← Danny Jones Podcast
Danny Jones Podcast
#389 - Nuclear Physicist Goes Public with NEW Evidence on Lost Ancient Tech | Max Zamilov
02:53:32
Loading summary
Transcript624 lines
- [00:00]
Max
You're on a GLP1, but now you're wondering, how do I manage my side effects? What do I eat to stay strong? Because reaching your weight loss goals can take more than meds.
- [00:10]
Danny
That's where Weight Watchers Med plus comes in.
- [00:13]
Max
Get access to trusted experts, food plans that work with your body, and habit coaching to keep you on track. Plus access to GLP1 medication. Get started@weightwatchers.com all medical services are provided through our affiliated medical group, Weight Watchers Clinic. Medications require eligibility and prescription. Individual results may vary. See site for more details. Foreign.
- [00:37]
Danny
Welcome back, Max.
- [00:38]
Max
Well, thank you, Danny. Thank you for having me again.
- [00:41]
Danny
Of my pleasure. I just finished reading your paper published in Nature. All about the vases.
- [00:49]
Max
Correct.
- [00:51]
Danny
Amazing.
- [00:51]
Max
I'm amazed you read it because I didn't really expect anybody to read it because, you know, when you write a scientific paper, you think, you know, just a tier three nerds, you know, would read it and that's it. But that paper, I think, has like 4,000 downloads by now.
- [01:09]
Danny
Wow.
- [01:09]
Max
Yeah. And it's trending, like, really high. And I was surprised to see how many, you know, people were interested in the topic because, you know, by definition, scientific papers are supposed to be boring.
- [01:20]
Danny
Right.
- [01:21]
Max
But, you know, I guess when the topic is so fascinating as ancient Egyptian vases, it's anything but boring. And that's honestly what, you know, kept me through it because it's, you know, it's a lot of, you know, doing research is one thing. You're writing it up as a paper is quite different because the amount of requirements that go in is. Is a lot. Yeah. And one thing you got to do, you got to put it in the context of the, you know, broader research on the topic because, you know, when you publish a paper, it needs to fit within the existing knowledge on the subject. And if it doesn't, you cannot get it published. Which means you have to research all of the references and literature, see what other researchers and scientists explored about this topic and tie it all in and see how your research fits, how it adds additional knowledge or returns established notions and whatnot. And of course, as you recall, the biggest outcome of that paper was that, you know, there are no, there is no such thing as precise Ancient Egyptian vases.
- [02:27]
Danny
There's no such thing as precise Ancient Egyptian vases.
- [02:31]
Max
Yes, they're all handmade. So the outcome of my research, which was like 180 degrees flip in my thinking, you know, in my understanding the, that all of this fascinating ancient Egyptian vases are handmade. And this is A very high quality manual work, but it's not like machined work. And that's I guess where the rift developed between myself and, let's say, Ben and Matt to some extent, because they are, I cannot speak of now because it hasn't been a while since we talked, but last time we talked they still believe that some of those vehicles basis were precise and genuine, whereas all of my research pointed to the opposite. And I can tell you more about it in just a second. But that's, I guess what happens sometimes in scientific exploration. So you start with one idea and as data comes in, you're forced to change your opinion on it. And that's the very definition of open mindedness. You got to be able to change your opinion when facts demand it. And when I started this vase project, I was entirely sold on the idea that they were genuine, precise, quote unquote precise ancient Egyptian vases that were machined with space like precision. And I was really excited to characterize them and prove the point scientifically. But once I started researching the point, I wasn't finding any evidence of that. And in fact all of the data points kind of was stacking up higher and higher to tell me that, you know, the genuine museum pieces are handmade, whereas, you know, some pieces from the private collections aren't genuine. And that's unfortunately is a sticking point. If you own, you know, one of these, of course you don't want, you know, the authenticity of your object, you know, challenged or questioned.
- [04:34]
Danny
Right.
- [04:35]
Max
But that's kind of what I've ended up doing in the end because this is, you know, where the data points to.
- [04:41]
Danny
So the basis of this paper, this research that you did was you took a bunch of aces from the museum, the Petrie Museum.
- [04:47]
Max
Correct.
- [04:47]
Danny
You took a bunch of aces from private collections of people who have bought them off the antiquities markets. And then what was the other subset
- [04:53]
Max
of aces vases I bought on Internet
- [04:56]
Danny
bases that are just purchased on the
- [04:57]
Max
purchase on the Internet. Basically I went crazy on ebay and I bought a bunch of stone vases.
- [05:04]
Danny
And the issue is there's no way to actually prove and put a time stamp on when these were made because they're stone. There's no way to do carbon dating.
- [05:12]
Max
Exactly. So that's, I guess the principal issue with stone is it's not easily dateable. Right. And there are some experimental techniques like thermal thermal luminescence. So if you have a granite surface that's been, well, let's say aged, you know, just, just naturally, and then you take a sample of it, put it in an oven and let it like relax under heat, it will emit some light. And you can measure the amount of that light and you can say, well, based on the amount of light. You know, this surface is so many years old, because what happens is, you know, granite has quartz in it, and quartz tends to accumulate radiation damage. So natural background radiation strikes quartz and you got these electrons that are captured in it. And then when you heat it, it gives off those accumulated electrons as light. I'm oversimplifying it, but that's in a nutshell, what it is. And then if you machine the surface, you take off that surface layer and then you have this virgin material that hasn't accumulated this environmental radiation, and then you take a sample of it, it will give off a lot less light. So that's how, in principle, you can date granite or other in a similar, oh, interesting, quartz rich stones. But I haven't found a lab that was willing to do it. And in fact, back then, when I was still working with Matt Bell, we reached out to a lab that looked like they could do it, but they said they do it only on ceramics. So for ceramics, it's actually an established technique because you find a piece of pottery and it's the same thermal luminescence applied to pottery can tell you when that pottery was baked. And that's like a routine procedure that's done a lot for archaeologists, whoever to where you send your sample to the lab and they'll be able to tell you the age of that ceramic.
- [07:04]
Danny
So the more. So when it comes to granite, the more glow you get out of the quartz, the older it typically is.
- [07:10]
Max
Yes, yes. But, you know, I asked, you know, if they would look at the piece of granite and characterize it in the same way, and they kind of refused.
- [07:18]
Danny
Who refused?
- [07:19]
Max
The lab.
- [07:19]
Danny
The lab?
- [07:20]
Max
Yeah, because it's, it's not a common technique. And what, what happens is in science when something is not common, you know, there is a big like, learning curve and like set up and everything goes into the process. So if there was a lot of demand for it, I guess it would be worthwhile for somebody to set up an operation like this. Wherever you calibrate everything, you know, go, go through the grinds of, of getting, you know, reliable data and then you can start dating, you know, those things. But nobody, you know, to my knowledge, you know, provides that service. And my knowledge is not extensive. So, you know, maybe somebody out there there is. But the way science goes, nothing is easy. You know, carbon dating is Hugely complex. And the only reason it's done because there is a lot of demand for it. And then it's been like perfected sufficiently to where you can get reliable information. But if you're just starting it, like my wife sometimes says, you know, Max, why wouldn't, wouldn't you do your own carbon dating until. Look, it's the amount of learning and equipment and everything I need to put in is like, you know, years of effort.
- [08:25]
Danny
Right.
- [08:25]
Max
But you know, once, once you do it, it becomes like 10 minute job. Right. But after, you know, two years of prep. Right.
- [08:34]
Danny
So how many total vases did you, did you measure for this paper boy?
- [08:38]
Max
Good question. I think it was over 60 or 80, you know, some. Something of that nature. I think about 20 from petrified. About 20. Oh, okay. 20 vessels that were handmade in Egypt
- [08:55]
Danny
from that you knew for a fact were handmade?
- [08:57]
Max
Yes, okay, yes, they were made from. Incorrect term is in Egyptian alabaster, but correct term is travertine or calcite. So travertine or calcite vessels that are handmade in Egypt, you know, to this day, but, you know, for tourists, basically. And there are two cool things about it. The tradition, the stone working stone in a vase making tradition survived through millennia. And this fact actually is described in the scientific literature. I wasn't the first one, by no account who discovered it. Some other, like almost 100 years ago, either archaeologist or ethnographer probably discovered that they're still making these vessels. And now that evolved into like a tourist business where they make them for tourists and you can go into shops and you can see, you know, how they're made. And they're using like ogres to haul out vessels and they use, you know, rubbing stones to shape them. So it's basically same, you know, tools and techniques. And as depicted, let's say somewhere in a, in a tomb, right on the wall, you see someone, you know, barefoot Satan and grinding this vessel. It's exactly the same. The only difference is instead of like copper or bronze tools, you know, they use steel tools now, but that's the only difference. And I don't think they use flint chisels anymore. It's, it's like, you know, metal chisels.
- [10:17]
Danny
And so all of the ones that you measured that you knew were handmade in ancient Egypt in these museums. None of those were perfectly symmetrical.
- [10:25]
Max
No, no. And in fact, that was, you know, one of the things I, you know, introduced in my paper. I introduced a technique on how to characterize a vessel because when you, let's say look at a vessel like this. What does perfection mean? In order to define the perfection, I had to define the metric of quality. And metric of quality is basically a sum of concentricity and circularity metric. So you take this object and forgive me for repeating this from our previous discussion, but you Basically take a 3D scan and you slice it into perpendicular to the axis of symmetry and you get more or less circular slices. And each slice you can characterize it, how round it is. And those slices, when you superimpose one on top of them, how concentric they are, do they all center on the same axis or are they slightly off? And you get a number and you add these numbers together and you get a value which tells you how perfect your vessel is. If the value is real low because I'm looking for deviations. So real low values tell you it's a high quality manufacturing process because it's very round and it's very concentric. But if it's a handmade, the value is not going to be very low because it's not perfectly round and it's not perfectly concentric. So you get higher values. And all handmade vessels that were made in Egypt, they form like a cloud. When a plot the points on a chart and one axis is concentricity, the other circularity, there is a cloud. Right. And then I take vases from the Petrie Museum and I crunch the numbers in a similar way and I get another cloud. And the biggest surprise to me was that both clouds are virtually indistinguishable. They map on top of another. Which means that the quality of the petri vessels I cannot distinguish from the quality of the handmade vessels in that were made by hand in Egypt. Whereas the, you know, so called, the precise vases, let's say from Matt Bell's collection.
- [12:27]
Danny
Yeah. So where did you get the most precise measured vases?
- [12:31]
Max
Right, so the most precise were, you know, the so called precise vases for Matt Bell's collection from.
- [12:36]
Danny
So from Matt Bell's personal collection.
- [12:37]
Max
Yeah, from his personal collection he has about 80 and maybe a 10 or so were qualified as precisely. Okay.
- [12:45]
Danny
Yeah, 10 out of the 80 were perfectly really, really, really like within. What was the deviation like?
- [12:52]
Max
Boy, a good question. See if I can remember, I thought
- [12:56]
Danny
it was like 1/1,000th of an inch or something. Crazy.
- [12:58]
Max
Yeah, it's like few, few thousands of an inch. Okay. And you know, anybody interested can, can, can look at the actual numbers in the paper because it's, it's free like open access. Anybody can download and See, we'll link
- [13:10]
Danny
it below for folks right, that are listening.
- [13:12]
Max
And forgive me if I don't remember the numbers, but the point is, the precise vases form a separate cluster, a separate cluster of very low values. So when you plot, and I call this quality map. So when you plot this handmade Egyptian vases, you got a big blob, and then you plot the Petri Museum vases, you get another big blob, and the two blobs overlap where you cannot distinguish them. But. But when you plot, you know, precise vases from Mel Bell's collection or from, you know, some other people I've met and befriended, it's a different, you know, tightly packed cluster of low concentricity error and low, you know, roundness error values that's very distinct. So you can easily tell them apart. But where, you know, the biggest surprise was then all of this ebay vases that I bought. Ebay vases, eBay vases. And by now I probably have 50 or 60, maybe even more. I mean, my house is just any nook and cranny. You know, there is a vase in it.
- [14:10]
Danny
How much can you buy one of these for on eBay?
- [14:14]
Max
Like 10 bucks.
- [14:15]
Danny
No way. And they're granite?
- [14:17]
Max
Some. Some are, yeah. I think for granite vases, I paid maybe like 50 bucks. And I'll explain why. But the point is, when I analyzed the. In a modern, you know, ebay vases, you know, they form the same cluster as, you know, the vases. Precise vases from Matt Bell's collection.
- [14:35]
Danny
No way.
- [14:36]
Max
Yeah, it was exactly the same, you know, no difference, you know, whatsoever. And of course, you know, to me, you know, the only conclusion I can draw is, you know, those were made in modern times as opposed to in the ancient times, because.
- [14:51]
Danny
And the ones that you purchased on ebay, the description was, how do they describe they were made?
