something useful. It's business. So let's say you, you, you Jeff Bezos, right? So you have 100 million slaves. You're not going to make them do stupid stuff, right? Right. Yeah. And so I don't believe, you know, pharaohs were stupid or kings were stupid. And all of this, you know, monuments that we see, I don't believe that like stupendism on the work went into them. It's just because it doesn't make economic sense. So these people, another argument I would give is even if you had like 100,000 slaves working, well, you got to feed them. Imagine I know how much food you need to keep, you know, these army going. And you know, could you country produce that much food at the time? And if it could, would it live enough for the population or for the actual army? What is the official narrative, the official consensus on how many people built those things, built those pyramids and how many, how long it took? I cannot answer this truthfully. I apologize. What is what is a all-handy, dandy, Gemini or Chachibiti tell us? I just don't believe anybody would undertake for whatever reason, you know, such a stupendously expensive enterprise. So therefore, you know, I wouldn't rule out aliens or aliens at this point. You know, I haven't studied the object like, the subject too closely, but I don't think the explanation is just enormous amount of labor over enormous time because of the expense. Modern consensus estimates that approximately 20 to 30,000 workers were directly involved in building the Great Pyrenees over a period of about 20 years. I call bullshit. Get the fuck out of here. Yeah, it's just my feeling because I think I deeply believe that, you know, people could be mean, but they're rational, you know, we're overall, you know, we're rational. If something happens that's irrational, we just don't know the reason for it. So somebody is doing something, but there is always a reason and ferros and somebody else were rational. If you spend in that much resources, I think your country will be ripe for conquest by somebody else. And while you busy feeding this army of slaves that are building, you know, some edifice, you have no food or no money to pay the real army. So anyway, I don't really know how the pyramid was built yet or how those stones were moved or how they were elevated up there or how they were. I think it's in a fascinating topic to explore. And that's, you know, what I would like to do. Eventually, I just don't believe it's a stupendous amount of stupid labor is just because we see evidence to the country. We see that the ancient people were ingenious. And that's another thing that the point I'm making in my paper that I'm working on currently is that in a pretty dynastic Egyptians were actually familiar with all types of subtractive machining in a reuse now. Because that's what you see in the in a pretty dynastic stone vases. You have turning and you have milling. And that's exactly the same subtractive machining techniques we use now. We use turning and we use milling. And they used in a far more primitive tools for that. So it was like a wooden shaft instead of a nice metal chuck that we use in our life. And it was like a stone drill bit or stone in a mill bit. But it was in an actuated for rotation. The same thing we do. Now we use belts and gears and back then they use this bow strain or piece of leather. But it's the same freaking principle. That blows my mind that in a 6000 years ago however long ago they were familiar with the basic principles of subtractive machining we know in use today. And that's like my important to me. Did you know fast growing trees is America's largest most trusted online nursery with thousands of trees and plants and over 2 million happy customers. They've got everything your yard or home needs. Fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, even house plants all grown with care and guaranteed to arrive healthy. It's basically like having the best nursery in the country delivered right to your door. Fast growing trees makes the process super simple and convenient. I ordered a leechie tree which makes little dragon egg shaped fruits and it arrived at my house healthy, thriving and ready to plant. And instead of driving around to a bunch of nurseries and hoping you picked the right variety for your climate fast growing trees helps you choose plants that are actually suited to the native environment where you live. Every plant is backed by their alive and thrive guarantee so you know it's going to arrive in great shape. And right now they've got great deals on spring planting essentials up to half off selected plants. And right now our listeners are getting 20% off their first purchase by using the code Danny at checkout. That's an additional 20% off better plants and better growing at fastgrowingtrees.com using the promo code DANNY at checkout. Fastgrowingtrees.com code Danny. Now is the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use code Danny and save today. Offer valid for limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. And I mean forget ancient Egypt. How about Kailasa temple? Have you seen that temple in India that's carved out of the side of a mountain? Yes, yes. Have you? There's no reasonable explanation to how anyone could even achieve something like that today. There is actually I'm glad you mentioned it. Look at this. It's a negative relief enormous temple cut out of the side of a freaking granite mountain. I might disappoint you here slightly too. Please do. There is a they've built a temple in India. So the stone work in tradition is alive and well in India to this day. So they have traditional craftsmen that use nothing but, you know, chisels. And built a similar Arnate temple in Hawaii. What is its name? Let me see. And we're just finished recently. Really? Yes. And the same way this was with the negative, in a very, very close, I would say, maybe not exactly the same way, but you know, gives you the idea, you know, how we're instead of, instead of building and adding on, you're chasing away the negative space. Let's see. Hindu temple in Hawaii, maybe. Yeah, that's it. Yeah. That's one piece abroad. Well, I don't know about, you know, one piece, but it shows you the, yeah, that's the temple. It shows you the technique they use. So the very intricate sculpting technique was just, you know, hammers and cheeses. There are some videos on YouTube and I can't send you to. It doesn't look like it's one piece. It may not be, but it shows you the tradition of stonework is alive. Right. So that's all done by hand. Oh, it's certainly impressive stonework. Yes. It's not one piece, no. Right. But that Kailasa temple is one solid piece. Like there's no moving parts at all in that whole thing. I entirely believe that. And when was that built? Find out when the Kailasa temple was actually, when that was carved out of the side of that mountain. I want to say it was like 650, right? I'd be more interested in knowing how they made the, you know, bear bear caves. What's that? Yeah. It's a bear bear or bar bar bar caves. Maybe bear bear caves. Where's that? It's in India. In India. I cannot believe you haven't heard of that. I don't think I mean, maybe I've seen it, but the name's not ringing a bell. Okay. Maybe mispronounced it. Yes. I've never seen it. I've never seen this. It's a giant rock turd that they carved. So they carved a cave inside this rock turd that's like a polished finish. Can you find a video of this to you for like a bit better photo? Somebody actually scanned them. There's a like a vitrology company from Europe. Did a 3d skin surface? And it's like mirror finish. You can see yourself. Really? Yes. Barbar caves. Yes. It's a mirror finish. And you can see yourself. You can see your reflection. So that I have no idea how that was achieved. You know, that I would never buy that can done, you know, was just find a photo or something. Cheels on stones. So so the temple. Well, look at that. Look at that. It shows you the actual dimensions of it. Yes. So the that's Megalithomania. Yes. Whoa. Full screen this? Yeah. Look. Look how shiny the walls are. Absolutely incredible. It's just like the caves we find on Barbar Hill. There's no there. Oh, that's why I'm here. So we're now at the Nagar Juni caves. There's three caves on this hill, separate to Barbar Hill. This is the Gopika cave or Gopika. And this has remarkable carvings in Brahmin script, which you can see in a moment. It's just mind blowing. I think this is by far the most interesting. More than tourists. But I wanted to show you the artifacts. These are equally interesting. One of them. Some of the finest polished granite stonework, just like we find at Barbar Caves as well. All of this is polished as you can see the floor here all the way along here. You can see the remarkable carvings here. It's got to be aliens. Try to find fascinating. It's definitely doesn't look like I was a little cloth. That is insane. Look how perfect that text is. Well, text never mind text. Perfect. The walls are. I know. Consistent angles. Consistent curvature. This is. And it curves around this end as well. 230 BC. This was carved out. That's the inscription. The inscription was 230 BC, which means the cave's much older. There's actually the curve level. The center of it is under the floor. The acoustics are incredible and you can really imagine. I mean, these are with some gentleman here. And they were in here meditating. You can see why. It is booms. It's just what an amazing spot. Holy shit. The beautiful kind of precision. The polished granites. How perfect is that cemetery on that? I don't know. I mean, I really would like to study the scans. That is fascinating. I cannot believe I've never seen it before. So the French