#336 - NEW Egyptian Vase Scans Prove the Human Timeline is Wrong | Karoly Poka & Adam Young

Summary

---

Danny Jones Podcast #336: NEW Egyptian Vase Scans Prove the Human Timeline is Wrong

Guests: Karoly Poka & Adam Young
Date: September 29, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this thought-provoking episode, Danny Jones dives deep into the scanning and analysis of ancient Egyptian vases with guests Karoly Poka, an electrical engineer and researcher, and Adam Young, a mathematician and finance professional. Their pioneering work applies state-of-the-art metrology (the science of measurement) and 3D scanning to Egyptian stone vases, revealing a level of precision in these ancient artifacts that—according to the hosts—upends conventional timelines and understandings of human technological development. The conversation explores methodology, the implications for ancient history, ongoing skepticism, and the future of archaeological science.

---

Guest Introductions & Origins of the Project

• Karoly Poka: Electrical engineer from Hungary, inspired by Ben van Kerkwyk’s UnchartedX channel. He began by contacting European museums to scan actual Egyptian artifacts, later joining forces with Adam on an exploratory trip to Egypt.

  "I figured out that probably no one had investigated real museum pieces before." (00:38, Karoly Poka)

• Adam Young: Mathematician with a background in statistical mathematics and finance. His interest began in 2017, first analyzing privately-owned vases and later pushing into institutional collections with a scientific approach.

  "It had never been an established procedure for actually applying metrology analysis to ancient artifacts…" (02:34, Adam Young)

---

Key Topics and Discussion Points

1. What Are These Ancient Vases?

• "OG Vase": Analyzed specimen, traditionally dated to 2900 BC, and acquired from a London antiquities dealer.
• Many similar vases, spanning a 2,000-year range, were exported from Egypt en masse.
• Scans show impossible levels of regularity/circularity for tools believed available then.

Notable Quote:

“The median root mean square distance of this vase [from a perfect circle]: 16 microns. It's like six or seven 10,000ths of an inch.” (06:22, Karoly Poka)

2. Scanning Methodology

• Structured Light Scans & CT Scans: Slices the vase into thousands of horizontal layers (each 20 microns thick) and fits circles to each, measuring deviation.
• Portable 3D Scanners: Devices accurate to 20 microns, essential for use in museum spaces.
• Both interior and exterior surfaces are scanned; in many cases, interiors are more perfect than exteriors ("The interior is more perfect...about 3,000ths [of an inch] and the exterior is 4,000ths." - 34:37).

3. Statistical Analysis and Findings

• Across 100+ scanned vases, the degree of circularity and geometric precision is often unmatched—even by modern standards or current granite workers:
  • "No evidence that anyone has recreated... in modern times" (33:25, Adam Young)
  • Even CNC machines and multi-generational stone vase manufacturers in China could not match the precision.
• Comparisons with pottery: even the finest pottery or alabaster is considerably less circular and symmetrical.

"We found the median root mean square distance of this vase, 16 microns...the minimum deviation is.0004, like 4, 10,000ths." (06:12–07:58, Karoly Poka)

4. Pushback & Alternative Explanations

• Skepticism Online: Many pushbacks are online or career-motivated within academia.
• Provenance Concerns: Skeptics question object origins and whether forgeries are possible.
• Replication Attempts: The Russian "Scientists Against Myth" group spent two years replicating a vase, but scans show their attempt falls dramatically short in precision.
• Conventional explanations ("diorite pounders" or "fire-setting") are considered by the guests as inadequate for the observed results.
• No solid evidence for lathes, metal tools, or advanced machinery in the supposed culture/timeframe, despite the high precision necessary.

Notable Segment:

"They used a rotating table on ball bearings… that's a fixed spindle... going to impart roundness, but they used a modern metal bearing, which dynastics or pre-dynastics didn't have." (54:28–55:15)

5. Controversy in Archaeological Dating

• Form-Based Dating: Assigning object age based on shape/look is problematic; often results in contradictory attributions across millennia.
• Inheritance Hypothesis: Many such vases could be cultural heirlooms, repurposed by later Egyptians (Nakata culture, pre- and early dynastic periods).
• Some vases have earlier pharaohs’ names scratched in, indicating multiple periods of use.

6. Comparison with Modern Manufacturing

• Modern Marble Cylinder (Toothbrush Holder): 50 microns of deviation—still outdone by ancient vases, which are in harder granite or diorite.
• Modern CNC granite manufacturers failed to meet specifications.
• Alabaster vase precision sometimes approaches granite, but is much easier to carve.

7. Implications and Deeper Mysteries

• The existence of precision artifacts in ancient Egypt challenges conventional timelines and raises questions about lost technologies/knowledge.
• The sophistication appears in much more than vases (sarcophagi, core samples, massive boxes at Lahoon, etc.).
• Scan data and metrology, when made rigorous and public, could force reevaluation of much of Egyptian chronology and capabilities.

Notable Quote:

“It's an insult to anyone's intelligence to show them these scans...and say they were done with pounding stones and copper tools.” (45:36, Danny Jones)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Debunking the Debunkers:

  “If I go find a flying saucer in the desert, I don't need to find two flying saucers to figure out that there’s some advanced civilization that made this thing. Right. I only need one.” (10:39, Danny Jones)

• On Reception by Museums:

  “They had never seen such high tech in a museum.” (16:59, Karoly Poka)

• The Chris Dunn Connection:

  “He was explaining to the museum staff the implications. And they were open-minded.” (24:06, Karoly Poka)

• On Flatness Measurements:

  “Petri measured and published ... 4,000ths of an inch deviation across about one and a quarter meters — which is 20 times flatter than a normal household countertop.” (63:14, Adam Young)

• On Theories for "Why" Such Perfection:

  “Or they had the tools which made it easy. If they had already those tools ... they don’t have to think about ... how should we do this?” (64:20, Karoly Poka)

• Invitation to Participate:

  “We're launching ... a $25,000 prize to the stone carver ... able to actually replicate one of these vessels close to what we've measured, with only tools authentic to the era.” (114:06, Adam Young)

---

Important Timestamps

• Guest Intros & Backgrounds: 00:07–03:12
• OG Vase Description & Dating Issues: 03:12–08:51
• Scanning Methodology & Key Results: 04:47–08:53, 14:43–19:17
• Debunking & Replication Attempts: 10:17–12:23, 51:50–55:47
• Granite Box in Pyramid: 62:22–68:19
• Discussion of Archeological Skepticism & Pushback: 30:58–33:36, 76:08–79:08
• Modern Replication and Challenges: 32:01–35:04, 54:28–55:15
• Artifact Foundation Challenge & Next Steps: 114:06–117:44
• Sahara & Underexplored Regions: 108:16–109:56
• Antikythera Device & "Lost" Technologies: 111:00–113:43

---

Flow and Tone

The discussion is collegial, intensely curious, and occasionally frustrated by mainstream resistance. The hosts maintain a science-first stance, frequently emphasizing transparency, methodological rigor, and the necessity of data-driven dialogue with skeptics. They avoid wild speculation, save for fun “what if” scenarios.

---

Conclusion & Next Steps

• Artifact Foundation (artifactfoundation.org) and Karoly’s YouTube/Podcast are leading ongoing research and now sponsor a public challenge to attempt authentic reproduction of these artifacts.
• The ultimate goal: use comprehensive 3D metrology and open data to either confirm or upend the accepted human historical timeline.
• The guests encourage more scientific openness, data sharing, and experimental archaeology.

---

For More Information

• Artifact Foundation: artifactfoundation.org
• Karoly Poka (YouTube): Search “Karoly Poka” or “Ancient Technology Podcast”
• Contact/Challenge Details: See website for $25k precision vase replication challenge.
• Danny Jones Podcast: Linked below the episode.

---

This summary covers core arguments, controversies, the human drama behind the research, and the technical breakthroughs reshaping our understanding of ancient Egypt.

Transcript

[A]

First of all, why don't you guys just introduce yourselves?

[B]

Go ahead.

[C]

Thanks for being here or for the opportunity.

[A]

My pleasure.

[C]

My name is Karo Poka. I'm an electrical engineer, basically coming from Hungary. And I was actually watching and listening to Ben von Kirkwick's videos on UnchartedX when I met these vases, this topic. And I was quite bored in my day job and I was also researching these and I figured out that probably no one had investigated real museum pieces before. And that was the time when I had the idea to list all the Egyptian museums or the museums in Europe with a significant Egyptian collection and, and write them an email to ask for opportunity to go there, bring my own equipment and analyze these vases. And after I started this little side project, I went on Ben's trip into Egypt, I met Adam, and actually we figured out that we have the shared goal and we teamed up and Adam was the one actually who started this entire investigation like 10, 10 years ago, I guess. And yeah, after the trip, we went to the Petri Museum. We scanned bunch of these, actually these 3D prints from the most precise vases we found there. And yeah, basically that's how it started for me at least.

[A]

Adam, how'd you get into this?

[B]

Yep. Adam Young. My background's in math and statistical mathematics and I work in finance up in New York actually, and been interested in this sort of conundrum of, of. Of our ancient past for a long time, but seeing these objects in person alongside bigger objects like pyramids and other temples, but then the smaller ones are, I would say, as impressive in a different way. I thought that there could be something here that I could. That I could lend my. Lend my hand and, and if not expertise and at least my interest and enthusiasm into. And started analyzing these back In, I think, 2017, along with Chris Dunn's son Alex and a few others. We've. We've investigated a number of them that were in private collections and then started making inroads to, to get into more institutional venues like the Cairo Museum and others. And yeah, when I, When I, When I met up with Carolee and he joined the foundation, we've been, we've been working on improving a lot of the algorithms. And he's put it. He's put many months of his life into, I think, what's really a groundbreaking field. So before the last few years, this had never, this had never been done and it hadn't been an established. It had. There had not been an established procedure for actually applying metrology analysis to Ancient artifacts where we didn't know what the design was, where we didn't know what the original schematic or intention was. So it was, it was a new field.

[A]

So what's this? Can you explain what this is? What's going on with this vase right here? This. Where, when is this vase from? Where did you get it and what's significant about this thing?

[B]

So we call that affectionately the OG vase. That was one of the first that I analyzed. It wasn't the actual first, but it was the first that exhibited precision that was inexplainable. It's traditionally dated to around 2900 B.C. it was found in a second or third dynasty tomb, hence the, the dating attribution. It was in a private collection in London for a while, and then I, I purchased it just from an antiquities dealer, I think like 12, 13 years ago, roughly speaking. So these were not that rare. I mean, they were exported from Egypt by the thousands.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

And you can, you know, you can talk to any antiquities lawyer that would confirm that they, some of them, when we were in a museum, we were in the term museum two months ago, or what was it, back in May. And they. One of their pieces. Yeah, so one of their pieces was a Saqqara vessel from the Step Pyramid that they obtained in 1896. So that's 25 years before Loye. Who's. The, who's the most famous one that was, that was credited with, with excavating most of them. So, you know, this has been a, this has been an ongoing fascination in Egypt is the antiquities trade. The ancient Greeks and Romans were coming here and, and bringing things back with them.

[A]

Right, so this, so this was from under the Step Pyramid, you said this.

[B]

One I don't know.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

We don't know the exact tomb, but.

[A]

This is the, this is what, what's going on here on this diagram? This is a scan that you guys did of it.

[C]

So first it was scanned with a structured light, I think in 20 or 20.

[B]

17.

[C]

17, yeah. And then he did a CT scan on this. So the CT scan will give you the most accurate representation.

[A]

Computerized tomography scan.

[C]

Yeah, exactly. It's shooting X rays through the object and it will give you very detailed micron, really micron level representation. And this is the analysis of the CT scan here. You can see on the left side the sample points per slice. So basically the way we analyze this is to slice it up into very thin horizontal slices. One slice here is 20 micron high. Basically there's a slice thickness. And you can see the sample points per slice here on this chart. And here the root mean square distance error of those points per slice. So basically we slice them up and we fit a perfect circle on every slice and we measure how much those points in the scan data deviate from the perfect circle.

[A]

Okay. How many slices?

[C]

We have a little bit more than 6,000 slices.

[A]

6,000 slices. And this thing is roughly, would you say 6 inches tall, 7 inches tall, something like that?

[B]

Yeah, yeah, about that.

[C]

So we are measuring every little slice and the median root mean square distance. So every slice will get like a number.

[A]

Sure.

[C]

What's the root mean squared? It's like an averaged deviation basically, per slice. And we pick the median because if we would pick the average, every damage part will throw that away or will significantly modify. And so the mean is not robust to outliers. That's what I'm trying to say. That's why we picked the median in. It's a little bit better in this regard. And we found the median root mean square distance of this vase, 16 microns. It's like six or seven 10,000ths of an inch.

[A]

The median?