- [14:57]
Max
Most didn't have any description. And really, sometimes I would buy a vase and it says one thing, but, you know, when I look at it, I know it's another thing. The most common material, of course, is marble, you know, because it's beautiful. So mostly very soft, right? Yeah, also very soft. So most of these is a marble because it's a beautiful material. It's easy to machine. And the way they're made, you know, you just put it in a lathe and you run like a steel cutter, typically. And that's, you know, good enough to give it outer shape and give it inner shape, and it's all perfect and nice and looks beautiful. Some vases are Made out of what is called like Pakistani onyx. And once again it's a misnomer because it's not onyx, it just looks like onyx. In reality it's calcite, but it's very beautiful. It looks like onyx but it's the same softness as marble but beautiful texture. So those are made in India and Pakistan. And of course I wanted to have some harder stones too like granite. And granite isn't like typical for your gift shop vases because it's hard stone and it can be machined, no problem machining it, but it requires a diamond tipped tools and in fact there are multiple companies that make this kind of product out of granite. And the typical application is outdoors stuff because you know what happens to marble outdoors, like very quickly it degrades because acid in water and just soft stone in a water erodes that unbox acid even faster. So it's very unstable. So that's why a lot of marble structures, Greek Roman ruins are in terrible shape. So if you want something to last, you make things out of granite. And where people want something to last, like funerary stuff, know monuments and, and a lot of granite vases are actually urns or, or vases for flowers that you put at a tomb. And there are shops in China and India that like mass produce this in a fernary rear.
- [17:08]
Danny
New seasons means fresh starts. And with Ira Store's anniversary sale running from April 13 through April 27, it's honestly the perfect time to upgrade your hair and skincare routine. IR store has been leading the way for red light therapy for over two decades. And for April only, you get a bundle discount on two customer favorites, the IR Store Elite and the Illumina mask. The Irisore Elite is clinically proven to help regrow hair using 300 lasers and 200 LEDs that send light therapy directly to your scalp. And the Irisore Illumina is a dermatologist recommended face mask with double the power than most competitors. It targets fine lines, breakouts, stimulates collagen and boosts blood flow. I've been using my IRE store Elite to research and read up on guests. It's the coolest looking and least invasive method I've found for hair growth. IRA Store is kicking off their anniversary sale with some huge discounts on their red light therapy devices. And right now you can save on customer favorites like the Irestore Elite helmet and the Illumina face mask. Just head to irestore.com and use the code Danny Jones to take advantage of this sale. That's D A N N Y J O N E S no spaces at the letter I R E S T O R E dot com. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Give your hair and skin the upgrade they deserve so you can feel confident and refreshed. Why did I never think of that? Those things are like the same size as earns.
- [18:37]
Max
Yeah.
- [18:38]
Danny
So er, I wonder if they were used for that back then.
- [18:41]
Max
Who knows. Actually I have some idea of what.
- [18:44]
Danny
I wonder if they did any cremation in ancient Egypt.
- [18:47]
Max
Not to my knowledge. I guess mummification was the go to.
- [18:51]
Danny
Yeah that's what I thought thing.
- [18:52]
Max
And we know you know from studies that a lot of the you know, ancient Egyptian vases were used for cosmetics. So cosmetics and specifically coal.
- [19:01]
Danny
But they, they pull. Sorry, interrupt. I thought they pulled the organs out though before they did the mummy. Maybe they could like shove the heart
- [19:06]
Max
in one of those are like canopic germs.
- [19:08]
Danny
Okay.
- [19:09]
Max
So when you have a mummy or burial it was a mummy, you know, organs would typically put in canopic jars. But if we talk about like hard stone vases pre dynastic those were primarily used for like ointments and cosmetics because some of them that I even that I analyzed using X ray fluorescent spectroscopy I was able to found traces of coal and call is this lead rich black substance they used you know for eyeshadow and whatnot. But kind of finishing to answer your question. So I bought a lot of this granite vases from the shops that make funerary implements and shout out tonight scarab he bought some I think one onyx vase and one. Should I forget the word the glass. Volcanic glass. What's the word? Obsidian.
- [20:05]
Danny
Obsidian.
- [20:05]
Max
Obsidian short glass that he shared scans with me. So there was you know a good sample of really hard stone vases there. And once again what I realized is you know the manufacturing quality is indistinguishable is indistinguishable between you know those ebay vases that were made on the lathe or in case of, of this, you know, granite finery vases, they were made on the mill because to turn them on, to turn them on the outside you use a lace but then you know, if you need to hollow out you use a mill and the quality was indistinguishable. And you know how come I didn't find any of that at the Petri Museum? And ever since you know I've been actually you know posting some of my findings on X and on my blog and people were Going back and forth. So I went again to a Petrie museum. So I've been there three times now. So I've been twice in May of last year and that information is published in my paper. And then I went again in December of, of last year and I also went to Manchester Museum and by luck a colleague of mine was able to go to the Pushkin Museum in Moscow in Russia that has a substantial Egyptian collection and they scanned like 20 more vases from it. So all in all we have like 50 or 60, you know, museum vase scans. And none of them are precise. So none of them are in like nearly in the same ballpark of what you get, you know, when you buy a vase from ebay, you know, that's been turned on a lathe. And that to me is conclusive proof that this so called precise basis from private collections aren't of ancient Egyptian origin, just based on their manufacturing quality. Because there is nothing in museum that is like that. And when people say, well, you haven't seen all of them. And it's true, I haven't scanned every single vase in the world. But you know, there is such thing as statistics.
- [22:22]
Danny
Sure.
- [22:23]
Max
And if we, you know, the reason the world functions is because we believe in statistics. Right. So when you develop a drug, you know, it helps one out of, you know, 100 people. But that's good enough, right, because it's a proxy, right. You have a million people sick and you know, 1% is 10,000 people. It's a lot. So we know that statistic works. And if you like sample, sample and sample, and you don't get any of this in like unusual objects in your sample, you know, they likely don't exist. And then the question becomes, you know, what are they? And I don't know if they were made like in modern times or they were made in 19th century. So the lathe and machining tools in our ability to work hard stone at very high quality and existed for at least 200 years. So I cannot tell whether those wages were made in modern time or in 100 years ago. But I sure as heck no they weren't made in ancient Egypt just because they're so different in their manufacturing quality. But that's not maybe even the biggest argument. To me, it's the biggest argument scientifically based on the quality, you know, on the manufacturing quality. But there is another very important observation that we made recently and that has to do with the stone itself. For example, you know, pre dynastic stone vases, they are made of predominantly of four Stone types, you know, basalt is one. Then you have your diorite and andesite and you have your, you know, breccia and sometimes, you know, calcite. So maybe like five predominant stone types and every like museum, you go to British Museum, you know, Oxford, you know, Cambridge, you know, met in Boston Museum. It's in the same stone type, you know, four or five stone types. And that's how it was. And if you want to, you know, read more about it, there is an excellent book by Barbara Austin. It's actually her PhD thesis and her book is like 200 pages. And she studied every in a hard stone vase in existence. Pretty much.
- [24:45]
Danny
Really?
- [24:45]
Max
Yes. It's unbelievable.
- [24:46]
Danny
What was her name again?
- [24:47]
Max
Barbara Aston.
- [24:48]
Danny
Barbara Aston, yes, Aston, yes.
- [24:51]
Max
And her book, slash dissertation thesis is
- [24:55]
Danny
called
- [24:58]
Max
Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels. And the amount of work she's done is just unbelievable because she cataloged over 1,000 vessels. So most of that book is a catalog. She says vessel so and so material, such and such, museum specific place. So she cataloged all of them. And out of like 200 or 300, she got permission to take stone samples that she studied under like electron microscope to figure out the stone type and where that stone came from. So that's like the go to resource for your stone vases. Very exhaustive exploration. And she was able to establish where the stone came from in Egypt. So specific like quarry sites. Wow. And which vases are made of which stone and gives a complete catalog. And guess what? How many granite vases are in that catalog of 1000 out of 1000 out of 1000. How many granite vases are there?
- [26:01]
Danny
200.
- [26:02]
Max
One.
- [26:04]
Danny
One.
- [26:05]
Max
One, one. Yes. And that was a big shocker because, you know, Ben was and the term OG vase, like original granite vase. And then like all over Internet it's OG vase, original granite vase. And then Matt Bell has this precise vessels and most of them are granite. And you know, none of ancient Egyptian vessels are granite save for one. And by granite we mean Osman granite, which is, you know, this characteristic, you know, pink granite that Egyptians used. And they use this S1 granite a lot for sarcophagy, for various sculptures, for columns, but not so much for vases because only one vase is known to exist that's made out of asphalt granite. You know, that's documented by Barbara Aston in that book. And she says, yep, you know, only one, you know, as one, you know, pink or red, you know, however you want to call it, pink as one granite, red as one granite vase. And she was able to find in museum collections and if you go, like, to online resources and you look for granite vases, you'll find some, but it's all mislabeled. It's not granite. It's some other type. It's either diorite or andesite or something else, because those materials look similar, but when you look closer, you know, it's not granite. And this S1 granite has a very specific, very certain texture. It's like big splotches of black with pink in a feldspar around it. So it's very characteristic. You cannot really mess it up with anything else. And that's, you know, one thing, you know, Veronica, my lovely wife, has done. She took a lot of pictures of Aswan, you know, granite objects from various museums and put them on her blog, like, side by side, so you could see what the, you know, pattern is. And then, you know, you compare against, you know, OG vase or against Matt Bell's vases that are, you know, granite. It's like entirely different pattern.
- [28:12]
Danny
So. So just to Clarify, out of 1,000 vases that Barbara analyzed, one out of a thousand were Aswan grass?
- [28:19]
Max
Yes.
- [28:20]
Danny
Not. But others were granite in general?
- [28:22]
Max
No, no, they weren't.
- [28:23]
Danny
No granite at all.
- [28:24]
Max
No granite at all. No. It was just.
- [28:25]
Danny
How many of Matt Bell's vases are Aswan granite?
- [28:30]
Max
I don't think has any Aswan granite at all. None has a, you know, few red granite, but it's not Asman granite. You know, when I look at it or when anybody look at it, and in fact, you know, you can take a picture of his vase in A versus Aspen Grant, you see that the pattern is different. So that's another red flag. It's. It's red granite, all right, but it's actually Indian red granite.
- [28:54]
Danny
Indian red.
- [28:55]
Max
Yeah, that's what it looks to me.
- [28:56]
Danny
Is it possible that any of the granite in his collection came from Egypt?
- [29:02]
Max
You know, I'm not a geologist, and I cannot speak in absolutes of that nature, but, you know, when I look at his, you know, granite, red granite vessels, they look a lot like Indian, you know, granite to me, and I'll show you in just a second, although, you know, I cannot establish the variety for sure. What I can say for sure, for sure it's not Aswan granite because it looks like very different. So. And to me, that's a giveaway because, you know, ancient Egyptians, they. They just didn't use, you know, red granite or AS one granite for stone vases. You know, they used it for sculptures. They used it for columns. They used it for Sarcophagy, they used it for building blocks. They just didn't use it for vases. And that also.
- [29:46]
Danny
Let me ask you. Sorry.
- [29:46]
Max
Sure. Yeah.
- [29:47]
Danny
This may be a very dumb question. What kind of granite is inside the Great Pyramid?
- [29:53]
Max
Probably Aswan. Yeah.
- [29:55]
Danny
Can you confirm that, Steve?
- [29:56]
Max
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure, but. Okay, so. Yeah, and. And I think this stone choice makes sense because once again, if you read like Barbara Aston's book or, you know, other publications, they trace how different types of stones were used, you know, throughout Egyptian history. So the, you know, oldest vessels are basalt, and then you get, you know, diorite andesite, and andesite porphyry is. It's this beautiful, you know, black and white, you know, splotchy vases. That's in like andesite porphyry. Yeah.
- [30:31]
Danny
Aswan red pink granite sourced from Corey's in Aswan.
- [30:37]
Max
And then you get some calcite vessels, too. And as time goes by, you know, different tastes set in. And like early dynastic Egypt, you know, gnais was all of the importance and all of this, you know, bowls were made out of gnase and tens of thousands of them. You know, there was like massive manufacturing of really, you know, beautiful naze bowls that you can see everywhere. You know, they're not predomastic, but they're early dynastic. And that towards, you know, later dynastic periods, the shift was to travertine, you know, which was incorrectly labeled, labeled as alabaster. But it's travertine and some serpentine and some other stone types. So it's. It's like fashion. You know, they started with one stone types and, you know, switched to the next and ended up actually with metal and glass and faience. Because as technology progressed, you know, demand for stone vessels kind of dropped because, you know, metal implements looked more beautiful or the glass, you know, was exotic or fiance was exotic. And it makes sense. Like, we don't drive steam cars, right? So even gas engines are, you know, getting out of fashion. We're getting it towards electric and who knows, maybe 10 years from now will be fusion cars. But that all makes sense. But kind of returning to the authenticity subject. So the granite, and it wasn't used. And besides, that's not an Aswan granite. You know, upon my examination, Amanita Miscaria
- [32:15]
Danny
is the third most popular microdose psychoactive in the USA, with 3 million people reportedly using it. That's more than LSD or dmt, but there's a wave of dangerous gas station fakes out there and who knows how many people are getting cheated out of the real deal? Amantara is the complete opposite of all those scams. And that's why I only trust Amantara. I never would have touched Amanita if it weren't for Amantara. They are the trusted Amanita supplier in the U.S. totally legal, no synthetics and 55,000 happy customers. Small doses put you in a calm, focused, almost flow state headspace. While medium doses is more like a jolly alcohol alternative. Great for sleep and dreams. Some people even call it nature's wine. I take a few of these capsules most days after work and it helps me get rid of all the stress from the workday and be more engaged and in the moment with my family. Imagine being in a stress filled environment and not feeling, feeling triggered. That's what Amanita does for me. They are the largest Amanita Mascaria supplier in the U. S. Totally legal, ethically sourced and lab tested. They had the largest Amanita Mascaria selection. From oils to capsules, chocolates and the raw caps. It's not just a store or a single product. These guys are helping pave the way for a new legal medicinal psychoactive mushroom in the US And I'm happy to be a part of it. Go to amentara.com go dj and use the code dj22 for 22 off your first order. That's spelled a M-E-N-T-A-R-A.com go/dj and use the code dj22 for twenty two off your first order.