company went in, you know, with the lasers and scanned it. I don't know if they published their scans or they could be obtained because then you can actually see how precise it's made because the point I keep making, you know, ice often deceives, right? So you look at something and it looks really nice. Even if it's not precise, it is fucking astonishing. It is. That is that old and why older than 200 BC laser scans of the 20th 2,300 year old Barbar caves in India reveal astonishing precision with granite walls polished to a mirror finish and curved symmetrical designs created within 0.1 degrees of accuracy. I would say, don't believe the AI summaries because it's summarizing off of YouTube. Yeah. We really need. I mean, if it's not precise, it's still incredibly precise. It's super impressive. And it might be, it might be precise. I'm saying, you'd like to see the data, you know, rational scans to really quantify it. I don't know if they published a paper or they published scans, but it's freaking unbelievable. Barbar caves, yes. Wild. Yeah. I think that's maybe even more fascinating than pyramids. If it's really, you know, that precise as the claim, because how the heck need to do you do it? Why? And what was it for? What was it for? Exactly. What was it for? Clearly, it wasn't the whim because somebody wanted a hole in the wall, right? Right. Clearly served some purpose. Right. I would love to see a peer review on the on the function of the pyramids. Like a real thorough study done. Like, like, somebody could take Chris Dunn's work, combine it with like, Jeffrey Drum's work and do some sort of like collaborative interdisciplinary review of the function of great, but couldn't that be, would that be accepted by like mainstream journals? I think so. And in fact, this is what is badly needed. So it's not enough, you know, just to publish a YouTube video. We're not enough to publish a blog post, right? So at the end of the day, we need to to produce scientific papers. And I think it's necessary for two reasons. One is when you write a scientific paper, you are obligated to include or address all prior knowledge about the problem. So this problem doesn't exist in the vacuum, right? It exists, you know, with everything around it. So your explanation needs to mesh with everything that we know. Otherwise, you know, if you find a guy who's a knife, you know, did he stab it or did he pick it up, right? So you need to consider all of it. And the other thing is, so when you write a paper, you need to be like really diligent on the analysis and presentation of your data. It's never enough to say, you know, I think or this is it. Like, you know, the thing that kind of bothers me about, you know, how Ben reports in his videos, he makes a lot of claims without substantiating them. Meaning, you know, Peter given away objects. Well, you can say that, like in scientific literature, only if you produce a piece of evidence that supports that claim, here, here's a, like a paper that says, you know, this object, you know, was given to this person or for something else, right? Or you can never like show a picture and say, you know, these are stone vessels and these, and these are spotted, you know, how can you tell a bell to kind of the picture? Right. So it has to be like deeper analysis that goes with it. Well, I don't think Ben is making like bold claims on anything. He's simply just asking questions and observing things, right? Well, I wouldn't disagree with you, you know, when I rewatch his videos, you know, he's making a lot of claims like that. And I'd like, you know, it's used as an opportunity to show how you cannot make claims in scientific literature. Right. Because like when you write a paper, like every sentence that you write, it's either like your own, you know, genuine observation or conclusion, or if not, you got a reference, you got a site, a reference, saying, you know, if this is a clay pot, you make, you make in that statement, then you need to say, why? Yes. And like what analysis did you do to determine that this is a clay pot? Because when you look at a picture, you cannot tell, you know, a clay apart from stone, you know, they'll look the same, right? Or if you say it's a clay pot, then you say, because Petri said so, right? And that's like good enough. Well, you know, that's how science works. You know, we, well, let me ask you this, though, if you were to publish your paper with all the same evidence, it came to the opposite conclusion, you think it would have been published. Yeah. I think so. Yeah. And here is an interesting story, too. I think we both underestimate and overestimate, you know, how scientific community functions. It is, you know, difficult to publish papers that go against the grain or against mainstream. I know this firsthand because a lot of my papers, you know, were rejected. I couldn't publish them because I argued, you know, against the point that was generally accepted. And they are, papers are rejected for two reasons. you know, sometimes the prejudice in a certain journal is just so high to where mere mention of a certain word, you know, gets you rejected. And I give you an example of cold fusion. Oh yeah. As you recall, I'm also a nuclear scientist. I work on nuclear fusion and I research cold fusion. I'm on other things. You know, I don't believe that cold fusion is, you know, janitor and it ever worked, but you don't believe it ever worked. No, I don't believe it ever worked. Now, I mean, I used to believe like 20 years ago, but I had a 180 on it. Did you hear Jeffrey Epstein's email about it? I think he was taking care of it for something he didn't do. I think so. Yeah. But my point is, even though I don't believe in cold fusion, I tried to publish a paper recently where I mentioned cold fusion. And I actually said I don't believe in it. But because I mentioned it, that was enough for that particular repository to reject the paper. And I know if this is stupid, like being on boulefs and a particular repository, I'm referring to his archive. Archive is the like main repository of unpublished papers. So let's say when I submitted a paper to nature, it took them a few months, you know, to examine it and publish it. And what most researchers do, they want to share, you know, their papers quickly. So while, you know, the journal is mulling your paper over peer viewing, what not, you upload a preprint to archive. And it used to be that archive was any paper you can upload. It was like a preprint server. Your unpublished works, you know, give the home, give the link, anybody can read. And I do have like several papers uploaded and it, you know, like from before. But lately, they've kind of evolved a stance on topics and they don't believe in cold fusion, they don't believe in UFOs. And maybe there are a bunch of other things they don't believe in. I don't really know. But they started applying this editorial criteria. When you submit a paper and they find a keyword they don't like, they don't accept the preprint. And the funny thing was when I submitted my paper on fusion to the journal, they said, well, no, we're not going to publish it unless, you know, it's published in another journal. And when it got published and they come back and say, well, will you upload a preprint now? They still refuse to do it. It's just, you know, prejudice, you can do nothing about it is just because they're so hard set on, you know, not considering certain things. And there's nothing you can do about but wait for people to die. Right. And I think somebody made this claim that physics make progress one funeral at a time. Yeah. I don't remember who said it, but it's very true of many scientists. So that exists for sure. Yeah. So I'm sure there will be journals and people who would never accept that let's say high tech existed in the past, even if you find evidence for it. So I fully agree with that. But there are other journals that good journals that would actually publish it because there is competition among journals. Yes. And I actually, oh, this is the quote. Okay. So planks, prince, principle, okay, science makes progress one funeral at a time. Yeah. So good one. So, but there are other journals too and good journals for that matter that actually would publish that stuff. And what I found out is a knee trooper trolley of journals is more receptive to fresh ideas. So let's say science, you know, like science magazine, right? Science journal, it could be more hard-nosed in their choices of what they publish and whatnot. But I think nature is more open-minded nature portfolio of journals. And it's the quality of paper ultimately that determines whether or not it's going to be published. So if you present enough evidence and that evidence is incontrovertible and you're not trying to to do the like sensational claims and extrapolate into areas that are not worth it, I'm sure you'll find you'll be able to publish your paper. And now when I look back, the papers that I couldn't publish and got rejected, and now I think was for good measure, for good reason because, you know, they weren't good enough to be published in that, you know, in that caliber, you know, over journal. So I do believe that you can overcome all of it if you do diligent work and it might be that you need to publish piecemeal until you really have this incontrovertible evidence and nobody can say it. But let's take the in a part of our caves as an example. Right. So what I and granted, I have not researched that topic in depth. So I don't know whether the team that scanned them published their scans or published the paper. So I think, you know, the first step would be you scan it, you publish a paper with this scan and you just say, well, this is what