[C]

Yeah, the median. But as you can see here on the right side, on the right plot, it's quite consistent. It's not zoomed in really because on the top you can see there is damage. So it was a little bit higher, like 500 microns probably because of that damage. And there is some of the bottom two.

[A]

So these big spikes on the right are how far it deviates from a perfect circle.

[C]

The maximum is 526 micron.

[A]

And what is that in English?

[C]

It's 2, 200 hundreds of an inch.

[A]

200Ths of an inch?

[C]

No, 200ths of an inch.

[A]

2, 100 of an inch.

[C]

So 0.02 inches, that's the max. The minimum deviation is.0004, like 4, 10,000ths.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

And the median is 6.

[A]

Okay. And what's. What. So basically what you're saying is that because these vases came from 2500 B.C. is that when it was. That was, that's when this one was from. Roughly.

[B]

Traditionally it was dated to 29. But they, they range from early or old Kingdom back to predynastic and AADA time. So, okay, there's about a 2,000 year old, a 2,000 year span that these are usually ascribed to.

[A]

Okay. So at least 4,000 years ago, at the very minimum, for at the youngest it could possibly be is 4,000 years old. Right. So the, the idea here is like there's no Way conventional, that, conventional explanations of how Egypt, Egyptians made these vases, their tools that we know that they had. They could not have come up with something so perfect.

[C]

That's the idea, yes.

[B]

Okay, so that's what we set out to, to test to see if that's actually true. Is there any way that any of this work could be done by hand or by manual methods? And are there different grades or tiers of manufacturing quality in vessels that we see right across materials, across forms and across the different cultures that are attributed to have been the ones that made them originally? So these are normally attributed to a time based on where they're found. So they're found in a third century tomb. Okay. That's the minimum age, but it looks like something else. And we know this other group is making this thing in a different time period, so we may actually redate it because it looks like something else. And there's a lot of, there's a lot of problems. That's a Victorian era concept called form based dating. And there's, there's a number of issues with that. It's the best approach. That was around 150 years ago, but I think it's led to a lot of inconsistencies. And we've seen that with the Alabasters, we've seen that with granites, where one form may be 2, data to middle Kingdom. Another form might be data to like Nakata, which was 3,000 years before, just because of the way they look. Without, you know, without reference, without giving any credit to the type of material, how difficult it would have been. How. Why does it make sense that two distinct groups of people are making the exact same thing for 3,000 years? That's kind of odd, right? But that's the fallacy with this form based dating.

[A]

Yeah. So I was listening to a quote unquote debunking of these vases on YouTube this morning, and this guy, David Miano was. One of the arguments he was making is that if you find one of these that is perfectly symmetrical, that you measure in your light scanners and your CT scans, you have. He was. And I could be, I could, I could be misinterpreting this, but I, I believe the argument he was making is you can't just have one, you got to have two. And he's saying that if you only have one, it doesn't, it doesn't prove that your theory of this advanced civilization or this advanced machining technology existed. But the way I was thinking, the reason that argument doesn't make sense to Me is because if I go find a flying saucer in the desert, I don't need to find two flying saucers to figure out that there's some advanced civilization that made this thing. Right. I only need one.

[B]

So there's thousands of them? Many thousands.

[A]

And there's thousands of these things that are, that are this precise?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

How many have been measured?

[B]

Well, we, I mean, we've gone through a few hundred. We're not in the thousands, but we also have a filtering bias.

[A]

Right.

[B]

We're ignoring pieces that are heavily damaged that may have been precise originally, but it makes it very difficult to scan and analyze. So we might, we might discard a whole bunch of them. And a lot of these were broken and put back together. Right. So we could start to recognize these. They might look precise. We don't know until we actually measure. So it's really hard to say exactly.

[C]

We have been in four museums and there is a time limit in every appointment, basically, or at every appointment. And we have scanned like roughly 20 to 30 pieces per museum.

[A]

Okay, so you bring your stuff there and you can scan them while you're in there?

[C]

Yeah, of course.

[A]

Oh, wow, that's amazing.

[B]

And then of course, you know, Matt Bell and others, they have, yeah, they've been looking at pieces that are in private collections. I'm aware of people that, that own several hundred of these. So these are not, they're not uncommon. They're.

[A]

And what are these people that own the hundreds of these say about the stuff that you guys are doing?

[B]

It's, it's novel to them. Right. They've never really seen it or heard about it before. And usually people are open minded about a lot of this. But there's a long period of, of traditional story that you have to overcome before people are receptive to the fact that maybe they were made by a different group of people.

[A]

So the other day I tried to split the dinner bill. And we're all familiar with the payment apps that take three days to send your money and you always forget your password so you got to reset it and then on top of that they take a cut. So now you have to send extra. Listen, if I take this bill and, and I give it to my friend, that's how fast I want my money to be transferred digitally. And that's where today's sponsor cash app says, hold my beer. Moving money should be simple. We're not trying to apply for mortgages here. What a relief. It took seconds to set up and all I needed was my phone number. No digging around for bank info and no forms, just boom, done. The first time I used it was when a guest didn't receive the taxi voucher I sent. I reimbursed him while we were still on the phone and he got it instantly. It it didn't take two to three business days. It was instant. But what about safety? If you're about to send money to someone sketchy, Cash App gives you an alert like, hey, you sure you want to send this? Which definitely saved me once or twice when I mistyped the person's name with my slippery butterfingers. Also, you can personalize payments so you can send your roommate rent money with a pizza emoji and a sparkly background. Every time my in laws want something, they get the poo emoji. Bottom line is, I use Cash App because it's the fastest, the safest, and it just makes life easier. Far less stressful. And for a limited time only, Cash App customers can use our exclusive code to earn some additional cash. For real? Just download Cash App and use my exclusive Referral code, Cash App 10 in your profile. Send $5 to a friend within 14 days and you'll get $10 dropped right into your account. Terms apply. That's money. That's Cash App. And now for the fine print. Cash App is a financial services platform, not a bank bank banking services provided by Cash App's bank partners. Prepaid debit cards issued by Sutton bank member fdic. Discounts provided by Cash App, a Block Inc. Brand. Visit Cash App legal podcast for full disclosures and thank you to Cash App for sponsoring this episode. How many again have been scanned by these?

[C]

Roughly 100. Roughly 100 from museums. Yeah.

[A]

So you guys go to the museums. You guys pick the ones visually that you think look the most symmetrical. You put them in the scanner and then you. You basically filter it. Is this what the device is right here?

[C]

Yeah, that was in the Petri Museum. So basically.

[A]

Holy crap. That's crazy looking.

[C]

We, we wanted to have like a portable device which is relatively capturing the objects with a high accuracy. So this device is rated to 20 micron.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

Accuracy. And basically it's true.

[A]

What did these museum people think when you guys show up with this crazy 3D scanner?

[B]

They like it. Usually they're curious.

[A]

They're probably like, what the hell are you guys doing?

[B]

Yeah, you know, we don't just ignore the less precise things we want to control. We want a comparative. We want to be able to understand, like, how much.

[A]

Right.

[B]

More impressive is this so.

[A]

Right.

[B]

We don't completely Ignore that as a control group.

[A]

But yeah, I don't like my, my point. What I was making, the point I was trying to make was that it doesn't matter if you do ignore the less precise stuff. If there's. That, is that precise that goes far that back that far back, that proves that there must have been something incredible. They, that proves that they weren't doing this stuff with pounding stones and, and bow saws or bow drills or whatever. You know, it, they, it's impossible they would have got that lucky basically is my point. Like they couldn't have just gotten that lucky a handful of times.

[B]

Right.

[C]

So basically we are shooting laser beams to the object and it's measuring the reflection angle of the laser beam and then it's basically collecting the data points of the real object and reconstructing it with 20 micron accuracy. It means basically the 3D scan will be 20 micron close to the real object in dimensions, in size, everything. Yeah, so they were a little bit surprised. They, they told us that they had never seen such high tech in a museum. But we, we needed this, this mobile handheld stuff because you cannot set up a huge device. Usually the museum space is very tiny. You don't have much room for big equipment or CT scanners.

[A]

When they, when they ask you guys why you're doing this, what do you tell them? I imagine you don't say you're looking for an advanced ancient civilization.

[C]

Basically in the email when I reached out to museums, they'd be like, get.

[A]

The hell out of here.

[C]

No, actually they were quite, not all of them, but first the Petri Museum was very open to this and then the Museo Akizio, I hope you pronounce it correctly. It's a second largest Egyptian museum after Cairo. It's in Italy, Turin. They were very open minded and I needed to craft a research plan and basically we were in.

[B]

We usually say it's a combination of preservation so that they have these things for posterity. We also say there's potentially more exploratory work that can be done. We don't know how these are made. I don't think anybody does. Even though there's, you may talk to an archaeologist that says there's consensus. There's really not. And the consensus is around how the alabaster vessels were made. Not necessarily the hard igneous rock like the graduation granites and diorites.

[A]

Right, right. Well that's another straw man that the skeptics or the, the people that push back against this stuff, the, the conventional people like to Say they like to say. Well, if you want to prove that, like he was specifically talking about Ben, Ben Kirkwick saying that he needs to come up with proof of ancient buzz saws or like ancient core drills that would have been like perfect and would have had like insane amounts of power, like power tools. But no, he doesn't have to do that because Ben is not saying that this stuff was made with any type of specific power tool. I think what Ben is actually saying is that the conventional explanation for how these things were made doesn't fit the bill. He's basically challenging their explanation. So the burden of proof isn't on them because Ben doesn't have some elaborate hypothesis of exactly how this was made. Ben's just questioning the narrative, right?

[B]

Yeah, that's right.

[A]

So this one is. So that one on screen is this one right here?

[C]

No, no, no.

[A]

Oh, it's a different one. That's one that's in the museum.

[C]

I see. Exactly. And at the beginning you can see they collected all the pieces. So basically they have an online collection which we can browse and we can pick 10p. Specifically at the Petri Museum you can pick 10 pieces or 10 objects per visit. We had two appointments and we picked roughly 20. But they were, that's incredible that they're.

[A]

Working with you guys like that. They're like letting you come in and do this. Like I was, I, I can't believe, I honestly can't believe that they did this.

[B]

It's insane. How many objects are here? These few.

[C]

What is it, like 80,000.

[B]

Just, just in the rooms. And this was like 5%. Apparently. This is like the bottom 5% of the material he brought back.

[A]

Wow. Did you guys look at the, the core? The Petri core?

[C]

Yeah. Yes.

[B]

Yeah, we looked at a few of those.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Core number seven.

[A]

Yep.

[C]

We also scanned the core. I'm looking for the image.

[A]

The Chris Dun core number seven.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So for people who aren't aware of the Petri core, I guess the Flinders Petri found this cord out chunk of granite I think it is. Right. And it has a, it has these grooves that go around the outer edge of it. And he went there and took a string and wrapped the string around the groove, confirming that it's a, it's a never ending spiral from one end to the other. Right. And because of how close the grooves are together and that it is a perfect spiral, his engineering brain figured out that that had to have been a, A, a drill that was moving at a very high speed that was drilling that core out of the rock at like a super high speed. Right.

[C]

Like 500 wells.

[A]

It was a slow speed.

[B]

It was very productive. Each road, each revolution was extremely productive.

[A]

Right.

[B]

We don't necessarily know the speed, but we know that every time it went around, it was removing an extraordinary amount of granite. More than anything we, I think Chris has said between 100 and 500 times more productive than anything we have.

[A]

Wow. Right now.

[B]

But we asked them about this and they said, yeah, we have hundreds of these in boxes of these drill cores like this.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

They were discarded. They were all over the place and you could just pick them up off the ground.

[C]

So we did CT scan, sorry, laser scan, and photogrammetry on this. So photogrammetry is basically a technique where you make like hundreds of photos from different angles around the object, and then you stitch it together by tracking pixels. And you can basically, there is a representation here, or you can imagine the images all around. So these are the images taken of the object?

[A]

Yeah, it's like how they photograph shit for video games.

[C]

Yeah, exactly. And the problem with the laser scanner, that those grooves are so tiny that it's, it's around the limit of the scanner, of the resolution of the scanner. So we probably have to go back and scan it with a more accurate laser scanner or a more accurate maybe structured light scanner, because we could reconstruct the grooves. But sometimes the grooves are not obvious where to follow the grooves because they have cross sections. And.

[A]

Yeah, it's tough to see it here. There's. You can see the grooves when it gets towards the edge when the light's shining on it. But like, the, the, the pattern on that rock is like, makes it really hard to see.

[C]

Yes. So we find, we found a few spiral, like, turns basically on, on it. But to make sure that it's, it's 100% like a spiral and not just a random, wrongly connected groove. We have to go back and analyze it more totally now.