- [33:48]
Max
And something that, you know, even Matt agreed with me that you know, the surface of this, you know, so called most precise vases is pristine. You know, there is not a nick, not a scratch and it's just strange credulity that, you know, after five or six thousand years, right, you know, they're just so pristine and all of the innovations and collections are, you know, just, I want, I mean in museums I want to say terrible looking, but they show the age. You know, there is a weathering and there is damage and a bunch of imperfections. You have no doubt, you know, looking at an old thing just because it's so worn and you know, no wonder, you know, they've been traded so much. You know, they spend so much in the sand. Sure they, they show their age, but yeah, you want to squish.
- [34:37]
Danny
No, I have so many questions running through my head right now.
- [34:40]
Max
Well, one other thing I'm gonna say and then you know, you can ask questions. I think a popular theory was. And the one that Dan from the Dunking.
- [34:53]
Danny
Yes.
- [34:54]
Max
Kind of dwelled upon considerably is. And for that matter, Ben, you know, also said that all of the best objects were, you know, given by Petrie to private collectors.
- [35:08]
Danny
That's Ben Van Kirkwick. And Dan from Dee Duncan said all of the most precise vases were given away by the Petrie Museum to private collectors.
- [35:18]
Max
By Petrie himself. To private collectors.
- [35:19]
Danny
Oh, by Flinders Petrie, Right.
- [35:21]
Max
Yes. And that's kind of a popular theory that's, you know, discussed by.
- [35:25]
Danny
Is there any evidence of this?
- [35:26]
Max
Exactly my point. Because of my work that received good reviews, the director of Petrie Museum helped me a little bit with this question. So she directed me towards valuable resources that contained in the notes and publications on how the artifacts and trickle down from, let's say, the excavation site to museums and elsewhere. And there is an invaluable book called Scattered Finds. I think this book was written by, I believe, one of the curators of the Petrie Museum, which documents the process of how excavation took place and then how these objects were inventory and. And moved around and ended up being scattered, but not irregularly or unaccountably, but rather how Petrie collection formed the core that was split and shared among other museums and institutions. So Petrie had incredible integrity along with all of the people he worked with. And all of the objects were accounted for. You know, there is a record for everything. And you can go to the archive and you will find.
- [36:56]
Danny
There's a paper trail, right?
- [36:57]
Max
There is a paper trail. And the deal was the expeditions were sponsored, obviously. I mean, you cannot go to an expedition without having sponsors, you know, backers. And those sponsors and backers were primarily other institutions like, you know, Boston Museum of Fine Art or some other archaeological society. They were private patrons also. But at the end.
- [37:21]
Danny
And what year are we talking this was done?
- [37:23]
Max
Beginning of the 20th century, maybe late 19th century, early 20th century. Okay. You know, somewhere in that ballpark and the agreement was that backers, you know, get portion of the collection and. And the backers were other institutions, other museums, other universities. So that's how you have, you know, collection at the British Museum. That's why you have Ashmolean, that's why you have in a Manchester. That's why you have a collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. So all of those places received portions of the Petrie collection. We weren't able to find any records of objects going to private collectors, like off the box. There were a lot of objects given away, but those were like shaktis. And if, you know, shaktis are a little like blue figurines that were so numerous, they weren't even considered valuables valuable. And there were, like, thousands of them, you know, given as gifts for subscribers and subscriber were someone, you know, who contributed money to this, you know, foundation or fund that, you know, supported, you know, Petrie's or their archaeologist explorations. And as a token of appreciation, they would, you know, get this Shaktis. So there is no record of, you know, I wasn't able to find any record of Peter giving away, you know, just objects indiscriminately. And if he did, as I said, it went to a museum.
- [38:50]
Danny
Right? Well, it's possible some of the. I mean, it could be possible that some of the big institutions that funded the excavations could have had some big shots behind it that were like, hey, we're gonna fund this, but, you know, you got to pay us a tax, something like that.
- [39:04]
Max
Well, I cannot comment on that, but what I can say is this.
- [39:12]
Danny
I mean, we don't have any evidence for it, but you can't rule it out.
- [39:15]
Max
This. The stone vessels weren't even considered, like, a valuable artifacts. Oh, really? At the time.
- [39:20]
Danny
And Also in the 1800s, they had the technology to measure this stuff. See how precise.
- [39:25]
Max
That's exactly another point. I'm glad you're making it, but let me finish kind of the first point. So the stone vessels or weren't even considered valuable. And frankly, until I guess, Ben started popularizing them, I don't think anybody cared much about them because pottery and stone vessels look very similar. Pot is a pot. What is so unique about it? So the popular objects of the time were mummies. So everybody wanted to have a mummy. So when Petrie or the archaeologists were giving up the finds, the squabbles were about mummies. And this book that I mentioned has a story where Australian museum received their share of finds, and there were no mummies in it, and there were no sarcophagy or bigger objects. And they were very upset. They said, what kind of trash you send us? You send us the shards and pots and whatnot. Where is the real stuff? So everybody wanted to have Miamies and, you know, big objects, right? So pots nobody cared about. And. And the other point is, I myself personally, when I went, you know, to Petrie Museum for the first time to study, I eyeballed the vessel, stone vessels, by looking at the pictures on the museum, because I had to say which ones I wanted to study. So I bold them and I divided them in two categories. One I called precise and the other called imprecise. Because when I went, I had a theory in my mind that, you know, Ben was right all alone, and there were like, two industries. One was making precise objects, and the
- [41:00]
Danny
one that was your. Your. Your mindset when you went into this.
- [41:03]
Max
Yes, I. I bought in, you know, Ben's narrative 100%, that, you know, tale of two industries, and the bad ones are really handmade by Egyptians. And, you know, the precise ones basically, for.
- [41:16]
Danny
For folks that are trying to. That are listening to this, that Ben. Ben did a series of videos on ancient Egypt and some of the stones and the artifacts that come out of ancient Egypt. And basically the story is that the older you get, the more precise stuff is, and. And the more recent you get, the closer you get to, you know, year zero, the more. More rudimentary and crude the stuff becomes. Right. And less precise the stuff becomes. So the idea is that maybe there was some sort of a technology prehistory that we're not aware of, that we have no evidence for, that was responsible for some of this precision stone workor like the pyramids and the bases and all that stuff. I mean, you have those giant circular saw blade cuts and those big rocks. It's like, what the is this? Maybe there was a. Some lost industrial civilization that could explain this.
- [42:09]
Max
Yeah. And I really, you know, believe that because it's in a fascinating idea, and that goes against the grain. And I got to give, you know, Ben credit. He's an excellent storyteller. You know, he's inspirational figure, I'd say, in a great storyteller. And when he presents in his stories, it's very compelling. So I bought it like hook and sinker, you know.
- [42:29]
Danny
Yeah.
- [42:29]
Max
So I went, me too, to the museum with the idea that I'm gonna prove, you know, his theory. And that's why I looked. When I looked at the pictures, I sorted them, like, in two bins.
- [42:41]
Danny
And by the way, I still buy it. I'm not. I'm. I still think that he's dead on with that. Even if the vases are. Are moderns, the precision ones are moderns, there's still a lot of stuff. There's still a lot of evidence that there was some lost industrial technology that we're not aware of.
- [42:56]
Max
I would say, you know, the. We shouldn't conflate the subject of vases, you know, with the rest of it.
- [43:03]
Danny
Right, Exactly.
- [43:04]
Max
A lot of people who, you know, get upset, you know, with my work. They say, oh, you know, you say that the pyramids were, you know, by
- [43:12]
Danny
hand and we're not throwing the baby out with the bath.
- [43:14]
Max
Yeah. I'm saying, no, you cannot generalized to that extent. I'm just saying vases aren't it. You know, vases are handmade. There is nothing special about them. Right. But I, I would love to study sarcophagy, you know, to venture my opinion. And I'd like to study, you know, the pyramids and some Assyrian, you know, some other artifacts.
- [43:35]
Danny
I want somebody to study that damn labyrinth.
- [43:37]
Max
Yeah, yeah. So my point is, in order to answer a question, you gotta really study it because what appears on the surface may utterly deceive you. And that's how when I looked at the pictures of the vases and categorized them into categories and I couldn't believe it, that when I scanned these objects and I analyzed them, that both were of the same quality. And I say, but how come when I look, this vase looks fine and this vase looks crooked, but when I analyze it, it's the same quality? And that's, you know, how human eye in a perceives if the surface is like smooth and not so much eroded, you think, oh, you know, this is a nice looking object. Right. But at the same time you can have a much more like perfectly made object that surfaces a bit, you know, weathered or even, you know, the color or texture of the surface is different and it doesn't look nearly as fine or it might have some features about it that kind of throw you off. But computer is blind to the nuances of aesthetics and your computer just gives you numbers. And I was blown away to see that going by eye, I couldn't really tell which object was precise and which wasn't. They were all imprecise to the same extent. Granted, some Petri Museum objects were better made than others. And that happens all the time when you do things by hand. So some pieces turn out great, some not so. But in the end you get this statistical distribution, you know, the bell curve. And as long as everything fits on the bell curve, there is no problem. But you'll have a few objects, outliers, well, not exactly outliers, but you know, as the bell curve goes, you have some objects in the front and some objects in the back, right? And these are like exceptional pieces of craftsmanship, and these are like poor pieces of craftsmanship, but it feeds the curve, you know, it fits the statistical distribution. And most of them, like 90% are somewhere in the middle. But occasionally you get an exceptional piece. When everything was lucky, you know, the, the Artisan was lucky. The conditions were right and it turned out to be, you know, more perfect than the rest. But overall, basically you cannot tell just by eyeballing an object how well it's made. You have to analyze it with a 3D scanner and do the number crunch in order to tell, let's say, a contemporary lace turn object from a similarly looking handmade object. You just, you know, cannot tell. And that's why even if collectors were trying to steal the most precise objects, you know, from Petrie, you know, back then when he was excavating them, he wouldn't be able to do it just because they all look about the same. Right. And how did it make you feel
- [46:23]
Danny
when you, when you saw the data come through and analyzed it?
- [46:28]
Max
Couldn't believe it. Because as I said, I went to Petrie Museum and it was a certain mindset. So when I got the scans and the results were not what I expected, like, what the hell, I was looking for a mistake. Because the first thing you know, what was wrong, you know, how did I ended up with this data? But you know, when I scanned my object, I also scanned a reference standard. And that's another thing that let's say non, non scientists often overlook, as whenever you do any kind of measurement, you know, how do you know that your measurement is correct? So you have to measure a standard. And in case of, you know, 3D scanning, you have to 3D scan a reference sphere. And it's a sphere of known diameter and known quality, right? And I scanned that sphere like four times throughout my scanning process. And every time it came out perfect. So I know my scanner was working right because every time I scanned the goddamn sphere, it gave me, you know, the perfect one inch circle. And I included the data. It was my data set. So anybody can download and see what the sphere looks like. So I know my, my scanner was working right? So I thought, okay, well maybe there is an error in my code. So I spent like two months rewriting my code, my analysis code. So every morning I would get up like at six in the morning because I couldn't slip. You know, I really couldn't sleep. So I would get up in the morning, not drinking coffee, not taking shower, not, you know, dressing in my boxer shirts, sitting on my couch, you know, rewriting the goddamn code. And it took me two months to do it. And in the end I couldn't find an error. And in the end, you know, my results are kind of cleared in the sense that the signal became obvious that the scans are correct. And what they're showing me that these objects are handmade, and there is nothing unique about them from the standpoint of lost, ancient CNC machining technology. They are all handmade, consistent with the same hand process Egyptians pursue now when they make this travertine and calcite vases for tourists. And utterly inconsistent, you know, with the turning on a lathe or, you know, milling that. That we find in this, you know, ebay. Vases, right, Or. Or precise vases from, you know, Matt Bell's collection. So gradually I started, you know, to accept this because I already, you know, started writing a paper because, you know, I wanted the contents of my nature paper to. To be different. You know, I wanted it to say, hey, I found, you know, lost ancient technology. So I already wrote a paper like that. So I had to discard it and start writing a new paper, you know, the one that ended up publishing. So it took me, like, a while to adjust, you know, to the facts and make peace with them because they were entirely at odds with what, you know, Ben was leading us to believe.