we've done, this is the data set and you can study it. And that's pretty good and pretty important publication because it gives data for people to look at. And that's what scientists and researchers must do. They must provide the data because without the data, there is nothing to discuss. You know, we can look at the pictures and we can speculate. It means precisely nothing because at the end of the day, we cannot compare this against that. And that's what you need in order to drive a conclusion. So if you choose all the wall, this is what you get. You know, if you grind the wall with an angle grinder, this is what you get. Right. If you use some, you know, pitec board machine or laser or plasma gel, this is what you get. And that would be like this second paper. You compare, you know, different granites in a working technique like chiseling, angle grinding, you know, plasma torches, you know, lasers, you know, who knows. And you say what kind of quality of the surface you get. And then you take the published skin and you contrast them against, you know, these various, you know, machining techniques or, you know, chiseling, you know, chipping techniques. And you say, does it look similar to any of this? And if it doesn't, you can say, well, we have a cave that we don't know how it was made. But you cannot say it was made by aliens or by Atlantians or by gods or or reptilian beings, you know, from Tau City. Because none of that is present and that speculation on that, obviously, you cannot publish because, you know, it makes scientific journal look like like a yellow press, right? But you can say, well, it's not consistent with any known tools or techniques. And then you can say, well, look at all of the angles and all the surfaces and you can come up with the same quality metrics in how perfect the angles, in how flat the surfaces are. And you can contrast that against like manual, non-manual labor or known like machine labor. And does it look more like manual? Does it look more like, you know, machine? And then once again, you have a claim, say it's consistent with machining, right? You cannot say that, you know, ancient chiseled it because it's consistent with machining. So, so you imply, you know, that, you know, something else was there, but you don't know what it was. And maybe you can say, well, maybe there was a lost civilization because how else, you know, we can explain, or maybe you know, there were visitors from out of space who don't, because how else, you know, we explained. You cannot prove it, but you can show that it's inconsistent with chiseling, or maybe at the end of the day, you'll review the date and it is consistent with chiseling, you know, that's why I'm saying it's really hard to pass judgment unless, you know, the data is available. And that's what I strive to do in my life in the work, you know, I publish, you know, all of the schemes, all of the, you know, data, all of the spectrum data I collect for others, you know, independently analyze and verify. And maybe they'll discover, you know, something that I missed, because that's kind of the point of science. You publish what you've learned so that somebody else can learn even more. And that's, you know, how we build. And that's why it took 300 years to develop the fear of electrodynamics. Right. I'm here, I worked on it, vaulted, worked on it, or airstead worked on it. And 300 years later, you know, Maxwell writes his equations that are simplified by heavy side, and we finally have a theory. But it freaking took 300 years, because everybody did their bit and they published their findings. And we kind of have to do the same approach in archaeology and elsewhere. So going back to what you said about cold fusion, why don't you think cold fusion ever happened? Excellent question. And once again, when I entered the field, you know, 20 years ago, I entirely, you know, believed the narrative. And the narrative was like this in a flash man on Ponce in 1989, you know, made a break through the University of Utah, where they demonstrated 89. 89. Okay. Can you imagine like 40 years ago almost? Is it 40? Yeah, nearly like 30, 30, 39 years. Yeah. Well, around it to 40, like nearly 40 years ago. So they claimed that the nuclear fusion took place in solid palladium electrodes in a glass, in submerged in water, electrolyte, technically, you know, with some current passing through. They claimed to have observed nuclear fusion in such a simple setup. Deuterium? I think it was deuterium in palladium, yes. Okay. And clearly, it was a sensational claim because fusion is believed to be a very complex process. You know, you build this four-story tall facility. It was plasma containment, you know, superconducting magnets, blazers, what not, and all of a sudden, somebody says, oh, I can do it in a cup of water. Implications are staggering. So that's why it attracted so much attention. And then what happened, MIT, Texas Tech and Texas A&M and some other universities tried to replicate the results. And nobody could. Some people thought they did, but the more they tried, they realized, oh, it actually not what it is. At the end of the day, nobody could replicate the result and the topic was set to be disproven. And there was a split in academic community. Some people were believers and said, well, the fact that you couldn't replicate doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because maybe your replication was wrong because it's difficult to replicate things that are novel. And that's kind of what I thought. I thought maybe that's really what happened. People tried hastily to replicate it, didn't work. But more specifically, there is intense competition for funding within academia. And that was the reason I didn't go into academia because when I was young and naive, I thought when you become a scientist, they give you money to do the research. That kind of makes sense, right? So mom, I want to be a scientist. Why? Because I'm curious. So you get a job at the university and they give you money to do the research. And that's what a young, naive person thinks about science. That's what I thought. The truth is far more sinister than that. So when you grow up and become a scientist and God forbid you hired by the university, they expect you to find money for the university. Right. And that, and two thirds or one half of that money will go to feed this bureaucratic monster. Right. That exists in one half or one third of that money in a ghost to fund your research. So when you are a professor at the university, you're forced to compete with all of the other scientists for limited funds, grant money. And that's a vicious, cutthroat environment. No sane person can stand. And I think in a seven, Hassan Felder is a good example of a narrator, you know, who described what happens on a cadema and how people fight, what works for a channel. And I entirely understand where she's coming from because I've been on a cadema myself. And that's one of the reasons I left. Because I don't want to feed the bureaucratic machine. And then I'm forced to find funding. And you never can find funding to do the research you want. You find the funding that for specific research. Because the system is screwed up. There is a bureaucracy that exists in the government that decides what to fund and what not to fund. So when you wonder why nobody's working on cold fusion or why nobody's researching your bases or pyramids, it's because there is no funding for it. So you go to funding agencies and you see what grants they give. And the grant would be, "Oh, you do the CO2 conversion into something." Or you do a solar panel, or you do a conventional fusion reactor, or you study a Native American artifacts. And you can never find the topics you want to explore. And it's not like you can say, "Hi, I have this idea. Give me money for it." It almost never exists. Or could it be possible that, for example, the oil industry could be purposely thwarting that kind of research? So it doesn't interrupt or just disrupt there. Also quite possible. I mean, also quite possible that, but I don't think it's the oil industry. It's the mainstream fusion industry. And it's actually not my speculation. And if you read the reporting on this subject, it's a very well-known fact that the people that were most adamant against cold fusion were the mainstream fusion researchers. Because they didn't want their funding to be pulled from them or reduced. And given to this other group, so everybody protects their turf. So if somebody comes up with a competing idea, this means next time you go for funding, DOE, or DARPA, or somebody else, they might give you less money because they'll give some money to this other group. So in this case, scientists are hugely disintensivized to support any innovation. Because they're always threatened status quo, threatened funding. And we tend to think of scientists in idealized terms. We think all these truth-fickers, very honorable individuals, they're not. In fact, I would say a lot of scientists have known are either narcissists or really, you know, nasty characters that are concerned about prestige and promotion and being on top of things. Ten year. Ten year, nobody gives a shit about truth. Because money corrupts everything and months, you know, money started flowing into science. You know, money corrupted science. And now you cannot study anything. Right. Because it's what you cannot get money for. But a long story short, the reason I don't believe that the cold fusion was real is because it took me like many years to learn radiation detection. And that's what I specialize in. I specialize in gamma and neutron radiation detection, but mostly neutron radiation detection. Because whenever you have