[A]

I mean, the stuff that Chris has done, analyzing this core, I mean, he's done a lot of work, made a lot of videos. He's had aerospace people look at them. I think he had an aerospace guy go with him to the museum. They've filmed wrapping the string around it. Like, where does that go after people like him do something like that? Like, is there somebody like that analyzes that and says, like, okay, maybe we need to like, rethink how they did this stuff? Or there should.

[B]

There should be.

[C]

The museum had no idea why this core is so famous. So this is the star object the museum but when we were there, they had no idea why it was surprising.

[A]

So they don't pay attention to any of this stuff?

[C]

I don't think so.

[B]

The, if they consider this alternative archaeology then generally they ignore it. But there's other researchers that are there during, during the day, during the week that they, they may also ignore just because there's too much on their plate.

[A]

Right, right. The amount of people that are coming in and looking at this stuff, they probably just don't have the time to focus on it.

[C]

Are you familiar with Chris King?

[A]

No.

[C]

His brand is Chris King Precision Components. He's basically manufacturing high end hub sets and headsets for mountain bikes and other bikes too. He was with us, so he's a manufacturing expert. He's doing it for like 50 years, like very tight tolerances, aerospace tolerances. And he was explaining to the museum staff, the archaeologists. So when we were scanning they were watching us and Chris was explaining to them why we are doing it and what's the, what are the implications. And they were quite open minded actually. So they didn't, they didn't refuse to talk about these or.

[A]

Yeah, that's what Chris Dunn was explaining to me. He was explaining to me that some of like the younger up and coming archaeologists and Egyptologists and Egypt, Egypt are way more open to this stuff and there's, there a lot of them even have YouTube channels that explore this stuff and that pay attention to the stuff that like Ben is doing and you know, all these like Jimmy Corsetti and all these other guys that are, are making a name for themselves, questioning the narrative like these young folks that these young people who are coming up, they, they're aware of it and they're actually taking it into consideration. And he's optimistic that, that you know, that that dogma is going to change.

[B]

Which is, I think you can see it already. There's like Ahmed Adley is one of the members of the foundation with us and he's got a YouTube channel. It's, it's specifically designed to bring this content to the Arab speaking world because they haven't had it as much as English speaking world.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And probably French and German, but it's been absent from their lexicon. So you're right there. I think people are open minded and it does benefit them because it brings in tourist dollars eventually. I would think so yeah, economically it makes sense.

[A]

So you guys, other than that thing you were just showing that, that grid laser thing, didn't you guys also take this to like a defense contractor SC place where they had some crazy like scanning machines that would analyze it even more thoroughly.

[B]

Well, that's right before we had, now we have in house equipment. But in the past that's the first few places I went. So I went to defense contractor that had access to old CMM machines and structured light equipment. And then we went to Zeiss itself in Michigan which has like Zeiss, wow. They're. Yeah, they're a massive lens, a massive brand that makes exactly like lenses and scanning equipment, camera lenses. So they have CT scanning machines there that are the size of a small room. So obviously it doesn't lend itself well to on site or on location expeditions or anything in a museum. But if you have the piece so the private collection stuff can be analyzed at a place like that.

[A]

And have you, who have, like, who have you shown these CT scans to that's involved with conventional Egyptology?

[B]

We've spoken to a few, you know, we have some relationships with researchers and academics in Egypt at the Ministry of Antiquities and other places. So I think we've taken the softer approach where we want access to the same sites and the same objects that other academics have access to. And so the first few years I was relatively quiet and we didn't really release anything publicly because you know, it's, it's, to them it's important. It could be, it could be an existential career question if they want to get involved in the academic, in the alternative academic community.

[A]

So I don't understand what's alternative about bringing these artifacts into a defense contractor and measuring them.

[B]

It seems pretty standard that that work is still above and beyond what's normally applied to this. But the implications could be, you know, could be interpreted in a number of different ways. It could be as simple as, well, maybe this culture had something more advanced than they're giving credit to all the way to. It was someone completely different or it was aliens or it was high tech computer CNC machines. Right. So there's a lot of different interpretations that have been applied to this subject.

[A]

And so they're afraid of the interpretations?

[B]

Some, yeah, some are worried that it'll, it'll jeopardize their career. They're, they're very, they intensely criticize one another over their own papers that aren't even controversial. So if there is something that's controversial that's outside of the mainstream, it could jeopardize their, their track. It could jeopardize their standing with their colleagues and everything else that comes alongside that, which is understandable. But I think things are starting to change a Little bit. The acceptance level is, is higher than it used to be, especially if we're, especially if we apply rigorous scientific standards.

[A]

Did you know one in eight Americans are on anti anxiety medications? The Omnidomyscaria mushroom is growing in popularity for uses with anxiety and addiction. And it was sent to me by today's sponsor, Minnesota Nice Ethno botanicals. It's non addictive and it activates the same GABA receptors as benzodiazepines and alcohol, making it a great way to help taper dependencies. Stress and anxiety make it easy to slip back into addiction. That's why thousands are turning to Amanita mascaria from Minnesota Nice. It's not a magic bullet though. Real recovery takes community and support. But this mushroom has been used for centuries to promote relaxation, improve sleep, and even enhanced dreams. Their founder, Christian Rasmussen used Amanita to overcome his own withdrawal and built Minnesota Nice to make natural healing accessible and affordable. Their capsules kick in within an hour and last six to eight hours. And they cost a fraction of pharmaceuticals. And it's not just Amanita. They've got Blue Lotus gummies. Yes. Blue Lotus in a gummy Reishi for sleep and more. Plus they give back like donating $12,000 to the fungi foundation and leading new research with brain mechanics. This is the kind of company I like to get behind. Try this incredible blend of ancient and modern technology. Go to mnice ethno.com dj and use the code dj22 for 22% off your first order. That's mn n I c e t h n o dot com dj and use my code dj22 for 22% off YOUR first order. Have you gotten any rational pushback on this stuff that's not ideological and it's not like career driven? What is the most compelling pushback you've gotten about this stuff? Like, is there anything like criticism in general? I know there's lots of criticism that you guys get from this. Just not just from. I mean I imagine it's not just from like YouTubers is or is it just from like YouTube type people that are making entertainment around this archaeology space?

[B]

We. It seems to be more prevalent online than.

[A]

Of course. Right. Because people make money doing that. People have like identities. They have to be skeptics and they have to push back on stuff.

[B]

And a lot of it's legitimate. It's, it's healthy. We need skepticism, we need a healthy dialogue with, with all different types of people, alternative archaeologists and lifelong academics as well.

[C]

I think most of the pushbacks was regarding the provenance, for example, the OG ways.

[A]

So they're saying by provenance, what do they mean by that?

[C]

Where is it from? Is it a forgery? Is it a modern fake?

[B]

How long can you document the, you know, the chain of custody? So preventing would be like where exactly what site it was dug up at, and that a lot of times is not known. Or it was and it was obfuscated. But how long has it been outside Egypt? When was it brought out? Is it before this various treaty? Okay, that's a legal concern. But is there any point in time, could this have been manufactured more recently? And so that, that was a frequent.

[A]

Is that possible that somebody could manufacture like this granite vase right here?

[B]

Sure, anything's possible. We, I don't think we've seen it done yet.

[A]

You don't think.

[B]

I haven't seen any, any spherical objects manufactured to this level of precision. Complex spherical geometry. We have seen it in cylinders and other objects. Flat planes. Yes. Can, can exceed that dramatically actually. And, and circularity, for instance, like an artillery barrel of, like a military cannon. Yeah, I think, I think that first reached like we're talking about radial deviation basically first reached about a thousandth of an inch in the late 1800s. So this has been possible for a while. But as applied to even metal and other complex objects, it's been 80, 90 years that we've been able to do that level of work in metal. But I have, we haven't seen it applied to, to a hard igneous rock like this.

[A]

What, what rock specifically is this?

[B]

That's red Aswani and granite.

[A]

Okay. I can feel with my thumb, it's a little bit, you can feel like the imperfections on the edge.

[B]

Oh, and there are, and you can see tool markings. You can see what looks like the evidence of hand tools that may have been applied lastly to smooth out some edges and fix a few imperfections. They're not, they're not 100% perfect. And there's evidence of hand, of somebody's hand guiding some sort of a tool on a lot of these. So I, you know, I wouldn't, I wouldn't speculate and say they were made on an assembly line without, without human intervention at all.

[A]

So there's no evidence that you've seen of anybody recreating something like this in modern times.

[C]

He reached out, talk about that one. He reached out actually to manufacture Grant Manufacturing company or some company in China who is making vases like multi generational company. And they were not able to hallow out the interior. So basically they drilled straight.

[A]

Oh, wow.

[C]

And if you're talking about the external median circularity is like 110 microns. It's like 4,000.

[B]

They were using computer CNC machines.

[A]

This is a CNC machine.

[B]

Yeah. On a lathe. So the, the thing was spinning and then the CNC head was going around it.

[A]

And that's the video of it.

[C]

On the right there is another object. They are.

[A]

That's obviously not granite.

[B]

Yeah, it's marble, I think.

[C]

And they were hand polishing it. So the, the tolerances are like not even close to this one.

[A]

Do you have a photo of the inside of that vase or just the diagram?

[C]

I have just this diagram.

[A]

Okay. Wow. Man.

[C]

The interior is more perfect. Let's say it's 3,000 and the exterior is 4,000ths of an inch because cylinders.

[B]

Are easier to work than complex spherical geometry.

[C]

And when I put the order for these to print, I, I wanted to order stainless steel CNC version of this one because we have the STL files, we have the, the scan, so.

[A]

Right.

[C]

They could reproduce it. And a few days after I submitted the order, they reached out to me via email that sorry, we, we cannot make it. We don't have. Not out of granite, out of stainless steel. It was a manufacturing company in China who printed these. They had another service to CNC to create CNC machine parts. And they said it's too complex for them. They don't have the proper machinery to do it.

[A]

And what about these little ones? Are these 3D print recreations of, of existing bases? Yeah, they make them this tiny.

[C]

They are from the Petri Museum. And actually this is, this was the, the most perfect. This had the median circularity of 70 microns. I will. That's how big it was. Yeah. And. And this was the opening.

[A]

Just super symmetrical.

[C]

It's like a shot glass 2000ths of an inch median.

[B]

It's hard to say, but there was some sort of a 2000ths.

[C]

And it's diorite, not granite. Diorite.

[A]

Dude, that is mind bending. And this is the actual size of it?

[C]

Yes, that's the actual size.

[A]

Have you shown this to any sort of granite workers? Like shown them this thing, how tiny it is and how perfect it is? And like ask them, like, give me your first reaction to it.

[C]

Not me.

[B]

Whenever, the whenever.

[A]

That this is for people that can't see this, that people that are just listening. This thing is like, I don't know, a third the size of a shot glass. It's like an inch. Inch and a half tall. Yeah. Sorry, what were you saying?

[B]

Granite carvers don't really. They don't usually attempt to make things like these objects. They're very. They're complex is I think the word. You have, like parabolic shapes in the exterior dimensionality. You have very small radius is applied to all surfaces, like the bullnose or the interior mouth you were looking at earlier. So it's not just. It's not something that's normally attempted. And so if somebody is. Is going to speculate, you will hear a lot of people say, it's not possible, we can't do it today, even with modern tech. People have said that and I. I don't think it's true. I think the better question is how would we do it?

[A]

Right.

[B]

What would make. What would make sense?

[A]

Or why?

[B]

Or how did some. Yeah, or why exactly. Why did someone make this in the past and how. Because it. It's looking more and more like it wasn't that difficult for whoever did it, given the sheer number of them given some. Sometimes they're haphazardly finished by hand in certain cases.

[A]

And I also think it's interesting that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there aren't any two that are identical. Is that true? Which would. Which would. I mean, some people would hypothesize that, that maybe they had molds for these things and they were melting this granite down into liquid and then putting it in these molds and like, forming them like concrete.

[B]

No two pieces of stone are identical. Right. Whereas concrete could be more homogeneous. But we have seen some forms repeated over and over again and even the nominal measurements, like the dimensionality, the same height could be applied. So here's an example of four of them side by side. One of them is right in front.

[C]

Of you, but it's not exactly the same.

[B]

They're close. They're very close. And so, you know, these are. Funny enough, these are. I think these are all attributed to very different epochs. The one on the far left is 27 or 2800 BC, and the other ones range all the way down to the Middle Kingdom, which is like 1500 years later.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

And we have, I think, granite, obsidian, either limestone or. What does that look like to you?

[A]

The black one is what?

[B]

Not obsidian. Basalt.

[A]

I'm sorry, Salt. Yeah.

[B]

Do you think that's.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

Is that limestone?