- [49:17]
Danny
It's amazing how hard that is for us, huh?
- [49:19]
Max
Yeah, it is. And that's why, you know, famous Conan Doyle quote attributed to Sherlock Holmes. You know, when you start an investigation, you should never have a theory because then you invariably make facts, bend facts to fit the theory.
- [49:37]
Danny
Right.
- [49:39]
Max
I was lucky in the sense that I was able not to fall into the same fallacy. And, you know, when I saw the facts that contradict my theory, I didn't throw out the facts, you know, throughout the theory, and I arrived at what I believe, you know, I correct theories. But, you know, psychologically it's difficult. And of course, you know, Matt wasn't, you know, too happy to see, you know, me change, you know, do a 180 on. On his precise basis. So I think it was hard on him, too, especially, you know, since I've been like three times on his show and, you know, every time we thought this was, you know, lost ancient technology, and then, you know, I can say, well, I don't think it was.
- [50:21]
Danny
Yeah.
- [50:22]
Max
So I think it was hard on him, too. I don't know where he stands now, but to me, it's. It's pretty clear. But there was a. An additional, I guess, point I wanted to address, and that's why I brought, you know, all of this props here with me because a lot of people. And once again, because Ben was saying it so many times that, you know, you can't make these today out of granite, you know.
- [50:50]
Danny
Yes, right, right.
- [50:52]
Max
And I Heard this, you know, so many times.
- [50:55]
Danny
Does he still say that? Is that still his position as of
- [50:58]
Max
like a few months ago? Probably. But, you know, it's been a while since we talked, so I don't know what his views are now. Right. And frankly, I was hoping that he would change his views and view of the facts that I uncover and present. But I don't know, you know, where he stands. Maybe you can ask him.
- [51:16]
Danny
But by the way, Ben, the one who connected us in the first place.
- [51:19]
Max
Yeah. So, you know, thank you, Ben, obviously, for connecting and, you know, he's a friend. I love him to death, but I'll. I'll cite, you know, the famous Latin saying, you know, Plato is my friend, but the truth is better friend. So, you know, Ben is my friend, but truth is more dear to me. So I'm going to speak my mind, you know, honestly and truthfully. So there was a lot said, you know, by him and others that these precise vases are like airspace precision. We cannot make them today.
- [51:50]
Danny
Right. You know, Chris, Don was part of that.
- [51:53]
Max
Anybody. So saying, you know, what a. Pardon my French bullshit. So let me make them. So I went to like a few shops in China. Of course, you know, when you want to make something, you know, you. You go to China. Right? Right. Probably would have been smarter and better going to places in America, but, you know, you have to go to an artist because nobody typically works on Hearthstone because as I said, it requires like diamond. Diamond tip tools. Right. And it's difficult. And because you buy on ebay is like 10, $20. And. And how you going to compete if you spend like 20 or 30 hours making something out of granite and you have to compete, you know, with this beautiful Pakistani, you know, onyx vase that's like $5 retail. You can't. So nobody, you know, wants to do it unless you say, well, you know, here's $10,000. You know, do it. I didn't have $10,000. So I started like a post on X and said, hey, I'm gonna make these vases out of granite. So who's gonna, you know, pitch in, you know, a thousand bucks. If you, you know, give me a thousand bucks, I'll give you a base. So four people, fortunately, you know, pitched in and that gave me, you know, budget to work with. So I went to a shop in China and I said, can you make this? And they said, you know, sure. So I sent them drawings. So I actually took one of the vase for. From the Petri collection that I scanned, and I Asked a CAD designer, you know, can you just make an idealized version of it that, you know, I can send to a shop to get a CAD drawing. And. And that's what I did. And I sent them to the shop and they made me a few vases and I brought them here. So here is one.
- [53:43]
Danny
This is one that you had made in China.
- [53:44]
Max
Yes. And here is another. Right. So I had two more, but I ordered. What is this material? Granite. So this is black granite.
- [53:51]
Danny
This is black granite.
- [53:52]
Max
And this is red granite. Yes. And you can see this vase has all of the attributes of. Of the precise vase. It has log handles that people said, you know, cannot be made. It has a narrow neck that people say, you know, cannot be made. And it's hollowed out on the inside. So inside is a lot, you know, larger than the outside.
- [54:14]
Danny
The inside also feels similar to the other vases I've found.
- [54:18]
Max
Right. Because it's. It's machining marks. And in fact, I also have videos of how they were made, and I've sent some to Steve and maybe when this episode airs, he will include a few of those. Yeah. And I have a lot to say about it. But basically, what kind of granite is this?
- [54:37]
Danny
Red.
- [54:38]
Max
This is red granite. Right. And this is Indian. Yeah. I'm actually asking which granite this is. And this looks in a. Pretty. Pretty similar to what Matt's vases look. And they basically turn the outside on a lathe. And then, you know, there is this rim left where the lug handles are, and then they manually shave them off with an angle grinder. And the inside they use.
- [55:03]
Danny
So. So this is all round.
- [55:04]
Max
Yes.
- [55:05]
Danny
And then they shave off here.
- [55:06]
Max
Yes.
- [55:07]
Danny
To make these pop out.
- [55:08]
Max
Exactly. And you can.
- [55:10]
Danny
You can't feel it really.
- [55:12]
Max
No, because it's.
- [55:12]
Danny
I'm sure you can see it on like a heat map, but.
- [55:15]
Max
Yes. Yeah. And obviously. Yeah. And that's how it was hollowed out. That's the rod following out. And then they did a fine hollowing out on the lathe. So the rough, they use this cutter and the, you know, more fine one they did on the lathe. And that's the polishing. Yeah. And frankly.
- [55:32]
Danny
And how precise.
- [55:34]
Max
Excellent question. But before. Before I proceed, I want to talk about logistics a little bit. Okay. So it's not really expensive to make this. You know, what is really difficult is going back and forth. So I'm here in America and I'm talking to a girl who is an intermediary, and English is not a native language for her, and Chinese is not A language for me, and then there is a time difference. And then she relays this information to the, you know, guys who make them. So we have me, her, maybe somebody else, and then guys. And a lot of information gets lost.
- [56:11]
Danny
Telephone game.
- [56:11]
Max
Yeah, basically. So management was difficult. So making the. Making this for them wasn't. But making them, you know, the way I want them was difficult because either I couldn't explain it or, you know, they couldn't communicate it, you know, by jumping through the steps. And when they do something, I wasn't there standing, you know. No. And that's not what I want. You know, it's like kind of like remote work. You know, I work with engineers remotely. Even when we speak the same language. It's not the same when you're, like, all in the same room. So that was, like, the only challenge. And that's why, you know, some of the vases don't quite look. You know, the way I want them to look is just because it was, like, an impossible game of, like, tag to try to explain and then adjust readjust. But anyway, so I scanned these vases, and I'm going to publish the scans shortly, and they're practically indistinguishable from the precise vases. And Matt Bells, really? Yes, yes. And that was, you know, the objective. I wanted them to be of the same quality, and, you know, some are better and some a little worse.
- [57:17]
Danny
I see that one in the back.
- [57:18]
Max
Yes. And that's another story. That's the spinner.
- [57:21]
Danny
This is the spinner.
- [57:22]
Max
Right. And you can.
- [57:23]
Danny
Oh, yeah. Because all of Matt's ones were rounded bottoms.
- [57:26]
Max
Well, some were. And you can actually, you know.
- [57:29]
Danny
Yeah, a lot of them were.
- [57:30]
Max
Right. No, and you see, it spins. Spins just fine. Yeah, spins, no problem. And because that's another. People were saying, I think, like, was this bright inside guy, Chris Carcetti. Sorry, Carsetti.
- [57:45]
Danny
Oh, yeah. Jimmy Corsetti.
- [57:47]
Max
Yeah. He kind of pointed out. So you can't make this. Well, you know, I made this, and it spins.
- [57:53]
Danny
Holy.
- [57:54]
Max
But that's not it. Check this out. So can you see the light shining through?
- [58:01]
Danny
Oh, Steve, you want to hit the lights or. If you don't, we don't have to, but it might be fun.
- [58:05]
Max
Oh, you can see. I don't know.
- [58:09]
Danny
Steve's gonna kill the lights so we can get a really good shot of this.
- [58:14]
Max
Let me see. I'll let you play with it. Just. Just shine on the side. And you can see. You can actually.
- [58:22]
Danny
Can you see it?
- [58:23]
Max
Yeah.
- [58:25]
Danny
So we did this when Matt came on the show. We did this with his vases and he was doing this too.
- [58:31]
Max
So you can actually shine the light through because there is quartz.
- [58:34]
Danny
Wow.
- [58:34]
Max
And these are, like, thin enough to where it shines through. And this is not particularly bright light. And there is an interesting thing about the spinner vases. So when I ask them actually like this better than this, but when you eyeball them, which one do you think is more precise?
- [58:56]
Danny
All of these?
- [58:57]
Max
Yeah. Let's see how your eyesight, Which. Which do you think is like, more precise? I mean, circularity.
- [59:08]
Danny
My brain wants to tell me the shiny one is the most precise.
- [59:14]
Max
And what would be your second one, the red one? Probably good. Yes. Your eyesight is really good. You got it? Yeah. So this is.
- [59:22]
Danny
I got it, yeah.
- [59:23]
Max
Oh, wow. This is more precise than this one. And these are less precise. And the reason being, you know, when you look at the videos, they actually, you know, cheated a little bit. I asked them, like, to turn the whole thing, but instead they. There was like a big foot in here. Oh, really Grounded manually. So all of this is angle grinder, as opposed to turning on the lathe. And this section, you know, they also ground, you know, with the angle grinder. And you can see. See that. Oh, sorry. So, yeah, you see, the foot is pretty large. So those are areas that they messed up. Because it's not like machine work, it's semi hand work. And at the end of the day, you know, this vase looks in quality, you know, pretty similar what you end up with the vases from Petrie Museum.
- [60:14]
Danny
Really?
- [60:14]
Max
Yes, yes. So this quality fell short of the machine work. Like this tool. Like this tool made, you know, the machine work quality, like 100%. Because these were, like, mostly turned in. The lock handles are fairly small, and they did a better job at polishing them. So with this, it was so hard to explain them what I wanted to where they said, just screw it. And they used angle grinder for most of the work. And that's kind of the result that you see. And I'm like, oh, God, do I go through another round of management trying them to say, no, just turn everything on the lathe and polish it better? You know, I might.
- [60:53]
Danny
Is there another way they could do this more, even more precisely, like. Like with a. With a CNC machine or something?
- [60:59]
Max
Yes, they can. And I asked, you know, can you do that? And they say, sure. You know, would you order 100? You know, if I order, how much would that cost? Probably will cost like 20 grand, maybe.
- [61:13]
Danny
Okay.
- [61:13]
Max
Yeah. Because I think if I do A hundred. And each one would. Would cost about 200 bucks.
- [61:18]
Danny
All right, let's think about it. $20,000. We get a hundred vases, we sell each vase for $50,000.
- [61:24]
Max
Yeah.
- [61:24]
Danny
What's the profit?
- [61:26]
Max
Yeah, I mean, obviously you can make this work. And in fact, what I'm going to say if. If you want a vase like this made, you know, you can still, you know, donate a thousand bucks, right? We'll still, you know, make one for you. Because, I mean, I. If nothing else, I fell in love with stone vessels. So that's why I have like a hundred of them now. You know, they're all modern, right? I do. I did end up collecting some, you know, genuine too. But I mostly found that I am like a vase junkie. I just like the shape. And it was kind of fun to have this made, but I was astounded that you can actually, you know, shine the light through how thin, you know, the walls were on the black. You can't do it because, you know, the crystals aren't as. As big. But on this.
- [62:12]
Danny
What about those really tiny ones? Like this?
- [62:17]
Max
Yeah. I mean, you can do it.
- [62:19]
Danny
Yeah.
- [62:19]
Max
In fact, you know, the machine shop that makes parts for me for. For the. For my fusion project, you know, they have a C mill that, you know, we can use to make this, and it's currently in disrepair. And the guy said, well, you know, you fix the mill for me, you know, I'll make some of this for you. So I said, all right, you know, you captured my interest. I'll help you in a. Fix the mill so we can make them here as opposed to in China. And I wouldn't have to, you know, jump through the hoops and play this, you know, broken phone tag, trying to explain what we need. Besides, you know, I'll just give you a cnc, you know, drawing, and we can just program it into the machine. And I will grind everything perfectly. And there is no problem for the modern industry because think about machine tools. You know, cutters, you know, end mills and whatnot. You know, they. They don't grow from the ground. You know, they don't fall from the sky. They are machined. And, and this guy, he can machine, you know, tool steel, no problem. And how you do it, you have, you know, diamond tip cutters. And, and as. As, you know, the flutes on. On the cutters are elaborate. You know, there is, like, complex shape to it and whatnot. So none of that is problematic, you know, for a cnc. And you use diamond tip tools to do it, right? So it's just, you know, the approach I took, it's ended up being like semi machined. Like half of it, you know, was turned and the rest, you know, was machined with an angle grinder. And then this, you know, as I said, they turned out to be the same quality as Mat's, you know, most precise pieces. And you know, this in interest of full disclosure and honesty aren't as precise. But you know, when you look at the manufacturing process, you know, I, I saw where they didn't follow my instructions. But heck, you know, they balance, they spin and you can shine the light through it.