fusion, you always have nutrients. That's like a telltale sign of fusion. You got nutrients, you got fusion. No nutrients, no fusion. And I've reviewed all of the, neutron signals published on this in various cold fusion papers. And because I know so much about neutron detection, I could see the flaws in their measurements. They weren't following the procedure. They weren't looking for sources of systematic areas. They didn't use the statistics or they abused the statistics. So in every paper, I could find the fluid radiation measurement. And that was the motivation for me to develop, you know, my own hardware and my own software for radiation detection. Because I basically developed a standard on how to detect like low levels of neutron and gamma radiation. And that's what you need to prove that you have nuclear reactions. And when people claim well, they could be some processes that don't result in radiation, I am very skeptical of that because nothing is ever perfect. So let's say you can, you came up with a way to do fire with no ash. Let's imagine that you burn logs, but there is no ash. That process will never be perfect to where there is no ash at all. There will be maybe burned this gigantic log, but you have this just a minuscule amount of ash nonetheless. So I think the same idea applies to a nuclear fusion. If there is some exotic process that allows you to do fusion without radiation, it will never be perfect. There will be, you know, some maybe just not this dependence amount of radiation, like from a conventional reactor that's going to kill you, you know, if you look into it. There will be, you know, some that you should be able to detect. And if you got none, you know, to me, it's telling you, it's telling clearly you have like nothing going on regardless of what you claim. And the other thing is been 40 years, like nearly 40 years. And people, you know, kept researching it, researched it on and off and various private corporations issued grants and sponsorships. In a big companies, what I can be companies, and there is no result. So why is that? And I think it's because there was nothing to begin with. I think it's a steel believe it's a good idea. It's possible actually to be kept out of the public eye or a public study and kept dark. Don't think so. I really think, well. Because there's an argument for the study of anti-gravity for that. There was a lot of development with that in the 50s and all of a sudden it went dark and there's a lot of interesting. Obviously, it could be, could be that. But from what I know, it doesn't have to be that. No. From what I know, it would suffice to say that, you know, the data that's been captured either in error or insufficient, but it doesn't mean the idea is bad. So that's why I'm sticking with it because I believe the idea is bad and that's why, you know, my research revolves around it and I do believe I have some interesting results in some of them I published, you know, some of them I'm still working on. So I think we can still, you know, research that figured it out. I just don't think we're there. What do you make of all these nuclear scientists that are going missing? There's another one that just went get when missing today. Oh, man. Israel killing scientists. I don't know. That's, that's in there. You know, they're known for doing that. Israel is known for killing scientists in America. In Canada, for sure. Well, they killed nuclear scientists, I'm sure. And then they're on for sure. Any rotten, yeah, definitely. And then Iraq, all in America too. There is a big story. That person linked to top US top secret US nuclear research has disappeared without a trace per the daily mail. Yeah. And you find the actual, and actually, I can tell you another story story to this. Where the scientists was believed to have been killed by Mossad. He was building like a supergun for Saddam. So Saddam was saying he used to have this supergun that potentially could shoot, you know, ballistic trajectories for, you know, thousands of them. And the scientists who were building it, you know, was a genius. And I think when he was murdered, he was living either in Canada, or was murdered like in front of his apartment. And everybody believes, you know, Mossad did this. But, you know, I couldn't put it past him. Yeah. So once again, from experience, I think that's probably happening. I don't think people are being killed because, They've made a discovery that wants to be, that people want to suppress. You know, which actually brings-- - It's very strange. - It is strange, but-- - And not many people are talking about it. - Yeah, I kind of learned a lesson there. So I decided, put all of my research into public domain. You know, I made this decision like few months ago, where I'm not going to keep any secrets and I'm going to publish everything I've learned in nuclear science and public domain. - There is no point in killing me. - Right. - It's all been disclosed. - Published April 11th, 2026, updated, okay, updated the same day. Another person with links to America's nuclear secrets has gone missing as the disturbing list of deaths and disappearances in recent years continues to grow. Stephen Garcia, 48, vanished without a trace on August 28th, 2025, and was last seen living in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Wow, wow, carrying only a handgun, what? So all these people are allegedly connected to the Department of Energy and doing like nuclear weapons stuff, like secret. One person actually worked at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Oh yeah, there it is, punching on that. So they're all dead or missing. Stephen Garcia is the latest, top scientists, top scientists detecting signs of alien life at NASA JPL, Frank Mywald, two people from Los Alamos labs, scroll down, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, two people linked to there. That is freaking bizarre. Why? I don't know. Yeah, but my belief remains that we probably don't have the technology that is being suppressed. You don't think there's any secret technology the government's hiding? Not, I don't think to the level that we might fantasize. Clearly, they have technology. We don't know, but I don't think they have anti-gravity or teleporters or stargates or future devices. What do you think the stuff that the New York Times reported about in 2014 was? What was that? The Tic Tacs that the Navy pilot saw on the radar? I don't know, that's another thing. I mean, I find the UAP is extremely fascinating and worthwhile of research. And I really hope that peer-reviewed journals overturn their policy of not publishing papers on the subject because how do you expect to make progress? I think we're past the point now in the timeline where you can't dismiss UFOs anymore, right? And that's exactly my point. We've got to study them in order to make sense of them. Because the way they're described and the way they behave, hard to explain in terms of conventional physics, right? Clearly, if you use the Occam's razor, it's much more likely to be like a government technology like we're implying that we are not aware of that they're blaming on aliens because-- Look, we have a government that likes to keep secrets and likes to lie to the American public. Yeah, I mean, that entirely feeds the-- Those are two facts. And it entirely feeds the pattern. And I think it's a lot more likely than aliens per se because we've never seen aliens per se in government lie all the time, right? So out of the two, government lying and having secret technologies far more plausible than visitors from outer space being here. But it could be the other thing, too. We don't know. And I think we need to research. And I think we need to publish the-- the fine needs because otherwise it's just speculation and we're not on the wiser. And government is not going one day just to say, oh, sorry, we lied. It's up to us to find it. So I'm all for research and I'm all for peer-reviewed publications on the topic. And that's what pieces me off when this whistleblower is go and they present to Senator Congress. He's hearings on UAPs. How come the Congress or any agencies haven't been pressed to release data on these objects because telemetry is available in a video footage is available? Lots of other sensors. So these airplanes, the detect UAPs, they have a bunch of sensors among them that collect information on these UAPs. So I think we should push for release of that information because that would enable a scientific study because what we're given is pictures. And pictures are like the Plato's cave allegory. You see shadows on the wall. You have no idea what that shadow is. And government has the rest of this information which are not releasing. And that's what must happen in order for us to gain understanding. And they say, well, we cannot release it because we are afraid that it's going to jeopardize like national security because the secret sensors or secret contraptions, I think this is bullshit. It's just an excuse not to give us information. So we could never, you know, research these objects and figure out what they are and maybe trace them back to the government or maybe identify them as a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon or maybe establishing them. Instead, we get documentaries with all the top officials and intelligence and military and government all testifying that all this stuff is real, right? This is Age of Disclosure Documentary, it's insane. How many government officials and intelligence agency officials are all saying, saying, giving testimony, sworn testimony that this stuff's real, it's hidden, seeker, whatever, which any regional person can sit down and watch and be like, oh my god, this shit's