[A]

They're all the same general shape. They're all the same general idea, but you can see how, like, they're very, very different like this. It's not. It's like you gave somebody, like, the general, like, layout of what you wanted to build and they went for it. But it's clearly that these weren't all, like, from a mold and because they're still. Although they are super similar.

[C]

Check out the interior, the shoulder.

[A]

Wow. Dude. How in the hell. So the. So the fat part is completely. If you stick your finger down there, it opens up on the inside, too.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And there's like a perfect. Right where this is. There's a perfect ledge on the inside. And this is what, again, what made it. What is this made of?

[B]

That's a type. I think that's a type of granite.

[A]

Okay, so is that a real one?

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Yeah, this is an original.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

I'm glad. It's hard to distinguish. It means the prints are good.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, it. Yeah, it looks like. I don't know what the hell. I mean, it feels kind of like concrete, but it's definitely not concrete. You can see all the, like, the pattern in it.

[C]

We scanned a few alabaster and also pottery vessels just to compare. If they did pottery, what's the circularity of those objects? And I always wonder, if they can do pottery, why would they go for the hassle and make this one right. And make it so round? Why? What's. What's the purpose of that? If they can do it out of pottery which is less round, it's much easier. Was it some kind of religious function or. They made it because it was holding a sacred, like, clay something.

[A]

Clay pot or something like this.

[C]

Yeah, Yeah.

[B]

I can show the sacred juice of life.

[C]

So basically there was a Nagada vase, this pottery vase, which we have scanned, and it's 200ths of an inch, median circularity. I. I had to remove the. It has four handles, actually, as you.

[A]

Can see here, two hundredths. So it's still very symmetrical.

[C]

Yes, but not even close to these granite vases, which are.

[A]

What. What is it again? Not 200,000. 2,000ths.

[B]

Yeah, unless.

[A]

And so it's ten times more. Ten times more. Perfect.

[C]

Yeah. We have scandals and alabaster from the 18th Dynasty.

[A]

Oh, yeah. That thing looks super oblong.

[C]

Well, the. The bottom is wacky, but if you set it straight, it's much better. The bottom will be not that straight, but okay. The rest is good.

[A]

I see.

[C]

Maybe I can zoom in in a little bit. So it was 500 microns, which is also roughly 2000s of an inch. Sorry, 200s. 200s.

[A]

200.

[C]

So it's similar. It's in the same range like the pottery but we have seen actually very nice alabaster races, like tall ones, in the MFA Boston, and it was around 100 microns, so five times more accurate than this alabaster. So there are a few alabaster which are in the same category, like these granite vases.

[A]

How hard is alabaster?

[C]

It's much softer. I don't know, the most scale, but three, it's.

[B]

It's. You can cut that with. With. Without an abrasive, with like a bronze tool and no abrasive.

[C]

So it's much softer. But yeah.

[A]

So this. You think this was just super easy for them to do?

[B]

I don't know if I'd say super easy. It could have been challenging. But they did it, and they did it at scale, and there was so many that they were spread around.

[A]

Do you think it's possible that this stuff wasn't even from what we think it was from? Do you think it's possible it was, like, much older than this? Like, maybe even, like, older than 12,000 years old?

[B]

It's hard to know. You know, there's a break in the archaeological record between around 5,000 BC and 10,000 BC where we don't really see these. And so if it was from a culture right before, where these are normally attributed to, we think we would see that if it was from a period of time much, much earlier than. Than maybe what you're saying is right. I don't know. But I. I don't. How do you.

[A]

How do they do that? How do you. How do you determine that there was a gap from when we see him? Like, like, how do you. How do you date these?

[B]

They're found in burials. So. So the Egyptian. The dynastic Egyptians would bury them, would bury their loved ones with these. Right. And sometimes kings and pharaohs would. You find these in.

[A]

All of them are found in burials.

[B]

Yes. But the funny thing is some of them were buried themselves. So there was a. There was a pharaoh named Jozer in Imhotep. They put at least 40,000 of these down below the step pyramid. I actually think it was much, much more like. More like 100 or more by themselves. So not with bodies. They were packaged up in thousands of containers. Containers to protect them.

[A]

So with. No. Nothing to carbon date.

[B]

No, but some of the names sketched into them were from kings even earlier, hundreds of years before.

[A]

Sketches into the bases themselves.

[B]

Etched in or scratched in, if you will.

[A]

Wow. Okay, so that would be good evidence that. That would be a good way of dating it.

[B]

Well, yeah, you have a minimum. You have a minimum age. You know, it's someone before you. But that guy was, that was Meanies or Narmer, who allegedly was the first person that united Egypt. And so if his name is in a lot of these, maybe he was collecting them too. And it turns out a pre dynastic culture called Nakata was, Was found with these.

[A]

Well, just because you find them buried with pharaohs or have pharaoh's names etched in them doesn't mean they made them. They could have just found them.

[C]

Yeah, exactly. If you go to the Cairo Museum, the New Museum, and I think it's also in other museums as well. But if you look at those vases, sometimes they have the museum label, the serial number of those. And specifically in the New Egyptian Museum, I've seen one big vase with three different labels. The first one or one was from the current museum and another one from the previous one. And what if they did the same? Like they found these, they labeled them, and then you see moving multiple inscriptions on, on these vessels and containers. And it's, it's not the real owner or manufacturer of the bases. Not the original guy who, who made it.

[A]

Right. Yeah, I don't, I just don't. I don't understand the controversy here because it's an insult to anyone's intelligence to show them these scans that you guys did and say that they were done with, with pounding stones and copper tools. Like it's, it's just not logical in any sense of the word.

[B]

We see, we were, we were talking to Miano recently and he acknowledged that potentially they did have a lathe or revolving equipment. But right now that's, that's not what's attributed to any of these cultures. They didn't have the wheel. The wheel came from Mesopotamia after Nakata.

[A]

Yeah. What year, what year did they come. Did they have. Do you know what year that they actually got the lathe? Like, when was the lathe first introduced?

[B]

It was around 3000 BC, roughly speaking. We don't know exactly, but it's. It was found in Mesopotamia first and then apparently shared with Egypt. But these were turned. You can see evidence of turning marks on them. These would predate the wheel being in this region by several thousand years. And if these were made on something rotating, which it seems like they certainly were in a lot of cases, it was part of the process, something revolving, either a wheel or a lathe or something like that. But that's interesting because that culture that's allegedly, that allegedly made these Nakata, they didn't apply that, that process to Anything else. Their pottery was not made on a wheel. It was made by hand. They would, they would pinch it and draw it and coil. And so that seems very odd that they would have this tech that's only used for stone, that's so wonderfully efficient and they would never use it for anything else. These people also didn't put stone in their, in their homes. They didn't make headstones. They didn't have monuments, statues. They didn't have toilets, sinks, basins. And if you could cut and carve stone this easily.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Or this proficiently, you would apply it to your primary residence and other.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Churches, whatever. You know, important buildings.

[A]

Yeah, no, that makes sense. And, and one of the arguments I think Flint Dibble made to me, not about the vases, but about the pyramids, was that, like, certain things need. They would be incentivized to make certain things better and more precise if they're monumental. And he used the analogy of like Washington, D.C. he's like, you see the Washington Monument. Now, are all the houses in the neighborhoods around that, that monument, are they as precise as the Washington Monument or as enormous and, like, well crafted? Is that. No, because they weren't. That was like a monumental ceremonial thing. Right. You don't need the houses. They could be mud huts, you know, living around there. And I don't know. I don't know if that argument applies to the bases, though.

[B]

Well, the Hoover Dam is the biggest, one of the biggest things in America. It's one of the biggest, you know, constructions that men have ever made. But we use the same technology and other things. We know how to use cement and other things. Why, how come this technology was never applied to anything else ever, ever? And you easily could, you could say, oh, look how they're spinning that stone around. I should do that with my clay.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And so that's. At least it leads me to think these are inherited, even to this culture. They were heirlooms. That this, this is not a very rudimentary culture. I would say that they, they're impressive. It was a society. They traded. They were all over the world.

[A]

Which culture are you talking about?

[B]

Nakata.

[A]

Nakata.

[B]

So they traded with the Levant, with, with that area, up all the way up until Syria, southern Africa. They did have copper. They were using it to hunt. They made beer, they had breweries, but they lived in mud huts. They had very limited uses of wood and they weren't known for, for applying anything like this to any other facet of their life. So these were, these were found in Nakata Burials. That's the earliest record of these being fine.

[C]

Possibly. Sometimes they don't even. Or they cannot even date it because if you look at the museum provenance, sometimes it says that possibly Nagada or it was found in these groups grave and that grave which is dated to Nagada. But sometimes they are not sure. They just write early dynastic or dynastic or Nagada or pre dynastic. So it's, it's. It's a. It's not straightforward. When were they made?

[A]

Right.

[C]

The. The thing I had on previously that. That was the small one.

[A]

Yeah. I just can't get over how insane this is, man. It really is.

[C]

Because this is how it. How it looks like.

[A]

So that's the real one and this is in the Petri museum?

[C]

Yes. Yeah. And so it's like.

[A]

Thin. I mean it's pretty thin. The walls of this thing, like the.

[C]

Interior is reconstructed because the laser scanner cannot capture the inside.

[A]

So how thin was the real one?

[C]

We couldn't measure it because we had a precision caliper calibrated to a few microns.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And. But it wouldn't fit. The opening is so tiny.

[A]

When Matt was here, he had some of his vases and we turned all the lights off and we shined a flashlight in there and you could see the whole thing lit up because it was paper thin. Like the, the edge, the gr. The sides of this granite vase were literally paper thin. It was been. It was completely insane.

[C]

And like this one was very thin. Yeah, you can feel the thickness of this. This is a very weird shoulder. This is from the sixth dynasty. Sorry. So this is not pre dynastic on paper. But the interesting thing about this piece is the actual measurements. So if I open it up, the exterior is basically 140 microns, which. Which is 5000 or 6000ths of an inch.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

That's the exterior. And the interior is 1000ths.

[A]

Wow.

[C]

So the interior is more precise than the. Than the exterior.

[A]

Like the serapion boxes. It's the same thing. Right. The interior is super precise, but the exterior is like really, really rough and rugged.

[C]

Yeah. And it's. It's like a cone shaped. You can see the.

[B]

The think about a tool that may have been used. You know, you could be talking about one drill tip versus something that was going around which could result in more. More precision on the inside.

[C]

And it was beautiful.

[A]

Now another thing that people like to point to is the. Apparently there was a. A group of people who tried to make a recreation. A modern recreation of this. Right. They have a YouTube channel. I think they're Russian. I forget the name of them.

[C]

Scientist Against Myth.

[A]

There you go. Okay. Yes. And. And when Deb was on here, he was trying to say that they made it perfect. He was saying that they. Is this it? Is this what they did?

[C]

So on the. On the left side, you can see the scientists. So they. We don't know how they scanned their ways.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

But they published it, so you can. You can download it. Basically, they made all.

[A]

Okay, so which one did they make? They made the one on the far left.

[C]

The left.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

The middle one is this small piece from the Petri Museum, and the right one is this one. And you can see the heat map. The green is very close to perfect. So basically, these are compared to the perfect slices.

[A]

I see.

[C]

So we slice them up, fit perfect circle on every slice. And we created a CAD model based on these slices, the perfect circles, and the mesh is then compared to the CAD model. And that's what you can see here. It's the surface deviation between the CAD and 3D scale.

[A]

Wow. The OG vase is insanely accurate and precise. Like, it's all yellow and green pretty much, with a little bit of blue and red towards the edges.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And the one that. The scientist versus myth, that. That looks like a, like, radar when it's like a storm coming through.

[C]

When it's dark red, it means it's. It's out of the hundred micron tolerance when it's dark blue. So when it's. When it's red, it's. It's like a bump. It's a positive deviation, and the dark blue is a negative deviation. It's like a dentist. So.

[A]

And how long did it take them to make that?

[C]

Two years.

[A]

Two years to make one of them.

[C]

Based on their video. And the hole is also straight, so it's. It's not like ellipsoid or.

[A]

Oh, the hole is a straight core. It's not. It doesn't. It's not.

[B]

It's not contouring. It's just right straight, like a cordial. But, you know, they. They designed and made. I think they were using their knowledge of, like, modern machining to create tools to make their lives faster. They were using wood to. To create basically, machines that would drill and. And do the work for them. And then when they were measuring to remove the. The high parts. He was mentioning the red parts. They. They. They. They used a rotating table on ball bearings. And so that's. That's a. That's a fixed. That's effectively a fixed spindle. It's fixed axis. So that's going to impart roundness on something.

[C]

They have cheated, basically.

[B]

Oh well, yeah, they may not have.

[A]

And what, what stone did they use? Do we know?

[C]

Diorite or granite?

[A]

Okay. I mean it's pretty impressive that they were able to pull that off in two years. But you know, when the rubber meets the road, it's nowhere near as precise as these ancient ones.