- [64:05]
Danny
Yeah, that's fascinating, man.
- [64:06]
Max
We can absolutely make them today. And this looks pretty much, you know, like Matt spinner. And that's where I got the inspiration from.
- [64:13]
Danny
The regular season is wrapped and the NBA playoffs are finally here. And there's no better way to get in on the action than prize picks, a preferred partner of the NBA. And right now, if you pick live squares during the NBA playoffs, you can win a TR for two to the NBA Finals. To enter, just make a $5 lineup with at least one live NBA player pick during any part of the 2026 NBA playoffs. Live player picks are picks made after a game is already in progress. I love how simple this app is. You open the app, you pick more or less on your player projections, you build a lineup in under a minute and then suddenly the game is way more fun to watch. No draft, no season long commitment, just daily fantasy whenever you want to play. And yes, prize picks is available in all 50 states. The early payout is pro favorite and most used feature. If your player gets off to a hot start, you now have the option to cash out your winnings before the game even ends. That kind of flexibility during the playoffs is huge. Download the prize picks app today and use the code Danny to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That's code D a n n y to get 50 bucks in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. Prize picks a preferred partner of the NBA. So let me ask you this. The vases that we know were made in pre dynastic Egypt, would it do those with the tools that we attribute to them?
- [65:33]
Max
Yes. And here is the interesting, like really interesting story behind it. I would say it goes like this. On my third visit to Petri museum I actually looked at some of the unfinished vases and they had a couple and I actually asked one that I photographed. I think it was diorite, maybe like an unfinished vase. And you could see. And if you go like through their catalog, you will see all of the manufacturing steps because it's a large collection, like thousands of objects. And in that thousand objects, there are some vases that were started but not finished. And by started, you mean an artisan, like, with a chisel, gives the vase its initial rough shape, so basically sculpts it with all of the handles, with all of the, like, essential parts. But it's not smooth, it's rough. And there are plenty of an example, plenty examples like this in Petrie collection. The one that I photographed was the vessel that already was in the. In some stages of smoothing, polishing. And I am actually writing a new paper on try, on reconstructing, you know, the technology. And I think how it went is after the object was chiseled and chipped and sculpted, it was mounted like on a shaft, and it was submerged into a sand slurry, like abrasive sand. Okay. And then it was rotated. And the reason I believe this is the case is when analyze. When I analyze the scans, I clearly see that the outer surface of the vase, of the predynastic vase was shaped by rotation of the vessel itself. It's. It's like glaring, you know, from the data. Interesting, because the. Yes, that's the unfinished object. And the reason I know that the entire vase was rotated is because concentricity is excellent, but circularity is poor. And the thing is, once you submerge this entire object in abrasive slurry, so it's wet sand, basically, and rotate it, you know, the longer you rotate it, the more around it will become. It's like stones on the beach, like pebbles on the beach. You know, just naturally sand and water gives everything around shape. So you start with a random shape, but this natural grinding gives you round shape. So the more you rotate it. So the rotation here was abandoned, you know, midway. And you see how the handles were, like, smooshed out.
- [68:11]
Danny
Yep.
- [68:11]
Max
Because that's what happens, you know, when you turn the thing. And I think, you know, that's. That's what they did. They turned it. And I think the objects got really hot in the process because once again.
- [68:21]
Danny
So that's what asphalt granite looks like.
- [68:23]
Max
No, that's. That's diorite.
- [68:24]
Danny
Oh, diorite.
- [68:25]
Max
Okay. Yeah. As one, granite looks similar to this, but it's got like big splotches, got it of black in it. So when you rotate it, like in a slurry, it gets hot. And what Barbara observed in her dissertation, she says all the Samples she ran through electron microscope. She says that the chemical composition of stone was altered, altered by presence of heat and water. That's what she observed. It wasn't like a virgin stone. So the stone was altered by heat and water. And, and when I read this, I said, but of course this is what's going to happen. If you dip this into sand, wet sand, and rotate it, it's going to get wet, it's going to get hot, and the surface going to receive this glaze. So most prednastic Egyptian vessels, at least in the basalt ones and diorite ones, they have this glaze on top, which you don't know what it is, but it's the same, you know, freaking stone has just been, you know, chemically altered by, by heat and water. And I submit in the process of this is abrasion, basically right in the process of abrasion. And this is a lapidary technology where this thing is rotated. And of course, once it's done, they would hand work, you know, the handles to define them better. And you just use, you know, grinding, you know, grinding stones for that. And I was able to identify a bunch of grinding stones too in what I think, you know, were grinding stones in the Petrie collection. And I posted some on my blog. More interesting is how did the insight. Right, so that's more interesting because what does my analysis tell me? My analysis tells me that the outer surface, the whole object was rotated, but the inner surface, they used a grinder tool that was rotated. And it's also very clear from the data that I published is because roundness is very good, but concentricity is poor. And this happens when you have a tool like a milling bit, boring bit that rotates and gives you nice round cuts, but you move it. And this cut is here, this cut is there. They're not like coaxial. And that's the thing I see on all predynastic vessels. So none of them like a perfectly straight inner part. It's this way, that way. Even a vase that looked like you could do just a cord drill wasn't done through a core drill. It was done with this grinding bit, which I think was a mace head. So there are this, a lot of this, you know, mace heads that, you know, were fit. And that was like Matt Bell's observation actually when we were discussing. He says, oh, I think that that foot, because this was, was clamped and there was a foot here that was, you know, cut off and it looks exactly like mace head. And when he said that, I thought you got it. You know I think that's the mace had they used but I think they also used it for grinding the inside because it has the perfect shape of the boring bit. And I found a few of these boring bits in Petrie collection in Manchester Museum and I published them on my blog. I see, you know they have this elongated, some have this elongated shapes and that what you need to introduce it vertically, you know, then you rotate it horizontally because the neck is narrow. So you put it vertically and then you rotate it and then it's on a shaft and you rotate the shaft and that's how they hollowed it out. And the other interesting part is I actually, I speculate, I don't believe it was manual labor. I believe they used some sort of automation for it. And it's actually very well established that they use bow drilling. And in bow drilling you have a shaft and you have like a leather strapping that goes around the shaft and you have a bow. And just this year a paper was published where they discovered an intact like bow drill complete with a leather shaft. They discovered this, discovered in, in a museum. They didn't know what it was until because you know, museums have so many objects that have been excavated and just tucked away and researchers stumbled upon like a perfect set of a bow drill, you know, complete with the rather wrap and, and even a bronze bit. So clearly it was not meant to find this, Steve. Yeah, it was not meant for stone drilling. But you know, if you replace the bronze bit with let's say a diorite or a flint, you know that will be suitable for stone. But the point is, you know, the bow drill was known in predynastic times and I think they could have used a bow drill, you know, when they made the pots, let's say when they hollowed out the inside or I actually believe they used water. And, and this is not like a wild idea or unprecedented idea because we know Egypt was a lot wetter, you know, back then. And you know, Giza Plateau had waterworks and channels and whatnot and, and the water level was a lot higher. Yeah, you got it. This is it.
- [73:33]
Danny
This is the bow drill.
- [73:36]
Max
You might need to scroll up a little bit. That's a leather. Is this the leather implement? I think it's copper.
- [73:41]
Danny
Scroll up. How a 5300 year old bow drill is rewriting the story of ancient Egypt. This was published like one month ago. Exactly. In examining the 5300 year old Egyptian artifact. Artifact. Remarkable. New research has confirmed the existence of far more mechanically sophisticated Technology than we ever thought possible from before the age of the pharaohs.
- [74:10]
Max
Yes. And it's not high technology. I mean, it's low tech, but.
- [74:14]
Danny
Right.
- [74:15]
Max
Ingenious use.
- [74:16]
Danny
And researchers at New Castle University. And can you zoom in? Academy of Fine Arts, Vienna reexamined the ancient artifact excavated a century ago from a grave at Badarri in Upper Egypt. The Artifact was only 63 millimeters long and weighed 1.5 grams. Cataloged as 1924.948 a in the museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge. The object was described by the original excavators as a little. All of copper with some leather thong wound around it. 63 millimeters long.
- [74:58]
Max
Tiny. Well, not that tiny, but you got it. So, yeah, copper bit with leather around it. So that brown thing is leather. Oh, what's left of it.
- [75:10]
Danny
What is it, a bow drill for ants?
- [75:12]
Max
Well, I mean, if you make furniture, right. Holes, you know, things of that nature or kind of any implement, you know, with a hole, even like palette pallets are very common prednastic Egyptian objects that you see in every museum. And they usually have holes for ice where they inlaid other materials like a fish shape. So you. That could have been used to drill a hole and then, you know, you inlay another piece in it. But, but the point is, I think they used, you know, some kind of automation. It. I think it's incorrect to think of, let's say, predynastic or ancient people as primitive. They were not as technologically advanced as us, but they were in general. And it means they found ways to automate tasks that were difficult and laborious in line with the technology available to them. And it's very well known that in Turkey, Heracopolis, there was an ancient sawmill for cotton stones that was automated by water. So there were water mills that were spun by flowing streams of water with reciprocating saws for cotton stone. And that is like 2000 years old. Right. So I would argue that something similar existed in predynastic Egyptian times where they use flowing water to actuate this stone grinding implements for the vases. So you can have a mill wheel that turns and then, you know, some. Maybe a leather belt or something or cogwheel that would, you know, make this thing turn and turn and you don't care, you know, you just put it in stone. I mean, put it in sand. Yes, exactly right. Hierapolis. Yes. Put it in sand, you know, add some water, you know, set it in the shaft and let it turn and eventually it will be, you Know, pretty darn smooth, depending on when you take it out. And how do you think they did
- [77:13]
Danny
the, like the petri core or those cores?
- [77:16]
Max
Good question. I don't know for sure. But one thing I can say, if you're talking about this quote unquote famous core, there is one famous petri core. I, I don't remember its number, but it's, I think it's a red number seven. I think number seven plus one granite that arguably has the thread, the spiral,
- [77:38]
Danny
the spiral spiral groove.
- [77:40]
Max
Well, I will disappoint you. I don't believe it's a high tech core for two reasons. One reason is when you use core drilling with let's say copper tubes or bronze tubes, even copper tube will work or even bamboo tube will work. Everybody knows it's not like the bamboo or the copper that does the drilling. It's the grit, it's the abrasive that you introduce. And this copper, it just drags it. And then when you do this, because this is a fairly primitive process, your core ends up being tapered. It's thinner at the top than at the bottom because the top portion was in contact with the abrasive slurry for longer. So it ground more. And this has actually been recreated by scientists, again myths, and by many other researchers who studied core drilling with copper tubes. You get this tapered core always. And that's how petri core number seven is, it's tapered. So that's like one, let's say trait that matches the idea that was core drilled using a copper tube. The other one is where the groove is observed. Well, lo and behold, when you core drill using copper tubes, you get these grooves, but these grooves aren't continuous. And in fact all researchers that have done it observe these grooves. And even there was a study at UPenn by two engineers who did some core drilling and put the resulting cores under SEM to look at the grooves and they observe, you know, the pattern of them to match exactly, you know, what's found in the, you know, core drills, core drills excavated in Egypt. So there is a like 100 visual consistency. And that, that's another point. And the third point is the, in a groove on the famous petri core is not continuous. You know, a lot of people looked at it and yes, and scientists against myths looked at it and somebody else looked at it. Oh, I think Knights Scarab looked at it too.
- [79:57]
Danny
I know Chris Dunn looked at it and he said that they ran a string all the way around it.
- [80:02]
Max
Well, I dispute that that finding because the other people who've done it show that there are multiple non continuous grooves there. Yeah. That are entirely consistent.
- [80:12]
Danny
Yeah, it doesn't. Watch again, just looking at the photos, it certainly does not look like it's a continuous smart.
- [80:17]
Max
No, it's, it's a bunch of different grooves because tiny little stones, bits of grit, you know, were dragged and you get this, you know, discontinuous mess of, you know, big and smaller, you know, grooves. So to me, it's, it's not a particularly fascinating artifacts. But there are other cores that I've seen at the Petri Museum, basalt cores that appear to be more interesting because I didn't see tapering on them. You know, I haven't scanned them, I haven't studied them, but when I looked at the pictures, they looked like, you know, just tubes. And I was like, you know, how the heck do you do that? So that was more interesting. So maybe in one of these days I should scan and study those. But, you know, because this so much work was going on, I couldn't do it this time around. Right. But the Petri core number seven, there is nothing fascinating about it. And I think it's time to, you know, quit claiming it as evidence of high tech. Because if it is evidence of anything, it's evidence of core drilling. And we've been able to reproduce all of the characteristics of that core exactly on more than one occasion. As I said, scientists against myths. And then there is another book everybody should read. It's a book by. Let me try to remember the name. My memory, it's. It's a British researcher, he wrote a book on recreating ancient stone working techniques. Okay, can't I remember his name?