real. Like, holy crap. Yet, they will not show any evidence. So it's like they're, it's like the ultimate gaslighting on society. - Which exactly highlights and emphasizes the point I was trying to drive through our talk that it's never sufficient to make claims without evidence. So if you have a narration or you're telling a story and you say this or that, this is all unsubstantiated. For what I carry, you invented it, you came up with it. And then the other point is people lie, people lie all the time and how can you believe anybody without evidence, just believe me. I'm telling you, no, believe me. No, I don't believe you because I know people are lying for multiple reasons, you know, lying on purpose to mislead us, you know, lying to get notoriety and lying to get popularity, you know, lying for material, monetary advantage, you know. Lying to get laid, you know, you name it. - And also, you know, to the point of the secret technology stuff, like if we were really testing all that crazy stuff, like we're involved in how many wars right now and there's been no reporting on any of this stuff being used. So we're all, we're still using helicopters and aircraft carriers. They'll think if you just had some secret tech, they would have taken out like a run or like that. They will be like a radioactive desert. - Right. - And we're effectively losing a war against a stone age civilization. - Right. - Yeah, we have all the top secret, like, anti-gravity, so that's why it doesn't make sense. Yeah, I mean, I always like, I don't know for sure, right? I'm just telling you, you know, my personal feeling, right? My personal preference, based on my experience with engineers and with scientists, you know, I have very few reasons to believe that some super tech exists. It's just because everything I've looked at, I was able, either to find a problem or find a mistake and or people who claim they had something 20 years ago steal at the same base they were, you know, 20 years ago. - Yeah. - So how is that if you told me 20 years ago, you had an over-unity machine, or you had, you know, something livetating or something producing power. And how come you're not like a multi-trillion dollar company now if you had that 20 years ago? - Right. - And that's kind of the pattern with all of this, you know, crazy scientists, crazy inventors that you hear on and off somebody invents this, somebody invents that. But 20, 30, you know, 40 years later, we still don't have flying cars. And we still burn gasoline. So I just think it's people a lot more than they should have. - I think so too. How much do you know about this, like uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons stuff, like that we're talking about? - I know, a little bit. I mean, I guess three things I know. And I'm not an expert. I know that Iran's supreme leader, until he was killed, he issued like a fatwa. - Yeah, yeah, in the early 2000s, yeah. Nuclear weapons and that makes sense from this 10 point of their religion. - Right. - So it's not approved, it's not okay. It's like, you know, we have Christian principles. And Christian principles say you don't kill the innocent. Right, so they have the same idea. So I entirely believe that it's possible that, you know, the program, the enrichment program was civilian in this sense that the Iran is working, you know, it was Russia on civilian countries. in a nuclear power, and it would think you'd be in a better off just, you know, buying nuclear secrets from Russia, because in Russia, I did help China get nuclear weapons and probably did help, you know, North Korea, you know, get nuclear weapons. Right. So I could have, you know, helped Iran in a hard bit. So why haven't this happened for decades and decades, because you know, Iran has been working on it for how long? And that's another thing, you know. They've been, you know, apparently from my understanding is they've been, you're enriching uranium strictly for, um, like manufacturing and energy purposes. Right. For civil and nuclear power. Right. You need somewhat enriched, you know, uranium fuel in order for you to participate, participate in the fuel cycle. The question is just like, what's the percentages and like, exactly, all that stuff is very confusing. And, and if you recall South Africa, you just have nuclear weapons, you know, right. Right. You know, dismantled the program. And Israel has nuclear weapons. So the point is ledger and North Korea has nuclear weapons, right? And just think how poor the country North Korea is, yet they have nuclear weapons. Right. Iran is much larger. So clearly, if Iran wanted to have nuclear weapons, they would have, you know, had them 20 or 30 years ago. Because otherwise, you know, how you can explain that, you know, such a great country with say, you know, great and technological potential still don't have them. And the only explanation is they never really want intended to otherwise that would have had it. Right. And many people will argue it was a mistake on their part, you know, because how they had the nuclear weapons. I'm sure they wish they would have done it immune from the attack. But as a, I'm not an expert in, I do believe, you know, you need to reach, I know you need to enrich for this. There's this conspiracy theory that I just recently learned about that is says nukes are fake. Nukes aren't real. And I think one of the main basis of it is the videos, which is wild. The videos of that the US released during the nuclear, first nuclear tests have you seen them? Some of like the houses being blown apart. You know, talking about Steve. It, so how did the cameras survive if these houses are being literally incinerated by these bombs? I will. And how did the film survive in the film? I will tell you something else. I do believe that nuclear weapons are outdated. Like when military technology makes progress, it's like every once in a while, old technology is discarded and new technology is brought in. Think about, you know, first world war, for example, right? Tank, you know, was the main thing that changed the static warfare into dynamic warfare. And Germans really perfected it. And that's why they had the upper hand throughout, you know, early years over the war, too. Then before that, why Napoleon became great? Because he figured out how to use artillery. So before him, nobody, you know, artillery existed. Just nobody knew how to employ it efficiently. And he really took advantage of it. And he was able to crash and smack his enemies, like no tomorrow, because he was an artillery genius. And then, you know, nuclear weapons were developed and now we think, oh, it's an ultimate weapon. And the truth is it no longer is because now we have high precision weapons. And that's what you really need to accomplish military objectives, which is war in Iran is clearly showing in Israel and the United States can bomb and destroy any target anywhere, like within seconds using conventional weapons, because you don't need a large, a megaton explosive in a to destroy, let's say a bunker or a launch vehicle or something else, right? You need a small, but precisely positioned weapon. And that's, you know, what the modern warfare is about is, it's about precisely positioning, you know, small explosives where they need to be. Right. So you will not gain much by deploying nuclear weapons. In fact, all you're going to gain is, you know, death and destruction of the world. Because you know, the area is going to be contaminated. Mutually destruction. Yes. In a water, we drink air. We breathe is going to be contaminated worldwide. You know, these weapons are untouchable because, you know, the second you start using them, you know, you end life on the planet. As we know it, I mean, not like totally, but, you know, our standard of living and comfort and it will just disappear because of all of the outcomes. So I think fall intents and purposes, nuclear weapons are dead because you cannot use them, because of destroys the environment at such an uncontrollable rate to where nobody is going to tolerate it. But there is more importantly, there is no like military reason to use them because you can, you know, you can do things a lot better and a lot more efficiently, you know, precisely to deliver conventional weapons, hell, you know, with drones, you know, so. So this is the video I wanted to show you of the, with the United States released when they first did the nuclear weapons tests right here, Steve. Can you play it for us real quick? In the 1950s. So how did they film this is the question. If that house literally got incinerated like that vaporized, how is this camera? Not only how is the camera surviving, but how is the film inside of it? Because this is shot on film, obviously. How does the film survive if a film, if film gets damaged going through airport x-ray scanners or airport security, how the hell does it survive this? Well, I can have a plausible explanation. So clearly, you know, the camera must have been positioned in explosion, proof and closure. So it could have been a concrete bunker that is also screened with lead and what not to protect the film, because radiation is directional. So when you explode in nuclear ordnance, the radiation is directional. So you know where it's coming from. And the shock wave is directional to it. It's coming from the epicenter of the explosion. But it also, it also does like a sucking too, right? Not only does it explode out, but that it sucks back in. Right. But so, so in principle, you can have a concrete bunker that is with an opening, you know, for the camera and the opening for the camera is on the side opposite to the side from where the shock wave is approaching. So I think you can, in principle, protect the