[C]

And my problems, or my problem with their claims that they also went to a museum in Russia.

[A]

The problem is Flint Dibble said it was more precise and it clearly it was not even close.

[B]

It's much less precise for sure.

[C]

Right, because they said it in, in their video. They went into a museum, oh, measured something with a physical caliper, not a laser scanner, at least that was in the video. But this caliper was like, like it has some tape on, on its edges and no way you can measure micron levels with that thing. They had to put it on the ways and then measure it against a scale or something. It's not a precise measurement. And their table they represented in the video was also not. This was not really understandable. It was a little bit sketchy. Not so scientific in my opinion. And yeah, but we can see it's not more precise.

[A]

And. Okay, another question is, who does. Did that skin. Did you actually get your hands on that vase that they had?

[C]

No, they uploaded their, their 3D scan.

[A]

Oh.

[C]

So they made it available.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

It's openly available.

[A]

And when they upload the 3D scan, I assume they give you all the measurements and everything and, and, or like something to do with the 3D file. You can basically plug that into any program and it recreates it. Is that how it works?

[B]

It's an STL file.

[A]

An STL file.

[B]

Throw that into like blender or.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Metrology. So.

[A]

I see, I see, I see. Okay.

[C]

And, and then we ran our software on these. The same analysis on all of these three.

[A]

God, that's so crazy, bro. I mean it's got to be. I don't know. I feel like just the way my brain works. I want to say that this stuff had to have been way before that. And it has to be the same people that were responsible for doing some of this megalithic stone work. And, and just like, you know, there's just so many questions that, including this that are, are not. There's no reasonable explanation for like the scoop marks under that giant obelisk in Egypt. You know, the. How they, how do they scoop those, the rocks like that. And even there's scoop marks in the serapium boxes where it's like, I don't know, I don't know how, like I've never heard it can. The best explanation I've heard is that they, which is Jeffrey Drum's explanation, is that they had some sort of a chemical that they were able to put on there to soften it, to maybe scoop out cracks or something like that. But other than that, I, I mean there's just so many unanswered questions when it comes to Egypt. Let's be honest. Most dress clothes are uncomfortable, high maintenance and just don't feel good when you wear them. You have to spend too much time ironing, dry cleaning and tugging stiff fabrics. And that's why I love Mizzen and Main. Today's sponsor, Mizzen and Main makes classic menswear with performance fabrics. So it's effortless to look shar sharp and feel fantastic. Over 10 years ago, Mizzen and Maine invented the performance fabric dress shirt. Since then they've perfected it with modern fabrics that look refined but feel incredible. Their shirts and pants are stretchy, lightweight, moisture wicking, wrinkle resistant and completely machine washable. So no more ironing or dry cleaning. The moment you put them on, you feel the difference. Professional style that feels comfortable whether you're in the office, traveling or even out on the golf course. And it's timeless style that lasts. Thousands of guys swear by Mizzen and Maine because it's clothing you can invest in once and wear for years. I personally love their performance golf shirts like this one because it's so smooth, stretchy, buttery, breathable. I don't sweat my ass off when I'm out in the Florida heat on the golf course and I look like a million bucks. Right now, Mizzen and Maine is offering our listeners 20 off your first purchase at Mizzen and Maine.com with the promo code Danny20. That's Mizzen spelled M I Z Z E N and main m a I n.com with the promo codE-A-N n y 20 for 20 off mizzen and main.com promo code danny20. And if you'd rather shop in person, you can find Mizzen and Main stores and select states. It's linked down below. Now back to the show.

[B]

You can see different, different widths and different, almost like radius applied to the different scoop marks at different places in Egypt. Almost like they had a different tool for, for a different job or they were made on site for a specific purpose.

[A]

Right.

[B]

You see thousands of those scoop marks at Aswan. You see far fewer. But you do see something similar at Abydos in the temple there. But it looks like it looks a lot different. Looks much wider, like there's a bigger radius. So, you know, they had different tools for different jobs.

[A]

And how does that. How did the conventional Egyptologists explain the scoot marks away?

[C]

Diorite pounders. Yeah, diorite pounders and fire setting. So basically they stress the granite with fire. They put a huge fire on and then they cooled it with water. It stressed the rock. And then they use the pounders like rounded pounders and remove those scoops manually.

[B]

Dolorite's like basalt. So it's hard. It's probably not harder than the granite, but it would do the job eventually. But.

[A]

Well, I mean, that sounds. I would love to see somebody try to do that. I would love to see them experiment with it and see how it works.

[C]

They didn't experiment actually with the sire fire setting. But the numbers, I haven't seen the numbers.

[A]

Right.

[C]

I, I really want to see. How much wood do you need for this? How much, how much fire?

[A]

I mean, you're literally, you're cutting out a 1,000 ton obelisk using this method, like.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And then smoothing the interiors of those buildings. I mean, without inventilation. You'd choke yourself out. What is this photo?

[C]

This is the video Lahon Pyramid, basically in the Fayou Moises, and there is a huge granite box underneath this. Basically it's a mud brick pyramid, or at least the exterior. And we had an expedition last year, December, and yeah, it's, it's, it's a huge. I wouldn't say underground.

[A]

Does this go?

[B]

I think it's less than 100ft. So this is interesting because it's not attached to the pyramid itself.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Below grade. Remember the story about how the pyramids are protecting the king's body?

[C]

This is the pyramid.

[A]

Oh, yes, I've seen this one.

[B]

You can enter this very simple set of tunnels from, from outside the base. So see where we are. We're not, we're not close to even where the base used to be when it had casing stones. We're still about 100ft back from that. And so we go straight down and then somewhat under. So we are somewhat under the pyramid.

[A]

Oh, wow.

[B]

We're not connected to it. Which asks. I think there's a number of.

[A]

So these hallways don't connect to the pyramid at all?

[B]

They're not. No. They're below grade. So whatever the pyramid was built for doesn't appear to be directly related.

[C]

And it's almost collapsing.

[B]

A lot of this is modern. Is modern raw.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

A huge piece of rock just. Just fell down when we are there.

[A]

Okay. Yeah.

[C]

Probably a few years.

[A]

Yeah. That looks like bricks.

[B]

We see some retaining walls here, but this is just the entrance.

[C]

And the main thing is at the end of this room.

[A]

Holy.

[C]

This is a granite room.

[B]

So this room is doing just fine. Doesn't need any.

[A]

How have I ever seen this before?

[C]

Flinders Petri said probably this is the most most precise artifact ever came out of Egypt.

[A]

And this is. Is that Ben right there?

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

What is the explanation? How do they. What do they say this was a coffin or something?

[B]

Everything's for death. It's all coffins.

[A]

It's all for death. It's a perfectly polished rectangular granite box with. Looks like it was cut with a laser.

[B]

Dude.

[A]

Dude.

[C]

And the bottom has an angle, a constant angle.

[A]

The bottom has an angle. You mean the inside bottom?

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

If we back up, freeze it so we can see that.

[A]

But.

[B]

The top.

[A]

Holy cow.

[B]

The top surface was published. Petri measured and published it and he found it to be 4,000ths of an inch deviation across about one and a quarter meters.

[C]

Like flatness, which is like.

[B]

Which is I think 20 times flatter than a normal household countertop.

[C]

And this entire room is also made out of granite. These are granite tiles. It's crazy. And we actually could measure it.

[A]

And why, though? Like, the whole thing is, like, why? Like, it's. It's so number one question is, like, obviously how. Right? I mean, that's the. That's the glaring one. But then once you figure out, like, why the hell did they have to do. Because one of the things Chris Dunn says is that coming from an engineering background, you have to. You start with function, then you go to design, and then you do, like, the measurement. So, like, you start with your function and then you kind of like engineer it from there. Like, what is the purpose of this? Like, then you figure out how precise you have to get to achieve your purpose. Right.

[C]

Or they had the tools which made it easy. If they had already those tools that could provide these tolerances, they don't have to think about, okay, how should we do this?

[B]

Right? You can't see that this is more flat than. Than far less flatness. And it is possible to do this in modern lapping methods. This is lapping. What would result in something like this are generally hybrid approaches. There's a machine that's, that's like randomly moving flat maybe circular surfaces over another surface. And then a lot of times I, somebody by hand applies some finishing lapping. So it is possible to do this by hand.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

But you can't see it. You can't see how flat it is. So if this was their target and look how, look how much homogeneous that is. If this was their target because of the function like you mentioned, Dan, how would they know when they got there? How would they know when they achieved their target? They can't see it.

[A]

So basically unless they would have had to have something to measure it. Right. Like they would have had.

[C]

You can make a flat surface with the lapping technique, but it seems like.

[A]

A. Coordinates almost incomprehensible. It's like, it's, it's. I can't think of any, any way they would have been able to do this.

[C]

So we fit a, fitted a plane on this can.

[A]

Right.

[C]

And you can see the green area is around 4,000ths of an inch.

[A]

Oh my God.

[C]

And that's exactly what Petrie measured. We don't know how he measured it, exactly what tools he used in the Victorian era.

[A]

But how much does this thing weigh, do you think?

[B]

If I had to guess, I'd say like two to three tons.

[A]

Two to three times.

[C]

I think much more.

[B]

Well, it's hollowed out. So.

[A]

So it wasn't moved there, it's been there.

[B]

The other, the other problematic issue, as Petrie put it, is that the, the maximum width coming into this room is smaller than the minimum width of the side of this sarcophagus or bathtub. So how did it get in here? Maybe the room was built around it though. Right, so that's your explanation?

[A]

Oh my God.

[B]

But to what end? And look at the.

[A]

How deep underground are we again? 100ft?

[B]

I think a little less. Yeah. 75ft.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

It'S Kyle.

[A]

Wouldn't you love just to get a time machine and just keep going back and see how the fuck this shit was done.

[B]

Bathtub time machine.

[C]

Yeah. This is the other on the back side of that room. It's almost collapsing.

[A]

Yeah. Good lord.

[C]

Hopefully this box will be still visible in a few years. They won't close the entire pyramid. I hope so what is that that they've carved into?

[A]

Is that solid rock or is it some. Is it like just compacted mud?

[B]

I'm not sure there is both because some of the mud brick is col.

[A]

Well, I'm sure that's a lot of. That's modern and reinforced with different things. Maybe even concrete or something like that, just to make it. I mean, that's clearly modern, right?

[B]

No, this is original.

[A]

Oh, that's original.

[C]

This is original, right?

[B]

Yeah, this is s. This is the red granite. So Petri described these walls.

[A]

Oh, it's the same material as the box.

[B]

Yes, correct. Ground. They were ground to extreme levels of flatness, but not polished.

[A]

But it looks like there's some mortar around it.

[B]

That's modern.

[A]

That's modern, right?

[B]

It looks like it doesn't. Probably doesn't need to be there.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. It's just so insane. Like what. Like why. Why cut a box into something so precise where there's nothing else around it that's as precise? Right. It seems to be only this box.

[B]

Most of these boxes in Egypt had lids, so, yeah, a lid fit on top of here. Hermetically sealed what was inside, which is why you needed the extreme flatness. We don't know if there was ever a top found. We don't. We don't know the dynastics. At some point, did, I think, bury someone in here?

[A]

What is your, like, wildest hypothesis of, like, what this could possibly be like? I know it's not going to be scientific, Right. But, like, what's your wild. What's your imagine like, you just push your imagination to its limits. What do you think it could be?

[B]

I think this stuff was repurposed. I. I think it used to look a lot different and it was. It's going to be really hard to. To hypothesize what was originally used for what it looked like, but things are moved around.

[A]

Chris Dunn thinks they were used to grow crystals, these boxes. Have you talked to him about that?

[B]

Yeah, Seems as likely as anything. Sure.

[A]

It seemed plausible the way he was explaining to me. I don't remember it exactly how he explained it, but the way he was explaining it seemed very. It seemed like it made sense to me at the time he explained it.

[B]

These rooms, these boxes, they're. They're resonant, right? They're. They're harmonically right tuned. They're. These people are obsessed with resonance everywhere. Frequency and resonance. So that could. That could fit with that theory. Sure.

[A]

And what was. Do you remember what he was saying about how the crystals were grown.

[B]

In Lahoon? In this one?

[A]

No. In the Serapium?

[B]

Not exactly.

[A]

Okay. Because it has something to do with the boxes being. Being more precise on the inside than the outside. Like the outside didn't matter. It was the inside side that mattered.

[B]

The volume, the volumetric considerations. Are more important.

[A]

Something about the resonance and something else. I would love to hear somebody that could, like, explain that theory to me. Yeah, that's crazy. He's holding a, a square tool to the edge of it, and it's literally perfect. There's no, there's no gaps with that square tool up against the granite.