- [81:50]
Danny
Well, when was it published or how old?
- [81:53]
Max
Fairly recently, maybe like 20 years ago. Okay, shoot. I have it referenced everywhere and I can't remember his name.
- [81:59]
Danny
Hold that thought. I gotta take a pee real quick.
- [82:01]
Max
Okay. Yeah, yeah, maybe it's. Hold on. We'll be right back.
- [82:04]
Danny
We're back.
- [82:05]
Max
Yeah. So here's the book. Yeah. So the book is by Dennis Stocks, Experiments in Ancient Egyptian Archaeology, where he recreates ancient stone working techniques, including, you know, drilling, you know, taking cores, shaping vessels, you know, cutting stones using copper saws. So I guess the point is whenever you study any subject, you really gotta study literature on it because a lot of people have done research, a lot of people, you know, done analysis, and, and you gotta absorb all of that. You can never ignore, you know, the body of work that existed up to the point where you decided to Enter the field. Right. And that's kind of what I ended up doing over the past year. You know, had to study all of the sources, you know, read these books and dissertation to see and even, you know, talk to people. We actually, you know, bothered to, you know, recreate, you know, techniques. So can you cut a granite with a copper saw? Absolutely. It's not the copper that does the cutting. It's the abrasive.
- [83:09]
Danny
The slurry.
- [83:10]
Max
Yeah. For that matter, you can cut copper with a. With a string. I mean, you can cut granite with a string. It's. It's not the string that does the cutting. It's the inner slurry, the abrasive slurry that does it. So. So things like that. And the bigger point. So ancient people were ingenious. You know, when you don't have the technology, you use your brain a lot more and see, you know. Right. How you can do less work. So that's why I never buy the mainstream archaeologists explanations when they concoct this elaborate techniques of how, you know, the blocks were hauled and how much labor went police. Yeah, because when I look at it, it's ridiculous.
- [83:49]
Danny
It's, like, totally insane.
- [83:52]
Max
I don't necessarily believe aliens have done it or Atlanteans, but I don't believe that people were hauling these blocks because humans are lazy, so we don't want to do the work. And then somebody would say, well, pharaohs would command you to do this. And pharaohs weren't stupid, because every slave who is doing stupid work is not doing something useful to enrich the pharaoh. Right. Or not fighting the enemies, not, you know, conquering lands, not mining, you know, something useful. It's business. So let's say you're Jeff Bezos. Right? So you have 100 million slaves. You're not going to make them do stupid stuff, Right? Right. Yeah. And so I don't believe, you know, pharaohs were stupid or kings were stupid and all of this, you know, monuments that we see. I don't believe that, like, stupendous amount of work went into them. It's just because it doesn't make economic sense. So these people. Another argument I would give is even if you had, like 100,000 slaves working, well, you got to feed them. Imagine, you know, how much food you need to keep, you know, this army going. And, you know, could your country produce that much food at the time? And if it could, would it live enough for the population or for the actual army?
- [85:10]
Danny
What is the official narrative, the official consensus on how many people built Those things built those pyramids and how many. How. How long it took.
- [85:20]
Max
I. I cannot answer this truthfully. You find it, Steve, I apologize.
- [85:23]
Danny
What is, what is a old handy dandy Gemini or chatgpt Tell us.
- [85:29]
Max
I just don't believe anybody would, would undertake for whatever reason, you know, such a stupendously expensive enterprise. So therefore, you know, I wouldn't rule out aliens or Atlanteans at this point. You know, I haven't studied the object like the subject too closely, but I don't think the explanation is just enormous amount of labor over enormous time. Because of the expense.
- [85:56]
Danny
Modern consensus estimates that approximately 20 to 30,000 workers were directly involved in building the Great Pyramid of Giza over a period about 20, 20 years. I call get the out of here.
- [86:09]
Max
It's just my feeling because I think, I deeply believe that, you know, people could be mean, but they are rational. You know, we are overall, you know, we're rational. If something happens that's irrational, we just don't know the reason for it. So somebody is, is doing something, but there is always a reason. And pharaohs and somebody else were rational. So if you're spending that much resources, I think your country will be ripe for conquest by somebody else. While you're busy feeding this army of slaves that are building some edifice. You have no food or no money to pay the real army. So anyway, I don't really know how the pyramid was built yet, or how
- [86:52]
Danny
those stones were moved or how they were elevated up there or how they were.
- [86:56]
Max
I think it's fascinating topic to explore and that's, you know, what I would like. It is fascinating to do eventually. I just don't believe it's a stupendous amount of stupid labor. It's just because we see evidence to the contrary. We see that the ancient people were ingenious. And that's another thing that the point I'm making in my paper that I'm working on currently is that pretty dynastic Egyptians were actually familiar with all types of subtractive machining. You know, we use now because that's what you see in the, you know, pro dynastic stone vases. You have turning and you have milling. And that's exactly the same subtractive machining techniques we use now. We use turning and we use milling, and they used, you know, far more primitive tools for that. So it was like a wooden shaft instead of a nice, you know, metal chuck that we use in the lathe. And it was like a stone drill bit or stone in A mill bit. Right, right. But it was, you know, actuated for rotation. You know, the same thing we do, you know, now we use, you know, belts and, and gears and back then they use this bow string or a piece of leather. But it's the same freaking principle that, what blows my mind that, you know, 6,000 years ago, however long ago, they were familiar with the basic principles of subtractive machining we know and use today. And that's like mind blowing to me.
- [88:17]
Danny
Did you know Fast Growing Trees is America's largest, most trusted online nursery with thousands of trees and plants and over 2 million happy customers. They've got everything your yard or home needs. Fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, even houseplants, all grown with care and guaranteed to arrive healthy. It's basically like having the best nursery in the country delivered right to your door. Fast Growing Trees makes the process super simple and convenient. I ordered a lychee tree which makes little dragon egg shaped fruits and it arrived at my house healthy, thriving and ready to plant. And instead of driving around to a bunch of nurseries and hoping you picked the right variety for your climate, Fast Growing Trees helps you choose plants that are actually suited to the native environment where you live. Every plant is backed by their alive and thrive guarantee. So you know it's going to arrive in great shape. And right now they've got great deals on spring planting essentials, up to half off selected plants. And right now our listeners are getting 20% off their first purchase by using the code Danny at checkout. That's an additional 20% off. Better plants and better growing at fast growing trees.com using the promo code D A N N Y at checkout. Fast growing trees.com code Danny. Now is the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use code Danny and save today. Offer valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. And, and I mean, forget ancient Egypt. How about Kailasa temple? Have you seen that temple in India that's carved out of the side of a mountain?
- [89:45]
Max
Yes. Yes. Have you?
- [89:48]
Danny
There's, there's no reasonable explanation to how anyone could even achieve something like that today.
- [89:55]
Max
There is actually. I'm glad you mentioned.
- [89:58]
Danny
Look at this. It's a negative relief. Enormous temple cut out of the side of a freaking granite mountain.
- [90:05]
Max
I might disappoint you here slightly too. Please do. There is a. They've built a temple in India. So the stone working tradition is alive and well in India to this day. So they have traditional craftsmen that use nothing but, you know, chisels. You Know, built a similar ornate temple in Hawaii. What is its name? Let me see. And was just finished recently.
- [90:38]
Danny
Really?
- [90:39]
Max
Yes. And.
- [90:39]
Danny
And the same way this was with
- [90:41]
Max
a negative, you know, very, very close, I would say. Maybe not exactly same way, but, you know, gives you the idea, you know, or instead of.
- [90:48]
Danny
Instead of building and adding on, you're taking away the negative space.
- [90:53]
Max
Let's see. A Hindu temple in Hawaii, maybe. Yeah, that's it. Yeah, that's a. That's one piece of rock. Well, I don't know about, you know, one piece, but it shows you the. Yeah, that's the temple. It shows you the technique they use. So the very intricate sculpting technique with just, you know, hammers and chisels. There are some videos on YouTube and I can send you.
- [91:19]
Danny
It doesn't look like it's one piece.
- [91:21]
Max
It may not be, but it shows you that the tradition of stonework is alive.
- [91:26]
Danny
Right.
- [91:26]
Max
So that's all done by hand.
- [91:28]
Danny
Oh, it's certainly impressive stonework.
- [91:29]
Max
Yes. It's not one piece. No. Right.
- [91:32]
Danny
But that Kailasa temple is one solid piece. Like, there's no moving parts at all in that whole thing.
- [91:39]
Max
I entirely believe this.
- [91:40]
Danny
And when was that built? Find out when the Kailasa temple was actually. When that was carved out of the side of that mountain. I want to say it was like 600, 750. 750.
- [91:55]
Max
Right. I'd be more interested in knowing how they made the, you know, Bear Bear Caves.
- [92:00]
Danny
What's that?
- [92:01]
Max
Yeah. Is it Bear Bear or Barbara Bar Bar Caves, maybe Bear Bear Cave.
- [92:06]
Danny
Where's it at?
- [92:06]
Max
It's in India.
- [92:07]
Danny
In India.
- [92:08]
Max
I cannot believe you haven't heard of that.
- [92:10]
Danny
I don't think. I mean, maybe I've seen it, but the name's not ringing a bell.
- [92:12]
Max
Okay, maybe I mispronounced it. Yes.
- [92:15]
Danny
I've never seen this.
- [92:18]
Max
It's a giant rock turd that they carved a. So they said to. Carved a cave inside this rock turd. That's like a polished finish.
- [92:28]
Danny
Can you find a video of this, Steve, or like a bit better photo?
- [92:31]
Max
Somebody actually scanned them. There is a, like a metrology company from Europe did a 3D scan of the inner surface, and it's like mirror finish. You can see yourself.
- [92:41]
Danny
Really?
- [92:41]
Max
Yes. Barbara Caves. Yes. It's a mirror finish and you can see yourself. You can see your reflection. So that. I have no idea how that was achieved, you know, that I would never buy that can done, you know, or just find a photo or something with chisels and stones.
- [92:58]
Danny
So.
- [92:58]
Max
So The. The temple.
- [92:59]
Danny
Well, look at that, look at that. It shows you the actual dimensions of it.
- [93:02]
Max
Yes. So the. Oh, that's.
- [93:05]
Danny
That's megalithomania.
- [93:07]
Max
Yes.
- [93:10]
Danny
Whoa. Full screen.
- [93:13]
Max
This. Yeah, Look. Look how shiny the walls are. Absolutely incredible. It's just like the caves we find on Barabar Hill.
- [93:23]
Danny
No one ever told me that.
- [93:26]
Max
Oh, that's why I'm here. So we're now at the Nagarjuni Cave. So there's three caves on this hill separate to Barabar Hill. This is the Gopika Cave, or Gopika.
- [93:40]
Danny
And this has remarkable carpet carvings in Brahmin script, which you can see in a moment.
- [93:47]
Max
Also a little. It's just mind blowing. I think this is by far the most interesting. More than tourists. But I wanted to show you artifacts. These are equally interesting monuments. Some of the finest polished granite stonework, just like we find at Barabar Caves as well. All of this is polished. As you can see the floor here, all the way along here, you can see. Can see the remarkable carvings here.
- [94:10]
Danny
It's got to be aliens, which I find fascinating.
- [94:13]
Max
It definitely doesn't look like I was choosing.
- [94:15]
Danny
That is insane.
- [94:17]
Max
And then we go inside it.
- [94:19]
Danny
Look how perfect that text is.
- [94:21]
Max
Well, text, never mind text. You know how perfect the walls are. I know you can hear the sound here. Consistent angles, consistent curvature. Wide this is. And it curves around this sound as well.
- [94:32]
Danny
230 BC, this was carved out.
- [94:34]
Max
Circle. That's the inscription.
- [94:36]
Danny
The inscription was 230 BC, which means the cave's much older.
- [94:40]
Max
There's actually the kind of level, the center of it is under the floor. The acoustics are incredible. And you can really imagine. I mean, these. I'm with some gentlemen here and they were in here meditating. You can see why it just booms. It's just. What an amazing spot. Holy. You see the beautiful kind of precision, the polished granite. Absolutely incredible. It's just like the caves we find on Barabar Hill.
- [95:12]
Danny
How perfect is that symmetry on that?
- [95:14]
Max
I don't know. I mean, I really would like to study the scans.
- [95:18]
Danny
That is fascinating. I cannot believe I've never seen that before.
- [95:20]
Max
So I think French company went in with the lasers and scanned it. I don't know if they published their scans or they could be obtained because then you can actually see how precise it's made. Because the point I keep making, you know, ice often deceive us, right. So you look at something and it looks really nice.
- [95:38]
Danny
Even if it's not precise. It is astonishing. That.
- [95:41]
Max
Is that why and why. Yeah.
- [95:43]
Danny
Older than 200 BC laser scans of the 22, 300 year old Barbara Caves in India reveal astonishing precision with granite walls polished to a mirror finish and curved symmetrical designs created within 0.1 degrees of accuracy.