camera from radiation from the shock wave. Interesting. I wonder if you can ask, ask, you know, once again, I'm not an expert, I just ventured on the opinion that could come up as, you know, on the spot. This is a metal structure. Huh. Right. But I know from geology, you know, Trinitite Israel, you know, Trinitite, that was formed when they blew up, you know, the first nuclear weapon. What is it called? Trinitite. Trinitite? Yes. So when they set off, you know, the Trinity. The glass was formed on the surface of the desert. Oh, yeah. And that became like a collectible rock because it's radioactive. It has this glassification and a vitrification from the heat of the nuclear explosion. And it circulates like all over the place. A lot of it, you know, was collected and given away. I don't think you can find it anymore, but, you know, it exists. It's real. It's really radioactive from that explosion, yes, Trinitite, so. That's the only way it can be created. I cannot say it's the only way, but, you know, to me, it's a tangible evidence of the explosion of the first nuclear weapon. What was the other, there was another element that was found on Earth that was also found on Mars. Yeah, that's very interesting. Yeah. That's very interesting. So I don't know how to explain it. And that's an interesting because it's a re-active isotope that is not, we don't know of a process that forms it naturally. Right. So we know a process that forms it as a part of nuclear explosion, but we don't know if it can, of any other ways, it can be formed. Therefore, it's a viable hypothesis. So you cannot dismiss it offhand, and in order to dismiss it offhand, you need to find another way that I, isotope, could be synthesized. And then you can, you know, challenge the nuclear war explanation. So I'm saying, you have to be consistent in your logic and application of your logic, right? Right. So when you dismiss hypothesis, you don't dismiss them because they're crazy sounding, right? You need to dismiss them only when they lack evidence. Right. And we don't have evidence for this xenon isotope forming in any other ways, then this is the only explanation. But in the future, it could be different, you know, as we'll learn more, you know, who knows what we don't know. But for the time being, I'd say it's the only explanation. Right. Yeah, the nuclear question is certainly interesting because that's true. Well, that's a alkaline natural reactor, and I think in Gabon, you familiar with that? No. There is a, a natural fission reactor that was discovered in, in Gabon, I believe it's called oclo natural nuclear reactor. Oh, I do remember that. I think you mentioned this last time. Yeah. So to me, it's, and once again, you know, not an expert on the subject, but whatever little I know, it's very difficult to explain that naturally. because the premise there is, this uranium is depleted. So whenever you mind uranium, uranium has certain proportion of fysil isotopes versus non-fysil. So you have uranium 235 and uranium 238. And 235 is what goes into nuclear weapons and what goes into nuclear power plants and 238, nobody cares about. Yeah. So earth's two billion year old natural nuclear reactor. And I find this very hard to believe because the idea goes like this in order for uranium or there to be depleted to the extent it is that reactor must have operated for many millions of years. And for reactor to operate for many millions of years, you need to have the conditions just right for many millions of years. And nuclear reactor is a very complex thing in this sense that you build one in your garage. Right. In the sense that, let's say, if if the fuel is not sufficiently pure, you can have some poisons to develop in it. And those poisons basically would absorb your nutrients and extinguish your nuclear reaction. Or if your proportion of isotopes is not just right, your reaction will either fizzle out or it will result into an explosion. And there are many considerations like that that students and engineers study in the field of nuclear engineering. So in order to build a functional nuclear reactor that operates for a meaningful amount of time, let's say 10, 20 years. A lot of conditions need to be just right. And if any of the conditions are not met, met the reactor will either stop working or explode. Right. And now you're telling me that by chance in nature, you know, the conditions were just right for millions of years. I just find it impossible to believe. I find a lot of things impossible to believe. It's far easier to believe it was a remnant of an ancient nuclear reactor. I mean, what about the sun? What about the moon? What about the universe? All of this shit's impossible. Yeah, but you know, with the sun, you have advantage of scale. And that's what makes it work. You know, sun, where we believe that the sun is the large natural thermonuclear fusion reactor. Thermonuclear. Right. And the reason that works is because the sun is so large and the gravity contains the plasma. So it doesn't fly apart, you know, it does not become a cloud, just because gravity holds it all back. And when we're trying to scale the sun down to, let's say, to this and put it in a car, the problem is, you know, how do you contain sun in this small form? And that's the containment problem. And the best solution, well, it's magnetic field. And then it's difficult, it's expensive, it requires large complex engineering because you don't have, you know, this massive force of gravity to keep it all together. But in the case of the sun, you have the scale and the gravity holds it together naturally. But in the case of the aqua fusion reactor, it's not thermonuclear fusion, it's fission. So where uranium fission is, I'm saying is so many conditions need to be just right. So I could blow it, happen like for a few seconds, and then it blew up or fizzled out. But for it to be right, four millions of years, I think other explanations are more likely. Yeah. But, you know, I'm not an expert on that topic. So I cannot really argue it, you know, with scientists and unless I study it, but just from what I know, I'd say, easier to believe aliens built it, or you know, Atlanteans built it because it makes a lot more sense. So we know this is possible. So we know that you know, aliens could have visited and built it. Well, we also, we also know what we don't know, and we, what is also true is that we keep finding evidence that human beings at least were on this earth way before we knew previously. Their evidence keeps coming out that makes us older and older and older. There is this article that came out about a year ago about this skull found in China human skull that's over a million years old. So, you know, it's certainly possible that we existed or some version of us, some multiple versions of us have existed on this earth millions possibly billions of years ago that we would have no evidence for. Yeah. Besides, it doesn't have to be people, right? Could have been reptilian billion beings for whatever. So less than a year ago, this was published a million year old skull rewrites human evolution scientists claim. And then a million year old human skull found in China suggests that homo sapiens began to emerge at least half a million years earlier than we thought. Yeah. Insane. Yeah, absolutely. All right, so much we don't know. And if you think earth history is billions of years old, so maybe intelligent beings evolved into times of dinosaurs or maybe, you know, many times since. This is actually a legitimate topic for a scientific discussion publication where people discuss what traces of technological advanced civilization, you know, you can find and human geological record. Or maybe it's just us and we we like lost the plot along the way. You know, like right now, if if there was a thermonuclear global thermonuclear war wind down, they'll probably, you know, one of the only groups of people to survive would be, you know, indigenous tribes in the Amazon or like people who are currently day hunter gathers, that would be become like cargo cults. That would civilization would have to restart, but it would still be us. It just wouldn't be how we think of us. Yeah, besides this, this happened in the past for sure, because if you read about human genome, it's not diverse. In fact, when you compare human genome to, let's say chimps, genome. So chimps are a lot more genetically diverse than humans. And the way it is explained is at some point in the past and not so distant past, like entire human population came through bottleneck or found like a 100 individuals. Right. Yeah, I think we had a genome expert on the show, Kevin McKiernan, and he was saying that every human on earth came from like 20,000 humans. Right. Yeah. That's the variation. Yes. So, you know, clearly this speaks of some kind of catastrophe that happened. When did that bottleneck happen? Find that. See, see, find out when the bottleneck in the human genome was dated to. So that's why I want to chisel my poetry on the slab of granite. Yeah. To worry for you. Let them all know that you made it all. Well, it happens all the paper and discs will burn out, but they'll find this rock with my words chiseled on it. And it will be the only tangent. We need to go put it on the moon. We need to go put about your hard drives on the moon. Major severe human ancestral bottleneck is dated between 930,000 to 813,000 years ago. The bottleneck lasted approximately 117,000 years, reducing the breeding population to roughly out 1200 individuals and bringing human ancestors close to extinction. I thought it was way more. I didn't know. It was that low, 1200 individuals. I thought it was more recent than that. Yeah, I also thought so. There might have been