[C]

And we measure the same. Not the same spot, but this, this same angle. And actually, if you fit planes on both the top and this side, the angle Deviation is like 0.25 degrees. So it's 90.25.

[A]

That's crazy, dude. And it's polished. You can see his reflection in the stone. Yeah, I think, I think the chemical. I think, like, I think what Jeffrey Drum talks about with the chemicals, using it to scoop stuff out and to soften stuff, I think that makes a lot. I'm not a chemist, but I mean, to my layman brain, I think it makes a lot of sense and as well as like, polishing this stuff. But again, I think these people were just on another technological trajectory than we are on today. And that's why some of this stuff doesn't make sense to our brains, because just like the way we're going technologically, just like with combustion engines and with electricity and like, that's our foundation for technology. And we like, build up from there. We're not really innovating anything different. We're kind of on like a, a very linear trajectory with our technology. And it seems like they were on a completely different trajectory than we are now. And that's, I think, why we can't understand it.

[C]

Yeah, I agree. I agree. I don't really like the speculations because I'm trying to look at these from a scientific point of view and, and I'm afraid if I speculate too much, it will just drift me off.

[A]

People think people will try to dismiss you if you speculate too much also. Yeah, right. That's an unfortunate, that's an unfortunate thing that people try to do that. But I mean, you have to, you have to speculate. I mean, you're measuring it. You're. You're figuring out what this is, how accurate it is. And you're doing all the, the work, you're putting in the work to figure out, like, look, these things are like insanely precise. We can't find anyone to re engineer it, to recreate it. So I mean, we don't have a time machine. We should at least throw against the wall and, and try to use our imaginations and get creative and think like, you know, what could they have been doing? And I think, I mean even like, you know, sometimes the wildest sci fi ends up being true. You know, you Learned about it 20 years later. But it does happen.

[B]

Yeah. And it makes it interesting. But you need, you need theories to disprove. We can't just criticize.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, silly explanations.

[A]

And you need to step in the arena with, with the people that are pushing back against this stuff and have an open dialogue with the people that want to, that want to claim this stuff isn't real or it's not what you think it is, or that want to push back on your claims. Like that's, that's the only way to figure out like what's going on is to have to these, you know, get in the room with these people and just have a B, you know, battle out your ideas and see which one makes the most sense to people. Let the audience decide. It's a great thing about the Internet, gets rid of all the gatekeepers. What's this?

[C]

This is actually the full set we analyzed in the PG Museum.

[A]

Okay, so those are all the ones that you analyze.

[C]

Ascending order.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

Yeah. So the grayed outs are not really precise. That's the median circularity of those objects. But there were a few actually very different materials. This one was diorite. This is limestone. This is granite. Oil grain grain, also limestone. So they even achieved similar accuracy in limestone. I don't know why.

[B]

Yeah, we tend to ignore that or we used to be quite. Because the limestone industry was, was present throughout dynastic Egypt. So from Old Kingdom all the way to New Kingdom, they did have limestone in alabaster and they used it extensively. They made jars. You can generally see them. You can see the difference. They're not as symmetrical, they're not as, I guess, precise. And, and I think the explanations of how stone carving for vessels was done relates to these alabaster vessels. That's the, that's the, the, the, the picture of the forked drill and the methods that are described in, on the walls of tombs of the nobles, I.

[A]

Think like that big bow they push back and forth.

[B]

Some of that's, some of that is, is with respect to woodworking, honestly. And then other stuff is alabaster and pottery. It doesn't seem like they were ever dabbling in this. They, they probably tried or attempted to it. But I suspect this industry is, is from before them. And we know some of it is at least. But look at the range from all the way to 30, 31,000. We were talking about the Clay earlier, the Nakado vessel, and. And some of the other stuff was its orders of magnitude more.

[A]

Wow. Yeah. And I imagine how many people, like. How many people like you were talking about own hundreds of these things that no one's ever seen. They've never seen the light of day, you know, like, there's probably so many.

[C]

More, you know, one measured.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Who owns only two hundreds or.

[B]

Yeah, I know some people.

[A]

I mean, Matt owns like, what, like a few dozen at least as well.

[B]

He has more. I think he has probably 100 now. And there's museums. I mean, I think. We think that the first time I was at the car museum and saw these, 12, 13, 14 years ago, there was less than a dozen on display. Now you go there, and you can see probably hundreds. And it's rumored that they have many thousands in their store rooms and office.

[A]

Oh. That aren't publicly for display.

[B]

Right.

[C]

But actually, it was also crazy when we went down to the step pyramid, where they found several thousands of these. Tens of thousand thousands of these. We found vase shards embedded in the walls in the lower catacombs.

[A]

Vase shards embedded in the walls?

[C]

Yes. It was in the foundation of the pyramid.

[B]

There's three. At least three collapse chambers. When the French expedition was there in the 1920s, he found two chambers and described three collapsed ones. And so when we were. There we go.

[C]

So if you look at the wall, you can see the fragments.

[B]

There you go.

[C]

These are the lowest levels of the pyramid.

[A]

And how do you know these are shards of vases?

[B]

You can see the. The workmanship up close if you look carefully.

[A]

Okay. Oh, so you're. So. So. So there were some explosions or something. They were. They were, like, blowing up this stuff to, like, get through here. And then maybe it blew up some.

[C]

Bases or it was already collected, broken, and they built the pyramid on top of these.

[B]

That's possible.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

It. It's these. These chambers were described as already collapsed when the French team was there.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

So it could have just been. These were. These were crushed by the collapsing ceiling. This whole area looks like Swiss cheese.

[C]

There's.

[B]

There's hundreds of miles of tunnels here.

[C]

So.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

I'm sorry. Not hundreds of miles. There's miles of tunnels, and so you can easily destabilize.

[C]

This is. Kyle.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Wow. Man. It's crazy. I mean, what more would need to be done? Like, what more could you possibly do? Like, as far as, like, taking these things to a military defense contractor and scanning them in, like, the most advanced measuring devices known to man. I don't Know, I don't know what else you could do.

[C]

We have to do like, we have to collect data and we are on this journey at the moment. We have to scan in multiple museums, scan hundreds of vases, and then draw conclusions based on the big data. Because just picking one or a few.

[A]

How many do you need? Do they say? Is there like a, is it like a rule of how many you need to like qualify for the scientific community to accept this stuff?

[B]

I mean, other papers have been done with, with far less, but the bigger, the better. The more comprehensive study, the more comparative analysis, the more, the bigger a control sample size. And then, you know, the alabaster industry existed for at least 2,000 years in Egypt, in dynastic Egypt. So having a, having a good, you know, library and data set of that would be helpful as well. But again, the most precise ones come from, at least are traditionally attributed to Nakata, which is thousands of years before dynastic Egypt. So that's, that's a huge starting point that's not disputed it.

[A]

Right, right.

[B]

And we're talking about things that it appears that we needed in order to make these. We need an explanation that exceeds what's currently attributed to that culture. They, we don't believe that culture had the technology to make those. So that's, that's a, that's a really interesting starting point.

[A]

Well, it seems like the burden of evidence is on the people who say that this was attributed to that, that those people.

[B]

Yeah, it's an extraordinary claim which, which requires extraordinary evidence.

[A]

Exactly, exactly.

[B]

Yeah. And that's, we'll get into that later, but we, we'd like to see more attempts.

[A]

Who's in charge? Who has to do that? Like who, like who, who is the, like the ultimate person or group of people who, who make that evidence or make that claim into fact?

[B]

Well, in the past it was Europe, European archaeologists and museums. Now it's, I think it's largely Egyptians that can take this, that can take this back. It's their culture, it's their, it's their inheritance. Right. It's theirs to grab and to move forward. So I, I think we'll see some of that. We're already starting to see it now. They're much more receptive to these types of things. Things, not all of them, but some of them are. Whereas 20, 30 years ago it was nobody.

[A]

So it's like people like Zahi Hawass, like people like him and, and these people, because he, like the, a lot of these people like. And correct me if I'm Wrong, because I don't know everything about people like, like him specifically. But a lot of these folks are, are tied up in the government and like policy and stuff like that. So there could be some sort of hidden incentives for them to like maintain a narrative.

[B]

There's, there's more and more people on those committees, on the, the antiquities committees that are not from Egyptology, that come from other scientific disciplines. So you're talking about like physics, aerospace, industrial design, structural design. People like that are now more, more and more apart of the ministry. So I think that that'll help. Right. They're not, they don't have this indoctrination, this, this entire subset of belief system that they have to bring in with them. They can approach these things from, from an open mind. Like assuming I didn't know anything about Egyptology, how would I think this was made? How could this logic chain make sense? And, and you see some, I think you see people starting to really question some of this stuff. Not all of it. The dynastic Egyptians were very impressive group of people. Right. They had unbelievable achievements in medicine, astronomy, physics, engineering, mathematics. I mean it was, they were the most impressive group of people that, that we know of up until that point. And then for the next two or three thousand years, I think. So not, there's not, we're not taking anything away from them whatsoever.

[A]

Right.

[B]

But it's possible that some of the things that they're giving credit for were actually inheritance.

[A]

And what is this image here?

[C]

So when we were in London for the Petrie Museum scan, I found this marble toothbrush holder in the Airbnb and we ran some practice runs with a scanner before the appointment. And also it was very good to have a modern reference. So I'm sure it's a mass product. It was made on a lathe or something with a modern machine.

[A]

And it's marble.

[C]

And it's marble. It's, it's, it's not as hard as, as granite. And the median circularity was 50 microns which is 2000s. So these ways the OG base is more precise and it's granite because it's 2. Sorry, it was a 6 or 7 10,000ths.

[B]

So marble, softer. It's a simple design. You can do this, it's effectively a cylinder, which means you can use well known grinding techniques.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

Which are not, which don't impart a lot of friction on the, on the object.

[C]

So this modern, this modern marble toothbrush holder was on the level of this one. This is 70 microns. And the toothbrush holder is 50 okay?

[A]

Wow, that's bizarre.

[C]

It is.

[A]

Now, have you guys tried to come up with, I know we kind of talked about this already, but have you, have you been trying to come up with any sort of theories on how they could have done it?

[B]

Yeah, like he mentioned Chris King, we speak to machinists and stone carvers, and so we welcome their ideas and maybe that helps formulate what we think might have happened and then hopefully we can rule some things out over time. But it, you know, when you're, when you're talking about today, when we're making a baseball bat and we're spinning something around at a high RPM on a lathe using a fixed cutting piece, that, that doesn't seem to be a good explanation because it would strike these hard crystals in the ground mass, like the quartz and the feldspar. It would get sucked into the body. And so you're really, I think, talking about something that's removing material in a very unbiased way, like evenly and that's, and that's grinding. And we, and we have grinding techniques that can, that can achieve this level of accuracy that don't need to be computer controlled or anything like that. However, this is, this is complex spherical geometry. So we're not going to be able to explain all the, all these little thin radii everywhere and the contouring with that explanation alone or the interior.

[C]

Chris King thinks that basically, if you have a very sophisticated lathe made out of primitive materials, like dark African, I think, blackwood, and very hard materials, you can make something round to like 100 microns, 2000 or something like that. He thinks it's possible. The problem that we haven't seen those sophisticated tools from this culture, they haven't found. And if we go down to the level of this one, I think that's a different level.

[A]

What does he say as far as, like, what type of tools they would need to be?

[B]

You could do this work with wood and stone. You wouldn't necessarily need metal, but it has to be calibrated and fixed in a very rigid spindle. You know, your axis of rotation has to be extremely rigid and fixed. That's how you impart roundness and transfer roundness from something that is round or moving in a round fashion to something that you want it to be. And so I think it's possible that you could build a machine out of wood and stone, but you have to know what you're doing. And that would be, you know, that's never been described or documented by any of these Cultures, the Egyptians or the Nakata cultures. But the Egyptians documented everything right in their lives. Like, I think that's well known. And they documented extensively processes for making pottery, making furniture, and things like that. So they never mention these at all. They never really mentioned any of the megalithic projects that we see out there. And if they had the capability of doing them, especially something that appears to be mundane, yet they never mention it at all. We don't see other records of revolving or rotating tools. We just don't.

[A]

So if it was used with stone, would they also have been able to use stone to grind down the boxes and make the boxes so perfect, or even use them? Use stone to make the cuts in those big rocks that you see, like around the pyramid that Ben talks about that look like big circular blades? Cut them?

[B]

Possible. I don't think that that explains everything. No. They certainly could have had metal. But if you're asking where the tools were, they used copper for thousands of years, and we found 10, maybe 20 copper saws total.

[A]

Ever.

[B]

So if millions of people were using something for thousands of years and we found 10 or 20, that could give you an. You know, that can give you an example of how tools might not survive.