- [96:00]
Max
I would say don't believe the AI
- [96:02]
Danny
summaries because it's, it's summarizing it off of a YouTube video.
- [96:05]
Max
Yeah, we really need, I mean, even
- [96:07]
Danny
if it's not precise, it's still incredibly, it's super impressive.
- [96:11]
Max
And it might be, it might be precise. I'm saying is I'd like to see the, the data, you know, the actual scans to really quantify it. I don't know if they published a paper, if they published scans, but it's freaking unbelievable. Barabar Caves. Yes.
- [96:28]
Danny
Wild.
- [96:29]
Max
Yeah. I think that's maybe even more fascinating than pyramids if it's really, you know, that precise as they claim. Because how the heck, you know, do you do it? Why?
- [96:39]
Danny
And what was it for?
- [96:40]
Max
What was it for exactly? What was it for? Clearly it wasn't a whim because somebody wanted a hole in the wall. Right, Right. Clearly served some purpose. Right.
- [96:49]
Danny
I would love to see a peer review on the, on the function of the pyramids. Like a, like a real thorough.
- [96:54]
Max
Yeah.
- [96:55]
Danny
Study done. Like, like somebody could take Chris Dunn's work, combine it with like Jeffrey Drums work, and do some sort of like collaborative interdisciplinary review of the function. But couldn't that be, would that be accepted by like mainstream journals?
- [97:12]
Max
I think so. And, and in fact, this is what, what is badly needed. So it's not enough, you know, just to publish a YouTube video or not enough to publish a blog post. Right. So at the end of the day, we need to, to produce scientific papers. And I think it's necessary for two reasons. One is when you write a scientific paper, you are obligated to include or address all prior knowledge about the problem. So this problem doesn't exist in the vacuum. Right. It exists with everything around it. So your explanation needs to mesh with everything that we know. Otherwise, you know, if you find a guy with a knife, you know, did he stab it or did he pick it up? Right, right. So you need to consider all of it. And the other thing is, so when you write a paper, you need to be like really diligent on the analysis and presentation of your data. It's never enough to say, you know, I think, or this is it. Like, you know, the thing that kind of bothers me about, you know, how Ben reports in his videos, he makes a lot of claims without substantiating them. Meaning, you know, Peter, giving away objects. Well, you can say that, like, in scientific literature, only if you produce a piece of evidence that supports that claim. Here. Here is a. Like, a paper that says, you know, this object, you know, was. Was given to this person or. Or something else. Right. Or you can never, like, show a picture and say, you know, these are stone vessels on the. And these. This is pottery. You know, how can you tell, you know, by looking at the picture. Right. It has to be, like, deeper analysis that goes with it.
- [98:47]
Danny
Well, I don't think Ben is making, like, bold claims on anything. He's simply just asking questions and observing things. Right.
- [98:53]
Max
I wouldn't disagree with you. You know, when I rewatched his videos, you know, he's making a lot of claims like that. And I'd like, you know, to use this as an opportunity to show how you cannot make claims in scientific literature. Right. Because, like, when you write a paper, like, every sentence that you write, it's either like, your own genuine observation or conclusion, or if not, you got a reference, you got to cite a reference saying, you know, if this is a clay pot, you're making that statement, then you need to say, why?
- [99:23]
Danny
Yes.
- [99:23]
Max
And, like, what analysis did you do to determine that this is a clay pot? Because when you look at a picture, you cannot tell, you know, a clay apart from stone. You know, they look the same. Right, Right. Or if you say it's a. It's a clay pot, then you say, because Petrie said so. Right. And that's, like, good enough. Well, you know, that's how science works. You know, we.
- [99:43]
Danny
Well, let me ask you this, though. If you were to publish your paper with all the same evidence, came to the opposite conclusion, you think it would have been published?
- [99:50]
Max
Yeah, I think so. Yeah. And here is an interesting story, too. I think we both underestimate and overestimate how scientific community functions. It is difficult to publish papers that go against the grain or against mainstream. I know this firsthand because a lot of my papers were rejected. I couldn't publish them because I argued against the point that was generally accepted. And papers are rejected for two reasons. You know, sometimes the prejudice in a certain journal is just so high to where mere mention of a certain word, you know, gets you rejected. And I give you an example of cold fusion.
- [100:43]
Danny
Oh, yeah.
- [100:43]
Max
As. As you recall, I'm also a nuclear scientist, so I work on nuclear fusion, and I research cold fusion, among other things. You know, I don't believe that cold fusion is, you know, genuine. It ever worked, but it doesn't.
- [100:57]
Danny
You don't believe it ever worked?
- [100:58]
Max
No, I don't believe it ever worked. Now, I mean, I used to believe like 20 years ago, but I had a 180 on it.
- [101:06]
Danny
Did you hear Jeffrey Epstein's email about it?
- [101:08]
Max
I think he was taking credit for something he didn't do.
- [101:11]
Danny
I think so too.
- [101:12]
Max
Yeah. But my point is, even though I don't believe in cold fusion, I tried to publish a paper recently where I mentioned cold fusion and I actually said I don't believe in it. But because I mentioned it, that was enough for that particular repository to reject the paper. And I know this is stupid, like beyond belief and particular repository I'm referring to is arXiv. ArXiv is the main repository of unpublished papers. So let's say when I submitted the paper to Nature, it took a few months to examine it and publish it. And what most researchers do, they want to share their papers quickly. So while the journal is mulling your paper over, peer reviewing whatnot, you upload a preprint to arxive. And it used to be that Arxiv was any paper you can upload, it was like a preprint server. Your unpublished works, gives a home, gives a link, anybody can read. And I do have like several papers uploaded in it, you know, like from before. But lately they've kind of evolved a stance on topics and they don't believe in cold fusion, they don't believe in UFOs, and maybe there are a bunch of other things they don't believe in, I don't really know. But they started applying this editorial criteria. When you submit a paper and they find a keyword they don't like, they don't accept the preprint. And the funny thing was when I submitted my paper on fusion to the journal, they said, well, no, we're not going to publish it unless it's published in another journal. And when it got published and they come back and say, well, will you upload a preprint now? They still refuse to do it. It's just prejudice. You can do nothing about it. It's just because they're so hard set on not considering certain things and there's nothing you can do about but wait for people to die. And I think somebody made this claim that physics make progress one funeral at a time.
- [103:09]
Danny
Yep.
- [103:10]
Max
I don't remember who said it, but it's very true of, of many scientists. So that exists for sure. Yeah. So I'm sure there will be journals and people who would never Accept that let's say high tech existed in the past, even if you find evidence for it. So I fully agree with that. But there are other journals that, good journals that would actually publish it because there is competition among journals. Yes, and, and I actually.
- [103:39]
Danny
Oh, this is the quote.
- [103:40]
Max
Okay, so Planck's friends principle, okay, science makes progress one funeral at a time.
- [103:47]
Danny
Yeah, it's a good one.
- [103:48]
Max
So. But there are other journals too, and good journals for that matter that actually would publish that stuff. And what I found out is Nature portfolio of journals is more receptive to fresh ideas. So let's say Science, you know, like Science magazine. Right. Science Journal, you know, could be more hard nosed in their choices of what they publish and whatnot. But I think Nature is more open minded. Nature portfolio of journals and it's the quality of paper ultimately that determines whether or not it's going to be published. So if you present enough evidence and that evidence is incontrovertible and you're not trying to do the like sensational claims and extrapolate into areas that are not worth it, I'm sure you'll find you'll be able to publish your paper. And now when I look back, the papers that I couldn't publish and got rejected and now I think was for good measure, for good reason because you know, they weren't good enough to be published in that, you know, in that caliber, you know, of a journal. So I do believe that you can overcome all of it if you do diligent work. And it might be that you need to publish piecemeal until you really have this in incontrovertible evidence. And, and nobody can say it, but let's take the in a Barabar caves as an example, right? So what I, and granted I have not researched that topic in depth. So I don't know whether the team that scanned them published their scans or published a paper. So I think, you know, the first step would be you scan it, you publish a paper with the scans and you just say, well this is what we've done, this is the data set and you can study it. And that's pretty good and pretty important publication because it gives data for people to look at. And that's what scientists and researchers must do. They must provide the data because without the data there is nothing to discuss. We can look at the pictures and we can speculate. It means precisely nothing because at the end of the day we cannot compare this against that. And that's what you need in order to drive a conclusion. So if you Chisel the wall. This is what you get if you grind the wall with an angle grinder. This is what you get if you use some high tech boring machine or laser or you know, plasma gel. This is what you get. And that would be like the second paper. You compare, you know, different granites, you know, working techniques like chiseling, angle grinding, you know, plasma torches, you know, lasers, you know, who knows? And you say what kind of quality of the surface you get. And then you take the published skin and you contrast them against, you know, these various, you know, machining techniques or you know, chiseling, you know, chipping techniques. And you say, does it look similar to any of this? And if it doesn't, you can say, well, we have a cave that we don't know how it was made. But you cannot say it was made by aliens or by Atlanteans or by gods or reptilian beings, you know, from Tao City, because none of that is present and that's speculation and that obviously you cannot publish because, you know, it makes scientific journal look like a yellow press, right? But you can say, well, it's not consistent with any known tools or techniques. And then you can say, well, look at all of the angles and all of the surfaces. And you can come up with the same quality metrics, you know, how perfect the angles, you know, how flat the surfaces are. And you can contrast that against like manual non manual labor or known like machine labor. And does it look more like manual or does it look more like in a machine? And then once again, you have a claim saying it's consistent with machining, right? You cannot say that ancient chiseled it because it's consistent with machining. So you imply that something else was there but you don't know what it was. And maybe you can say, well, maybe there was a lost civilization because how else we can explain, or maybe in other words, visitors from outer space who done it, because how else, you know, we explain. You cannot prove it, but you can show that it's inconsistent with chiseling. Or maybe at the end of the day you'll review the data and it is consistent with chiseling. You know, that's why I'm saying it's really hard to pass judgment unless, unless you know, the data is available, right? And that's what I strive to do in my line of work. You know, I publish, you know, all of the scans, all of the, you know, data, all of the spectrum data I collect for others, you know, to independently analyze and verify. And maybe they'll discover, you know, something that I missed because that's kind of the point of science. You publish what you've learned so that somebody else can learn even more. And, and that's, you know, how we build. And that's why it took 300 years to develop the theory of electrodynamics.
- [108:46]
Danny
Right.
- [108:46]
Max
Ampere worked on it, Volta worked on it, or airsted worked on it. And 300, 300 years later, you know, Maxwell writes his equations that are simplified by heaviside and we finally have a theory. But it freaking took 300 years because everybody did their bit and they published their findings and we kind of have to do the same approach and in archaeology and elsewhere.
- [109:12]
Danny
So going back to what you said about cold fusion, why don't you think cold fusion ever happened?
- [109:17]
Max
Excellent question. And, and once again, when I entered the FIELD, you know, 20 years ago, I entirely, you know, believed the narrative. And the narrative was like this. You know, Fleischmann And Ponce in 1989, you know, made a breakthrough at the University of Utah where it was 89. 89.
- [109:33]
Danny
Okay.
- [109:34]
Max
Can you imagine like 40 years ago almost. Is it 40? Yeah, nearly, like 30, 39 years. Yeah, well, all around it to 40, like nearly 40 years ago. So they claimed that the nuclear fusion took place in solid, you know, palladium electrodes, in a glass, in submerged in water, electrolyte, technically, you know, with some current passing through. They claim to have observed nuclear fusion in the, in such a simple setup.
- [110:02]
Danny
Deuterium.
- [110:03]
Max
I think it was deuterium and palladium. Yes. Okay. And clearly it was a sensational claim because fusion is believed to be a very complex process. You build this four story tall facility with plasma containment, superconducting magnets, lasers, whatnot, and all of a sudden somebody says, oh, I can do it in a cup of water. Implications are staggering. So that's why it attracted so much attention. Then what happened? Mit, Texas Tech, Texas A and M and some other universities tried to replicate the results and nobody could. Some people thought they did, but the more they tried, they realized, oh, it actually not what it is. At the end of the day, nobody could replicate the result. And the topic was said to be disproven. And there was a split in academic community. Some people were believers and said, well, the fact that you couldn't replicate it doesn't mean it doesn't exist because maybe your replication was wrong because it's difficult, you know, to replicate things that are novel. And that's kind of what I thought. I thought maybe that's really what Happened, people tried hastily to replicate it, you know, didn't work. But more specifically, there is intense competition for funding, you know, within academia. And that was the reason I didn't go into academia, because when I was young and naive, I thought, when you become a scientist, they give you money to do the research. That kind of makes sense, right? So, mom, I want to be a scientist. Why? Because I'm curious. So you get a job at the university and they give you money to do the research. And that's what a young, naive person thinks about science. That's what I thought. The truth is far more sinister than that. So when you grow up and become a scientist, and God forbid you're hired by the university, they expect you to find money for the university, right? And that. And two thirds or one half of that money will go to feed this bureaucratic monster, right, that exists. And one half or one third of that money, you know, goes to fund your research. So when you are a professor at the university, you're forced to compete with all of the other scientists for limited funds, grant money. And that's a vicious, cutthroat environment no sane person can stand. And I think, you know, Sabin Hossenfelder is a good example of, of a narrator, you know, who described what happens in academia and how people. People fight. Watch her channel. And I entirely understand where she's coming from, because I've been in academia, you know, myself, and that's one of the reasons I left, because I don't want to feed the bureaucratic machine. And then I'm forced to find funding. And you never can find funding to do the research you want. You find the funding for specific research because the system is screwed up. There is a bureaucracy that exists in the government that decides what to fund and what not to fund. So when you wonder why nobody's working on cold fusion or why nobody's researching vases or pyramids is because there is no funding for it. So you go to funding agencies and you see what grants they give. And the grant would be, oh, you do the CO2 conversion into something, or you do a solar panel, or you do a conventional fusion reactor, or you study Native American artifacts, and you can never find the topics you want to explore. And it's not like you can say, hi, I have this idea. Give me money for it, right? It almost never exists.