another bottleneck. Yeah. Find out the most recent bottleneck, Steven. When is the most recent bottleneck in the human genome? Oh, it's the same thing. Find out what Kevin McCurian said on our podcast, if you can. But yeah, certainly I mean written history only goes back what like 800 BC something like that or no, when it would be Sumerian, right? That's what I was going to mention. You should read the Sumerian's tablets or Sumerian's legends. You know, they say we were created. You know, the story of human race being created by gods. I think we should take it seriously. Why not make it a topic of scientific exploration? Because there are a lot of abnormalities that say in human physiology like everyone's back hurts. Yeah, you know, why is that? Then, you know, reproductive cycle, why all animals reproduce only in spring and human beings reproduce all the time. That doesn't make sense. And also we're one of the few species on earth, maybe one of the only species on earth, that our offspring is completely helpless for years from starting at birth. Yes, but there is even more fascinating subject. You know, the human growth hormone and what's the organ in our brain that's producing it? Petuitary? Petuitary, thank you. Yeah, and you're a professor at Penn State who was studying Petuitary Galand all his life, doing experiments in space on NASA's space stations or international space station. Turns out, Petuitary doesn't work in space. So if human beings I've heard this they go into yeah body falls apart extremely quickly and one of the reasons this picture Your doesn't work and he started it in all his life. It's called pregnant alone steel syndrome I believe Google that and they didn't find the answer and they were joking. Oh, there must be a switch in your hill You know switch where in your hill. She's a pressure switch. Yeah, I mean, it's a joke Oh, that was you know after 40 years of research on the topic the best action they could give was a joke There is a switch in your hill Pregninalone steel syndrome is a theory suggesting that chronic stress causes the body to divert Pregninalone a human up a Precursor hormone away from producing sex hormones like progesterone and testosterone type in a Pregninalone steel system syndrome astronauts Because I think this they studied this actually actually um Astronauts and chronic stress so they're saying it's related to high cortisol um and Creating low sex hormones from DHEA to progesterone and testosterone Hmm Yeah, also You know another crazy thing is that you know when you're in space and you're around all that stuff You're not getting any light. You're not getting any sunlight on you and I know it's like really unhealthy to not get You like UV light and full spectrum sunlight on you. That's what people get so sick when they are constantly inside under fluorescent lights, so that's say you can make a good point and argue that humans were you know somehow engineered from more primitive beings that existed on earth because this Anomalyze don't make sense, but if you consider them as a whole it becomes a byproduct of genetic engineering or maybe unintended outcome of it also pretty much every species Plan every plant in animal on earth is locked into this coherent symbiosis with nature Except for us. We're like the one that doesn't really fit You know like even down to like phytoplankton and everything it works in this This synergistic stream Within nature, right? Yeah, I would take it even further. Why is the idea of gods are infectious, you know Why we believe in God and we are servants to the God it's as if it's ingrained in us by design. Yes We want to serve gods that have been built Born created we have been created by God to be its servants That's like the highest aspiration and in human spirituality to be with God to serve God Why is this you know, I'm a scientist and I cannot escape the same thoughts, you know, they permeate through my poetry through my feelings And I'm thinking why is this I am so driven You know to be with God to serve God Makes no sense unless of course, you know you've been built well with my logical life to another species Well just by the fact that human beings are are the only species on earth that are able to Reason right we have to we know that we came from someone I came from my dad He came from his dad But if you extrapolate that all the way to the beginning of time where did the first one come from? Yeah, I mean you can argue that elephants and dolphins can And apes can reason to some extent right But we're the only ones that can communicate it to us, you know coherently and write it down and study it and try to figure it out And there's no reason there's no like It's like a gap in our understanding of where did the first one come from? You know, there must be some sort of creator and I think it kind of It feels a spot in the human psyche that kind of gives us a sense of purpose. Yes Yes, you know, why do we need the sense of purpose and I was thinking you know about this philosophically for the longest time And I would say, you know, what is the difference between man and God So God does not need a sense of purpose because he is the purpose And we need a sense of purpose because we're not gods without the sense of purpose our life is useless So why do we feel that way? Right And it's in a such a universal, you know human thing is to have a purpose to be helpful You're not a person if you're selfish and and then it brings a blasphemous point Then he's God in a selfish is God evil because it does need a purpose It serves only itself for himself. I know however you want to refer to Because everything that's good that's human is you know, you serve somebody But God does not need to serve. Right. It's a thing in itself. So Also, if there is this all-seeing all-of-nipotent God That means he knows everything that's going to happen in the future already which means the future is already written Right which means there's no free will right Yeah And then which brings another interesting point, you know how in quantum mechanics Everything is indeterminate That everything is probabilistic And there is a Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics where There is no deeper truth to what probability is tell you so you can never predict what an electron would do And many scientists find this idea uncomfortable because we're used to determinism right so And the idea was well Maybe if you include additional parameters, you'll figure out what the electron will do. You just don't have the enough data To make that you know decision and Niels Bohr Was vehemently opposed to this point of view Because he believed on philosophical grounds in free will And he believed that electron was in a sort of as a quantum of free will It was a fool's errand try to figure out why electron goes this way or that way Because he fundamentally believed it was free to do however it pleased And it was stupid trying to question why did it turn left or why did it turn right It's it's like trying to understand in a human psyche Right, it was that you know fundamental to him and that's why he fought Nell and tooth like What's the word deterministic explanations of quantum mechanics Oh Steve found more bottleneck info Neolithic Y chromosome bottleneck 5000 BCE estimated ratio diversity dropped to approximately one reproducing male for every 17 Reproducing females. What does it say does it say like how many individuals breeding survivors estimated between one to 10,000 individuals? Yes, so this is the total Oh, these are different catastrophes. Okay, I see There's no number because it's so random. Yeah, it's one was the Africa, which is what Kevin was talking about that's one of the 3000 breeding individuals that made it through right around 50,000 years ago. Wow It's pretty wild And those are though, I know those are the ones that that we know about and we've earth is so many billions of years old There's got to be so much we just don't know. Yeah, that's why exploration is fascinating, you know, we are curious I can't say I don't have any special talents. I'm only passionately curious. Mm-hmm. That's what we got to do I've got to dig analyze. I think if aliens are real they're probably time traveling humans I'd like to think that aliens are real because you know, you watch Star Wars. You see all of this species and the life finds a way just And you refuse to believe where alone Mm-hmm. In fact, I think probably George Lucas got it right, you know, maybe that's how Who got it right in George Lucas? Yeah That's how universe is, you know, countless aliens everywhere because life Takes it would easily so I don't believe we're exceptional Yeah, I just think all the accounts all the accounts that people have given that have experienced these things are allegedly seen These things you like gray aliens that have two arms two legs upright walking hominids. I I think That it's most likely they evolved here and not anywhere else because of other Goldilocks planets that we know of Don't have the same atmosphere. They don't have the same gravity. They're mostly water worlds. So Actually Veronica my lovely wife Veronica makes a good point You know, we have all cell phones and cameras everywhere. Yeah, how come the reason a good picture of any alien that they claim to have seen here or there or craft, you know Has always blurry always grainy. Mm-hmm. Yet, you know, in every pocket. There's a cell phone over the camera What's up? Was that right? It's a good question That just makes no sense and you know when you look at this perspective. Yeah, sure. I mean I think it's far more likely that government is doing some sinister Stuff that they do And blaming it on aliens because then there is no accountability