[C]

But what if they had iron tools? That's a very nice idea. I think that would elevate or put this entire question or race topic on a different level. And recently I have interviewed a German gentleman on my show, and he was the guy who sampled the kufugrafit in the Great Pyramid.

[A]

Who did what?

[C]

He sampled the Khufu graffiti.

[A]

Oh, okay.

[C]

And there was a huge Interpol case. Zahia was trying to put them in jail, etc.

[A]

Whoa.

[C]

Yeah. It was very big.

[A]

And why did he try to put them in jail?

[C]

Because. So they had permissions to sample, special permissions to take samples from the king's chamber ceiling because they found interesting black tongues, like some kind of tool marks, like some residue on the ceiling blocks. And they sampled that. They had some time left, and they went up to these relieving chambers, and they also sampled the. The Khufu graffiti. That's the main inscription in the Great Pyramid, which is.

[A]

They were naughty attaching a little extra.

[C]

Which is attaching the pyramid to Khufu. And they. They had permissions for this from the. The guards who were with them. But after they tried to release the results, they tried to announce something about it. There was a huge case of that. But they found magnetite in the king's chamber.

[A]

What's that?

[C]

It's like a residue when you have very rudimental iron smelting plate process. They found this iron residue with some magnetite in the king's chamber on the ceiling blocks. And they made an experiment. They put, they, they created a 16 tons of concrete block and they have made some kind of U shaped holder, put it underneath this, this block and there was a space where you can put some metal wedges inside or basically underneath this block. And they hammered in these wedges and they could elevate this 16 ton block in like one hour, 10 centimeters with two people. And their idea is that they, that's, that's how they elevated and, and moved these huge and massive granite blocks and with iron, with iron. And they also found some iron tools in the Great Pyramid. There was also iron found I think in pre dynastic era. So probably they could have iron before. I think iron tools were first mentioned. Like iron smelting is beginning with the Hittites if I'm not mistaken.

[A]

Well, there's a guy, there's a guy on YouTube who does this stuff, who moves these big blocks using just like, like gravity and pulleys and stuff like this.

[C]

He do the Stonehenge in his garden by himself?

[A]

Well, there was, there was two guys, there's one who does like YouTube videos. There's another guy who had this place, Coral Castle, which is in South Florida, who elevated these. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And he did that not that long ago and there, I forget the guy's name who does the stuff, but he basically takes these giant blocks, blocks and he like uses big wood levers to like rotate them and like to put that move them into place. And it's, it's, it's wild to see. So like if they were, if they were able to understand physics well enough, you know, it seems reasonable that they could have you know, moved some of these blocks into place and like stacked them in a certain way. But still like, it doesn't explain the cutting though. It doesn't explain the cutting and like the perfection of like of the, the, the edges of the Great Pyramid which are like, if you measure the outside of the Great pyramid, it's like 10 times more square than any of the skyscrapers in Manhattan. You know, like when you have to build a skyscraper, they have to be according to code, you know, within a certain deviation of like perfection before you can start building it. And the pyramid is like 10 times more perfect than even like the biggest skyscrapers that we have. So like it doesn't, it doesn't really.

[B]

Explain that and that and that gets into the time it would take. Right. There's no way you're going to fit that, that, not that degree of work into a 20 or 25 year timeline.

[A]

Yeah. And the conventional explanation is that. How long did it take to build the Great Pyramid?

[B]

Well, they, they, they, they think it's still, it's still supposedly 20, 25 years, something like that. Funny enough though, in South America they don't think that you'll, you can ask someone about Teotihuacan and they may say, yeah, it probably took 100 years or more.

[A]

Oh, really?

[B]

How could you have done. In any, you know, in any other timeline that would be a minimum. So it depends who you ask.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

So my point was that I think if they would have iron to us, it would be a completely different conversation. And my problem with flindable explanation is if you have a compass you can make around feature.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

You can do that if you have what? If you have a compass which you.

[A]

Compass. Yeah, yeah.

[C]

But you still have to hold on to the piece.

[A]

Right.

[C]

Which. Have you seen these, these large vases in the, in the British Museum in London? It's huge. What kind of tool would you put it in? Like, it's, it's like a big boulder.

[A]

Really? You have a picture of it.

[C]

Maybe. Steve, if you. I'm not sure.

[A]

I'm sure you can find it.

[C]

I don't have it here.

[A]

Right. So it's so big that they wouldn't be able to use like a, a lathe.

[C]

Oh, I have you too.

[B]

If you're, you have. The piece has to be affixed somewhere. Right. So if you only have one point, you generally would want two for stability. But whatever is carving out the interior.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

Assume it's like an L shaped in order to get it in there to hollow that out.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

The longer you are away, the further you are away.

[C]

Look at. Sorry. Look at the people and look at the sizes of these two on the. Right. Just a minute. Second. These ones.

[A]

Oh, wow.

[C]

So.

[A]

Holy cow.

[C]

And this is the end product. If you look at the, if you would look at the raw material, it's much larger.

[A]

Right.

[C]

And this is the explanation. Like this.

[B]

So that's what we were talking about earlier from, from tombs of the nobles.

[C]

And this is Vergs.

[A]

So the same people who, who, who carved this depiction are supposedly the same people who made the, the pottery.

[C]

Yeah. But these are.

[B]

Funny enough, funny enough. No. This was made almost 2,000 years later than the traditional dating.

[A]

Oh, really Interesting. Yeah.

[B]

And some of these are actually painted on, on like stucco walls.

[C]

Yeah, it's, it's six dynasty. If I zoom in, I cannot. Yeah, the, the painting itself is six dynasty. And usually these, these big vases are much older. But this painting or this depiction works for the alabaster vases.

[A]

Right.

[C]

But they want to apply that explanation to these.

[A]

And then how do you explain the handles that are built into it?

[B]

Do we have to. Like, whose job is that?

[A]

I mean, how do you do that on a lathe? Right, like how what, like you would remove.

[B]

It would be a toroid shape and you'd remove what's inside of it. And if, if you actually, you want to go back to the heat map of the og, you can almost see a line where it looks like it was a toroidal. There you go. See that blue, very faint blue line on, on the top of which one parallel with the top handles on the right.

[C]

On the og, you can see there.

[B]

Seems to be a strip.

[A]

Oh yeah, right.

[B]

So that would have been removed. Your original pass would have left that and then you would remove it. But look how perfect.

[A]

Right?

[B]

It's aligned to the rest of the body.

[A]

Oh, wow, that's interesting.

[B]

You would no longer be able to. To spin it.

[A]

Yeah, dude, it's so crazy.

[C]

So you still have to hold into these with a rigid, massive mechanism or some kind of, I would say machine. It can be a wooden machine. It doesn't have to be a 5 axis CNC, but still, you can draw a perfect circle. But how would you make it in a very rigid material like this?

[A]

I don't know, man. This stuff is. This stuff is beyond my comprehension. I don't know. I can't. It just doesn't compute. You know, I don't, I don't know how they, they could have possibly done this stuff.

[B]

I don't think we do either.

[A]

What do you make of. What do you make of that? That recent thing that came out with the. They went under the pier, they found these big things under the pyramids. These big like vertical columns under the pyramids. This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords and. And a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected, but many other places also have it and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off terms apply. What do you make of that. Have you looked into that at all?

[C]

I have interviewed those two Italian guys.

[A]

Oh, really?

[C]

Yeah, actually, I think they are really smart, actually. The guy who made this algorithm and this entire. So the engineering part of it, he's also an electrical engineer, telecommunication engineer, holds several masters and the PhD. So he's a brilliant guy. And I think something went sideways with the explanation, so they probably couldn't transfer the full knowledge. And everyone thinks that it's. It's a. It's a. So in my understanding, they are using these satellites to shoot radio waves to the, to the ground, basically. And they are measuring the frequency shift in these radio signals caused by the Earth's crust movements. So if you are familiar with the Doppler effect, when the ambulance car is moving and using the siren, the movement of the car is causing a pitch shift in the sound.

[A]

Right.

[C]

So basically when the earth moves, I hope I can give it back properly. But when the earth crust moves, very low level seismic activities, they can sense this, this as a frequency shift.

[A]

Right. Okay.

[C]

And then they can estimate what's on the ground.

[A]

But this is new technology that they use to find this or I think.

[C]

They'Ve been around the, the SAR technology. SAR scan that's existing.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

Military is using it.

[A]

So my understanding was that from whoever explained this to me was that whatever stuff they used to detect this stuff under the pyramids was new or something, some sort of novel technology.

[C]

Yet they refined it to be able to go deeper and to be able to analyze this deeper, basically. But it depends on the model you have out of this.

[A]

That's crazy, this bedrock.

[C]

So you need to have a good approximation of the bedrock is if it's limestone, what's, what's the geophysical properties of that block or that, that stone you are looking at? And a lot of people are confused probably. What are those rendered images? Like, is it made by AI or something? So they. Well, yeah, in my understanding, they try to make it more understandable. They can interpret these heat maps and images, but we, we cannot.

[A]

So this image we're looking at right now, Steve, this is the, that one on the right and the left. Those are like the actual. That's the actual data scans that we got from this SAR stuff. And then people came in and did like artistic render renditions of it to make it more palatable.

[C]

They did it?

[A]

Yeah. Oh, they did it. Okay.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And these people have a YouTube channel where they cover this stuff, right? They have a, these Italian dudes.

[C]

I don't think they have. I, I'm not.

[A]

Oh, no, I'm.

[C]

I'm not sure.

[A]

Oh, I thought they did. I thought. Didn't we have somebody who like showed us their YouTube channel? Steve, I think that was Jeffrey Drum. No, it wasn't Jeffrey Drum. It was more recent. This is what you're talking about. The. The more artsy stuff, right? Yeah, that's the more artsy stuff.

[C]

And they also scan known structures.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

Like the Oz shaft also.

[A]

And it was accurate.

[C]

I mean, my question, is the interpretation. Is it biased because the structure is known or is it full automated interpretation B done by the model they use? So I don't know. I think Kyle from the Snake Bros. Said was that they should scan something unknown and then excavate it and Compare to be 100% sure.

[A]

Well, yeah, if you can scan something where you know what's, you know, like scan a shaft or a pyramid's interior where you know you've already explored it and the data comes back, correlates with what you already know is real, then that's a good way of testing whether this technology works or not. And then if you do something unknown and it shows you something like this, then you should. I mean, that's a pretty good proxy for if it's accurate, right? Yeah. So they, I mean, and then now, I don't know, what if they've. If anyone's proposed to try to like dig and explore this or not.

[C]

But it would be really hard, in my opinion, to dig under the pyramid.

[B]

It's mostly bedrock, so.

[C]

And also the pyramids. And who would allow this? Probably a different group has to verify this to get the permit for any digging. But they also scanned two years ago the, the Great Pyramid. This is under the, the middle pyramid. They also scanned the, the Great Pyramid.

[A]

Oh, this was under the middle period. Okay.

[C]

And they found hidden chambers.

[A]

Yeah, right. They found one the size of a jumbo jet, like above the Grand Gallery. Right. Or like a 747 that was the size of that. That cavity that they haven't explored yet.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Which is crazy. Like how like they did that years ago and that was the scan pyramid project, I believe. And they still haven't like, drilled into it or. Yeah, right there. The hidden chamber.

[C]

The Italian guys scanned the Great Pyramid.

[A]

And found those guys found that chamber, that hidden chamber.

[C]

That's the scan pyramid. That's the Italian guys. Steve, if you look for or search for synthetic aperture radar, it should, should show the sympathetic.

[A]

Okay. Yeah. I mean, how long ago, how long has it been since Chris Dunn found those two electro Electric probes, those two metal prongs at the end of Gate and Brink's Door. Right. Like, there's no. There's still. They did on national TV for, like, a huge documentary, and there's still no explanation for that. What is this? Is this it?

[C]

I think that's an AI image on the left. The second image was a little bit better in the result. Yeah, that one they have also.

[A]

Oh, yeah, I've seen this.

[C]

And those chambers are mostly unknown.

[A]

So the green one, number 19, is the, the. The. The big chamber cavity, probably they have not explored yet.

[C]

And there are these ramps all around. That's also unknown.

[A]

And there's also. Which Chris don't explains, is there's these big. I didn't know about that until I talked to him was there's these big, like, holes in the ground on the outside of the Great Pyramid that he says they connect into the shafts that go up to, like, the king's chamber and the queen's chamber.

[B]

And that's the rumor.

[A]

He hypothesized that you could. That they could have poured chemicals in there and it would have fed up those shafts and, like, gone through, like, into the chambers or something like this.

[C]

Probably. I have no idea. But I'm sure that a lot of those tunnels under the Giza Plateau probably are connected or were connected to the. To one of those or all of the pyramids. If you go down to those Irish shafts, it's like 100 meters deep, probably with three levels. The lower level is filled with groundwater, basically. But there are one or two shafts relatively closed. I think Zai Havas found this in the late 90s or something. They tried to excavate. They couldn't. They. They faced with, like, mud, they couldn't go forward. They couldn't proceed. Once they found a small kid in that tunnel, and the kid also, I mean, he found a blocked entrance or a blocked tunnel. They don't know what is it connected to. But if you look at the subterranean chamber of the Great Pyramids, I think that's a good option. So maybe the subterranean chamber is connected to the Osiris shaft or one of these shafts.

[A]

Well, the subterranean chamber, I mean, it's like, almost impossible to get a human down there. Like, a big person can't even barely get down there, you know, into that tunnel. Yeah, yeah, that. That very bottom shaft where Swear. Kristan thinks that there was like, a. A hydraulic device that, like, hammered the ground and like. And like. And, like, made many earthquakes. Right. That's his whole hypothesis of how it's like a solid state electron harvester that like. Yeah. Builds electrons through all the igneous rock through the pyramid and like somehow created free electricity or something like this. It's a wild, it's a wild hypothesis, but I mean, he, I mean, he's the guy to do it. I mean, he literally came up with the whole reverse engineering diagram of how it would work and how those chemicals would interact and how it could feel, theoretically create some sort of free energy. But again, I mean, that's applying our knowledge of technology to something that was, you know, thousands and thousands of years ago. So I don't know, what are you guys going to do next? What's, what's your plan? What's your plan moving forward?

[B]

We have a few things on this, on the schedule during. We're looking at some pre, pottery, Neolithic lithics, basically like stone arrowheads. And we're sort of tracing them from Egypt to the Middle East. We're doing, we want to go back, we have some stuff to do at the quarry. We have, we still, hopefully we'll get into the Cairo museum one day. That's the plan. And so there's, I think scanning small things and looking at big things and looking at larger, I think stories is all part of the, all part of the exploration. These things all feed into one each other. I don't think we, we could understand the vases without understanding the culture, understanding other aspects of their technological set. So, you know, that's very related. It's related if you, if you know how they approached astronomy and math and physics. It's, it's related to fabrication, it's related to stone carving. So I think we're, we're kind of like comprehensively looking at these cultures. But I, I do agree with what you said. You saw similarities between this level of work and the megalithic projects. Right. Like the pyramids. I, I tend to agree with that. I think it might have been a related culture.

[A]

Yeah, there's a lot of things, right. I mean there's not just the pyramids and the, and, and these vases, but like the serapion boxes and the boxes that you showed. It seems like the same culture or the, the same type of technology was involved in creating all of those things. So like, other than those things like the pyramid and the vases and the boxes and the scoop marks and like all the crazy symmetry, like, what else can you use to help put this picture together of what, what and when the civilization existed? Like, what do you look for? Where do you look?

[C]

Huge part of the Sahara is not excavated and discovered yet. So who knows what's, what else is under the sand?

[A]

Which part of the Sahara?

[C]

Huge part.

[B]

Everything to the west of the, of the Nile.

[A]

Oh, really?

[B]

Yeah, I mean there's, there's, there has been some surveying, but it's not, you know, we're not looking at every square meter. Square mile.

[A]

It's like Mad Max out there. It's, yeah, it's law, it's lawless out there. And that's where that big, that big circular, what's it called? The big circular thing. The eye of the Sahara.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Where that is.

[C]

Reshot structure.

[A]

The reshot structure. Right. Which I think Randall Carlson thinks it's like the top of a, a dead volcano or something like that. But no one's been out there to explain, explore it. I mean there's all kinds of people who talk about that and like speculate on what it could be. And I, I have never heard anyone who's actually like been there and like dug into it or like really done like a detailed analogy. People fly over it. Right. But like who's been on the ground studying that?

[B]

It was only about 7,000 BC when the Sahara was lush. I mean it used to rain 100 times more than it does now.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And so that's not, that's only a few thousand years years before these other cultures we've just been talking about. So we don't even have to go back pre ice age or that far. There's, there's a lot there for, for mainstream archaeologists right now.

[A]

Do you know of anybody who's, who's trying to dig in this place and trying to like excavate it or anything here? Yeah, the Richat structure.

[B]

No, I, I, I know of people like Jimmy Corsetti that talk about this and call for it, but I don't know if anybody's actively.

[A]

Yeah, and there's, and it's not just this. So much of this planet has not been touched. Right. Like you, like Egypt, Cairo is like a, it's like a tourist destination. But how many spots of this earth have not been excavated and not been like combed over or, or researched or explored? Like a ton of it. And we don't know what it is because we probably don't know about a lot of it. Right.

[C]

Also underwater sites and underwater.

[A]

Right.

[C]

Huge.

[A]

Yeah. The Ocean is like 70% of this planet.

[C]

And I hope I can say that, that in the future, in the long term. The artifact foundation is planning on excavations and also underwater discoveries. So hopefully if we get the right, say that hopefully if we get on the right path and if we can publish and if we can establish a, like a solid background in this kind of research, we will be able to acquire permits for this kind of stuff.

[A]

Yeah, I mean even things like. Yeah, like the Antikythera device that was found underwater. That thing's insane.

[C]

Yeah, that's.

[A]

And I don't think there's ever been another one found like that. I think that's the only one that's one of one. And if they had something like that to like navigate the stars or navigate using like planetary alignment knows what else they could have been doing.

[C]

It was actually simulating the elliptical path of the, of the planets even before Kepler knew that. So the Antikythera mechanism was kind of a advanced calendar, like a computer to calculate where those stars will be at a certain amount or certain point in time. Probably they use it for Olympic games. But the movement of the planets were simulating the elliptical movement, which was not known until Kepler quote unquote known.

[B]

There's a lot, yeah, there's a lot of inheritance going on here.

[A]

Right.

[C]

And this entire device was sitting in a storage of a museum for 50 years or something.

[A]

Right. Well, they found it in a shipwreck right? Underwater.

[C]

Yeah, that's right.

[A]

And they kind of like, they kind of like refurbished it and, and, and brought it back and figured out what it could have been. But you know. Yeah, there's a lot of the oceans that, that haven't have not been explored and you know, there's lots of really unique structures that have been found that we can't really excavate that look, they don't. That just straight up don't look natural.

[B]

So it shows you how much we have to do. Because how could that be the only one of those devices ever made?

[A]

Right. Yeah, it's not that they're, they had to have made more. What is this a recreation of it?

[C]

It's a recreation.

[A]

So yeah, we were able, we were able to scan it and, and basically recreate it. Insane, man.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And do we know what, when they would have made this? Is there like a date attached to this thing?

[C]

If I'm not mistaken, the established date is like 100 BC or something.

[A]

100 BC wow.

[C]

Based on the shipwreck they found it in.

[A]

Right, so, so it's, it's. Yeah.

[C]

The other problem, older. The other problem is with the, with the, this metal or iron tools, if they would have by thousands of years, it would basically disappear completely.

[A]

Right. Metal would survive.

[C]

Turn into rust.

[A]

Well, if we were wiped out right now, in a thousand years, all that will be left are, like, giant. Like, the Hoover Dam would still be here. The Washington Monument would probably still be here, but we wouldn't see any buildings. Buildings would be basically disintegrated. All metal would be gone. Right.

[B]

We'd see stone toothbrush holders.

[A]

And you see this stuff. Exactly. Right. Crazy, man. And then you guys have a foundation or something like this. You guys are. Yeah.

[B]

Artifact foundation.org we do our best to communicate the work that we've been doing, especially when we can. Sometimes we have to wait because of agreements, but we. Our job is to communicate this stuff. And we're not solely in Egypt. We also do work in other places. Asia, north and South America. And we're launching a competition right now. So there's been a lot of criticism. There's a lot of opinions about what's possible, what can humans have been able to do by hand with guided or unguided tools. And so we're launching. The Artifact foundation is sponsoring an experimental archaeology challenge. So there's a $25,000 prize to the stone carver, the experienced craftsman that's able to actually replicate one of these vessels close to what we've measured. So we're not expecting, you know, we're not expecting sub 10,000ths of an inch circularity, but the tools need to be true. Here are the basic rules. The tools need to be true to the time period by which these are attributed to. So we're talking about Nakata, early dynastic Egypt. Stone tools, wood, copper would be fine, but these people were not known to have had the wheel. So using the wheel or the lathe would be a violation of what they're attributed to or known to have had. This must be documented. So we want a regular cadence. So a video, a short video clip once a week, or a picture every day of the work and the progress.

[C]

No cheating.

[B]

No cheating. Complex geometry. So not a simple cylinder. Right. So we're looking for the vessel where the interior is hollowed out to the same contour as the exterior.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And then in terms of circularity, the goal and the prize winner is going to achieve a thousandth of an inch. Inch median circularity on the outside, and three thousandths of an inch median circularity on the inside.

[A]

And so what those guys did, the scientists versus myth or whatever, that wouldn't count.

[B]

It wouldn't count for a few reasons. They didn't achieve the. The precision that we've measured time and time again. Now, in ancient Vessels and they used modern equipment, they use modern equipment to measure deviation and then to remove those high spots. When they, when they used a, when they used that wheel apparatus with, with the ball bearings in it, they were taking something that was, that was capable of.

[A]

So they were like scanning, figuring out what was wrong, where the deviations were, where it was not perfect and they were retooling it after that.

[C]

No, not, not scanning. Just imagine a pottery wheel, like an easy, easy like potter's wheel with a, with a metal bearing. They put the weights on, they turn it around and they hold or held like a pencil or something by hand to check the high spots and then they remove those.

[B]

But they use perfectly round. And so it's going to tell you when there's something off.

[C]

But they use the modern metal bearing.

[A]

Right.

[C]

Which is probably the dynastics or pre dynastics didn't have that.

[A]

Right. What if somebody was able to create something with some different methods? Right. Like without. Because I, I mean I don't think that, I think reason would suggest that this was not done with pounding stones and copper tools that the Egyptologists claim it was made by us. But what if like somebody was able to figure out some sort of like chemical or I don't know, some unconventional method that you would have never thought of.

[B]

Well, we have a simple application process on our website, so, so submit that, that proposal and what's your website called? Artifact Foundation.org artifact Foundation.org and if anyone.

[C]

Is interested in in depth documentary style videos of our research and the results actually then they can find these on my channel on YouTube. They can just search for my name, Caroly K A R O L Y Poker or look for Ancient technology podcast.

[A]

And are you guys, are you guys partnered with any like conventional Egyptologist folks or, or we talk to them.

[B]

Yeah, we talk to a lot of them. We, we do. I, I would, I would say we're not, we're not officially associated with any universities, but we do have advisors that are at various universities in Europe and.

[A]

In America that are working with you on the foundation and all this stuff. Okay.

[B]

Yeah, they vet the work that we do. They help with algorithm 1.

[C]

Very important part that probably multiple people or several people are analyzing these scans. But I think it's very important that the methods we are using for the analysis is vetted by different independent persons. Like we have actually three people analyze the software I have designed with all with PhD math, 3D reconstruction and computer vision backgrounds. And I think it's very important to not use A software which hasn't been wetted by. So when I look at different analysis of these ancient vessels, my question is how did they align the object? So it's, it's a crucial part of the analysis. If you, if you don't align it perfectly, it will screw the entire. Screw up your entire slicing method and calculations.

[A]

Right.

[C]

If you don't calculate the, the root mean square distances or the, the data point deviations correctly, it will also give you a different result. So I think it's very important to be on the safe side.

[A]

Cool. Well, I'm looking forward to see how this stuff pans out and, and how this whole project progresses with you guys. I'll be keeping an eye on it and we'll link The foundation, your YouTube channel, all that stuff below. Is there anything else that we should tell people?

[B]

No, that's about it. Thanks.

[A]

All right, cool. Thanks for your time, guys.

[C]

And PQ1 if you like.

[A]

Oh, hell yes, I will. Awesome. All right, good night. Coverage varies by plan.

[B]

View contracts and exclusions@endurance warranty.com if you're.

[A]

Driving a car or truck with an expired warranty and suddenly lost your transmission or needed a full engine repair, would it leave you stranded? I'm Danica Patrick. Choose the company I trust, Endurance. If your vehicle is less than 20 years old, Endurance offers auto protection on the drivetrain, AC and more. Act now and get one full year of elite benefits. A $2,000 value free. For your free quote, go to endurancewarranty.com that's endurancewarranty.com it's okay not to be perfect with finances. Experian is your big financial friend and here to help. Did you know you can get matched with credit cards on the app? Some cards are labeled no Ding decline, which means if you're not approved, they won't hurt your credit scores. Download the Experian app for free today. Applying for no Ding Decline cards won't hurt your credit scores. If you aren't initially approved. Initial approval will result in a hard inquiry which may impact your credit scores.

[C]

Experian.