and we know that American government has done, you know, terrible things to Americans You know like LSD testing in California and and forced realization of African Americans and You know wiping out of Native American population. Yeah, we know that they've done it So it's so easy to dress somebody funny and do some centers to stuff on blaming on aliens then Look, it's not us at aliens Mm-hmm. Yeah, we've done some of the most sinister stuff and we're guarding nuclear weapons in general Like not just not not even just dropping nukes on civilian populations, but some of the experiments that we did with nuclear weapons here in the United States on our own people, our own citizens and our own soldiers. Have you seen the nuclear soldiers, the US soldiers, there's a great vice documentary on this. It's called, I think it's just called nuclear soldiers, where they took US servicemen and women, put them on aircraft carriers or ships in the ocean and detonated nuclear weapons way off in the horizon and purposely had them stare at the nuclear weapons to see what the reaction would be, what the long-term effects, what the short-term effects would be. Some of these folks are still alive and it have to deal with all kinds of cancers, sterilization. They said, we were guinea pigs, we'll just explain what the nuclear bomb blasts feel like. There's a video on this on YouTube where they interviewed a bunch of them. They have yearly meetups that they go to and it's crazy and not only did we do that kind of testing on our own people, but we also did where these experiments on the east coast of the United States, we've looked us up before where we took disabled children and experimented with injecting them with uranium and different nuclear materials to see what would happen to them. And I think Bill Clinton, like exposed all this when he was president, he came out and did some sort of a public thing where it was either like reparations for these families or something like that, but this all came out under Bill Clinton. Do you remember when we talked about this? Crazy, it's crazy the stuff that the government has done. Yeah, I guess the evil has no limit. So here's the point I want to make. I think the purpose of life of every good person is to fight evil. That's the only true purpose that we have in our life. There is so much evil all around. We all have to fight it collectively or it also will proliferate and evil starts unfortunately with lying. You know, you lie, that's the smallest evil you commit and then it goes from there. Violence grows from it. So I think that's the fundamental purpose of life, fight and combat evil and you start just by being honest. Yeah, I think you got a great point there. I think you're right about that. All right, well, so to wrap this up, what are your plans for the future when it comes to setting these ancient bases and some of the stone stuff and you obviously got your paper published about the bases, what are your next goals? To have some plans, two things I'm doing. If anyone wants a vase like this, just contact me and you can donate money to research and I'll make you a vase and this is important because we're starting a new project. I have a partner now, Rico Horta, and we're going to go to Peru to take some 3D scans of proven megalists, the polygonal blocks that I want to subject to the same rigor of study where we can determine hopefully no better how they were made and what they look like by producing the data sets, the analyzable data sets of how these stones look in 3D. So 3D scanning and he might call the project scan civilization or not. I think it's important that we acquire and share data. So one person cannot discover all of the truth but one person can help others by documented carefully and by publishing what one finds. That's what we would like to do, we would like to scan as many stones and artifacts as we possibly can over period of time and in public domain, publish all of that for other researchers to do their own investigation because we need brilliant minds looking at the data and making sense of the data. So the list I can do is capture the data, provide you with a high quality of data but young minds and capable minds will see so much more in it and that's how I believe we can move closer to learning the truth about our past. Some of the stuff in Peru is astonishing the way it looks like it was melted together. They look like melted marshmallows and it's like it looks like even with some of the stuff in Egypt as well, like in the Océrian, it looks like the stuff was just heated up and molded together. Would there be a way of testing that to see if it was ever heated up? Yes, that's a second motivation. I'd like to be able to collect some of the samples from those rocks, stones and put them into my electron microscope and I'll be able to tell if the surface was modified and what elements it contains and whether it looks different from a large rock. So I think it's very important to be able to sample in some of this polygonal in a masonry blocks and subject them to microscopy to see how it was made because you will see either surface was melted or if it was chemically altered or if some chemicals were used, you will see all of that on the electron microscope and that's what I also intend to do and of course I'm very interested in scanning you know, sarcophagi in Egypt, but I realize that that requires permits and applications for permits and that one of the motivators for me to keep publishing papers because the more papers you publish, the higher your credibility and scientific community is and that's what you need in order for to obtain a permit. Can you join the dark side? Not necessarily, I don't believe that and I could be an I even and who knows, but the best thing you know we can do is try, right? Yeah, you should try to you should try to you should try to have one foot on both sides of the fence and try to look at things objectively with nuance and not try to look at it try believe. And if you know if the journals refuse to publish my findings, you know, publish them on my blog on my website, but it's important to capture high quality data and I don't know how to do it in Egypt, you know, without getting permits, you know, in Peru might be easier. We hope it's easier because you know, there are lots of sides that are not restricted and in the sense that we should be able to scan it, but yeah, can we look to this Egypt scan thing with the big things that go underneath the pyramids? Yeah, that's like freaking fascinating, but if you talk a lot of issues with it, if you talking about the, what they like determined from space, yeah, what are they calling it aperture radar? Yeah, I don't believe that. So that as a scientist and reading the paper, I think it's utter and complete. Jeffrey Drumm did a beautiful breakdown for us on this podcast of all of that stuff and all of the stuff, all the evidence they gave and all the scanned all the technology and essentially, oh yeah, he found it gaping holes. Yeah, it's absolutely bullshit. Yeah. Like one of the craziest things was their scans showed giant King's chamber, sized chambers in the central cough right pyramid, and we know that there's, and they're not in there. And there's, there's just lots of inconsistencies and that stuff and Jeffrey Drumm does a really good job. That's why I said, you know, all level begins with line. So don't lie, you know, be honest. Right. And, you know, in your own research, the easiest person to fool is yourself. If you don't have integrity, you know, you'll fool yourself very quickly. So, I mean, I'll deliver a sensation, but I'll deliver, you know, a good data set that you can analyze. Yeah. So if there are any listeners listening to this podcast and if you want to help with this project, you can help us in a getting permits to scan or just get an introduction to various, you know, museums or sites in what we could use that because, you know, we don't want to be breaking laws or violating regulations, whatnot. So it will, it will take, I think, a collective effort of people who are really, you know, genuinely interested in learning truth about the past, in a, to pull our resources together in one capacity or the other. So we get the necessary permits, collect and publish the data and let everyone analyze and make sense of it because it may be different from what we believe now. It may be more interesting and more fascinating than we could ever imagine, but, you know, we need to be truthful and honest about it. Yeah, I agree. Well, super impressive stuff, man, that I'm really impressed by how far you're going to produce some of this evidence and replicate some of these results and, and, you know, call balls and strikes with this stuff because it's refreshing in today's day and age. Thank you. It's a very kind for you to say. So we'll obviously link everything below, but are there any specific links people should be aware of to find your work and find you online or anything like that? Yeah, Maximus.energy is my website and that's your best, you know, starting point because on my website, there is a blog dedicated to Egyptology and to my fusion research and to general physics and this is where you can read more about, you know, my ideas and my findings and all the links and references to the papers. So Maximus.energy and I'm not much of a YouTuber, you know, I do have a YouTube channel and the link is on my website. So it's either you do a research or you produce content, so I kind of focus on the research and knowledge you can use the content. Cool, man. Well, thanks again. Steve, we have Patreon questions. We do. We have a couple of Patreon questions. We'll do. That's the end of the podcast. Goodnight folks.