- [113:50]
Danny
Or could it be possible that, like, for, for example, the oil industry could be purposely thwarting that kind of research so it doesn't interrupt or just disrupt their.
- [114:01]
Max
Also quite possible I mean, also quite possible that. But I don't think it's the oil industry, it's the mainstream fusion industry. And it's actually not my speculation. And if you read the reporting on this subject, it's a very well known fact that the people that were most adamant against cold fusion were the mainstream fusion researchers because they didn't want their funding to be pulled from them or reduced and given to this other group. So everybody protects their turf. So if somebody comes up with a competing idea, this means next time you go for funding, DOE or DARPA or somebody else, they might give you less money because they'll give some money to this other group. In this case, scientists are hugely disincentivized to support any innovation because it always threatens status quo, threatens funding. And we tend to think of scientists in idealized terms. We think, oh, these are truth seekers, very honorable individuals. They're not. In fact, I would say a lot of scientists I've known are either narcissists or really, you know, nasty characters that are concerned about, you know, prestige and, and promotion, being on top of things.
- [115:18]
Danny
Tenure.
- [115:18]
Max
Tenure, yeah. Nobody gives a about truth because money corrupts everything. And once, you know, money started flowing into science, you know, money corrupted science. And now you cannot study anything. Right, because it's what you can or cannot get money for. But long story short, the reason I don't believe that the cold fusion was real is because it took me like many years to learn radiation detection. And that's what I specialize in. I specialize in gamma and neutron radiation detection, but mostly neutron radiation detection. Because whenever you have fusion, you always have neutrons. That's like a telltale sign of fusion. You got neutrons, you got fusion. No neutrons, no fusion. And I've reviewed all of the neutron signals published on this in a various cold fusion papers. And because I know so much about neutron detection, I could see the flaws in their measurements. They weren't following the procedure right. They weren't looking for sources of systematic areas. They didn't use the statistics or they abused the statistics. So in every paper I could find the Floyd radiation measurement. And that was the motivation for me to develop my own hardware and my own software for radiation detection because basically developed a standard on how to detect like low levels of neutron and gamma radiation. And that's what you need to prove that you have nuclear reactions. And when people claim, well, there could be some processes that don't result in radiation, I am very skeptical of that because nothing is ever perfect. Let's say you Came up with a way to do fire with no ash. Let's imagine that you burn logs, but there is no ash. That process will never be perfect to where there is no ash at all. There will be maybe burn this gigantic log, but you'll have this just a minuscule amount of ash nonetheless. So I think the same idea applies to nuclear fusion. If there is some exotic process that allows you to do fusion without radiation, it will never be perfect. There will be some, maybe just not the stupendous amount of radiation like from a conventional reactor that going to kill you, you know, if you look into it. But it will be, you know, some that you should be able to detect. And if you got none, you know, to me it's telling you, it's telling clearly you have like nothing going on regardless of what you claim. And the other thing, it's been 40 years, like nearly 40 years. And people, you know, kept researching it, researched it on and off and various private corporations issued grants and sponsorships, you know, big companies, we're talking big companies, and there is no result. So, so why is that? And, and I think it's because there was nothing to begin with. I think it's, I still believe it's a good idea.
- [118:14]
Danny
It's possible it could have been kept out of the public eye, out of public study and kept dark.
- [118:18]
Max
Don't think so. I, I really think.
- [118:22]
Danny
Well, because there's an argument for the study of anti gravity for that. Because there was a lot of development with that in the 50s and all of a sudden it went dark. And there's a lot of, of interesting.
- [118:32]
Max
I mean obviously it could be, could be that, but from what I know it doesn't have to be that.
- [118:38]
Danny
No.
- [118:38]
Max
Yeah, from, from what I know it would suffice to say that, you know, the data that's been captured either in error or insufficient, but it doesn't mean the idea is bad. So that's why I'm sticking with it because I believe the idea is bad. And that's why, you know, my research, you know, revolves around it. And I do believe I have some interesting, you know, results in some of them I published, you know, some, some of them I'm still working on. So I think we can still, you know, research it and figure it out. I just don't think we're there.
- [119:08]
Danny
What do you make of all these nuclear scientists that are going missing? There's another one that just went get, went missing today.
- [119:13]
Max
Oh man. Tomorrow morning is knocking. Stock your fridge now. How about a creamy mocha frappuccino drink or a sweet vanilla smooth caramel maybe? Or white chocolate mocha. Whichever you choose, delicious coffee awaits. Find Starbucks frappuccino drinks wherever you buy your groceries.
- [119:30]
Danny
Playoff hockey is a whole different thing. Every shift counts and you never know what will happen next. It's kind of like when Max explained how hard it is to tell if a vase is ancient or handmade. There's always something surprising. NHL on TNT has the best coverage with games that keep you guessing and a studio crew that makes it even better. Paul Bissonnette brings the laughs and Wayne Gretzky breaks down the action. So anyone can follow. Watch the Stanley cup playoffs on tnt, tbs, True TV and hbo. Max,
- [120:04]
Max
Israel killing scientists. I don't know that's, that's in there. You know, they're known for doing that.
- [120:12]
Danny
Israel's known for killing scientists in America,
- [120:16]
Max
in Canada for sure.
- [120:17]
Danny
Well, they kill nuclear scientists, I'm sure for sure. In Iran, yeah, definitely.
- [120:21]
Max
And in Iraq, well, in America too, there is a big story.
- [120:24]
Danny
10th person linked to top US top secret U. S Nuclear research has disappeared without a trace per the daily Mail.
- [120:31]
Max
Yeah.
- [120:32]
Danny
And you find the actual, an actual.
- [120:33]
Max
I can tell you another story, new story to this where, where the scientist was believed to have been killed by, by Mossad. He was building like a super gun for Saddam. So Saddam Hussein, he used to have this super gun that potentially could shoot, you know, ballistic trajectories for you know, thousands. And, and the scientists who were building it, you know, was a genius and I think when he was murdered, he was living in either in Canada was murdered like in front of his apartment.
- [121:02]
Danny
Huh.
- [121:03]
Max
And everybody believes, you know, Massad did this but you know, I, I wouldn't
- [121:07]
Danny
put it past him.
- [121:08]
Max
Yeah. So once again from experience, I think that's probably happening. I, I don't think people are being killed because they've made a discovery that wants to be, that people want to suppress, you know, which actually it's very strange. It is strange but.
- [121:28]
Danny
And not many people are talking about it.
- [121:30]
Max
Yeah, I kind of learned a lesson there. So I decided put all of my research into public domain. You know, I made this decision like few months ago where I'm not going to, to keep any secrets and I'm going to publish everything I've learned in nuclear science and public domain to where there is no point in killing me. Right. It's all been disclosed.
- [121:52]
Danny
Published 04-11-2026 updated okay. Updated the same day another person with links to America's nuclear secrets has gone missing as the disturbing List of deaths and disappearances in recent years continues to grow. Steven Garcia, 48, vanished without a trace on August 28, 2025 and was last seen living in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
- [122:12]
Max
Wow. Wow.
- [122:15]
Danny
Carrying only a handgun. What? So all these people are allegedly like connected to the Department of Energy and doing like nuclear weapons stuff, like secret. One person actually worked at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Oh yeah, there it is. Punching on that. So they're all dead or missing. Steven Garcia is the latest top science, top scientist detecting signs of alien life at NASA jpl. Frank Mywald, two people from Los Alamos, ABS Labs, scroll down. Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Two people linked to there. That is freaking bizarre. Why?
- [123:15]
Max
No, yeah, but you know, my, my belief remains that we probably don't have, you know, the technology that is being suppressed.
- [123:27]
Danny
You don't think there's any secret technology the government's hiding?
- [123:31]
Max
Not, I don't think to the level that we might fantasize. Clearly, you know, they have technology we don't know of, but I don't think they have anti gravity or teleporters or stargates or fusion devices.
- [123:46]
Danny
What do you think the stuff that the New York Times reported about in 2014 was?
- [123:50]
Max
What was that?
- [123:51]
Danny
The Tic Tacs that the Navy pilots saw on the radar.
- [123:54]
Max
I don't know. That's another thing. I mean I find, you know, UAPs extremely fascinating and worthwhile of research and I really hope that peer reviewed journals overturn their policy of not publishing papers on the subject because how do you expect to make.
- [124:11]
Danny
I think we're past, we're past the point now in the timeline where like you can't dismiss UFOs anymore. Yeah, right.
- [124:19]
Max
And that's exactly my point. We gotta study them in order to make sense of them.
- [124:23]
Danny
Right.
- [124:24]
Max
Because the way they're described and the way they behave, hard to explain in terms of conventional physics. Right. Clearly, you know, if you use the outcomes razor, it's much more likely to be like a government technology like you're implying that we're not aware of. Right there. Blaming on aliens.
- [124:44]
Danny
Because look, we have a government that likes to keep secrets and likes to lie to the American public.
- [124:49]
Max
Yeah, I mean that entirely.
- [124:51]
Danny
Those are two facts.
- [124:52]
Max
Entirely fits the pattern. And I think it's a lot more likely than aliens per se because we've never seen aliens. I've never seen government lie all the time. Right. So out of the two, you know, government line and having, you know, secret technology is far more plausible than, you know, visitors from outer space being here. But could Be the other thing too, you know, we don't know. And I think we need to research and I think we need to publish, publish the, the findings because otherwise it's just speculation and we're none the wiser. And government is not going one day just to say, oh, sorry we lied, it's up to us to find it. Right. So I'm all for researching it and I'm all for peer reviewed publications on the topic. And that's what pisses me off when this whistleblowers go and they present to Senate or Congress these hearings on UAPs. How come the Congress or any agencies haven't been pressed to release data on these objects? Because telemetry is available, you know, video footage is available, lots of other, you know, sensors. So these airplanes that detect UAPs, they have a bunch of sensors on them that collect information on these UAPs. So I think we should push for release of that information because that would enable a scientific study. Because what we're given is pictures and pictures are like the Plato's Cave allegory. You know, you see shadows, shadows on the wall. Yeah, you have no idea what that shadow is. And government has the rest of this information which are not releasing. Right. And that's, I think what must happen in order for us to gain understanding. And they say, well we cannot release it because we've, we are afraid that it's going to jeopardize like national security because you know, the secret sensors or you know, secret contraptions. I think this is bullshit. It's just an excuse not to give us information. So we could never, you know, research these objects and, and figure out what they are and maybe trace them back to the government or maybe identify them is a hitherto unknown natural phenomena or maybe establish, you know, instead we get
- [127:10]
Danny
documentaries with all the top officials, intelligence and military and, and government all testifying that all this stuff is real. Right. Like this age of disclosure documentary. It's insane how many government officials and, and intelligence agency officials are all saying, saying, giving testimony, sworn testimony that this stuff's real, it's hidden, secret, whatever, which any reasonable, reasonable person can sit down and watch and be like, oh my God, this shit's real. Like yeah, holy crap. Yet they will not show any evidence. Was like they're, it's like the ultimate gaslighting on society, you know, which exactly,
- [127:42]
Max
you know, highlights and emphasizes the point I was trying to drive, you know, throughout our talk that it's never sufficient to make claims without evidence. So if you have a narration or you're telling a story and you say this or that, this is all unsubstantiated for what I carry. You invented it, you know, you came up with it. And then the other point is people lie. People lie all the time. And how can you believe anybody without evidence? Just, you know. Right. Just believe me. I'm telling you. No, believe me. No, I don't believe you because I know people are lying for multiple reasons. Lying on purpose to mislead us, you know, lying to get notoriety and lying to get popularity. You know, lying for material monetary advantage, you know, lying to get laid, you know, you name it.
- [128:33]
Danny
And also, you know, to the point of the secret technology stuff, like if we were really testing all that crazy stuff, like we're involved in how many wars right now and there's been no reporting on any of this stuff being used. It's all, we're all, we're still using helicopters and.
- [128:48]
Max
Exactly.
- [128:48]
Danny
And aircraft, aircraft carriers.
- [128:49]
Max
So you think if he has had, you know, some secret, secret tech. Right. They would have taken out like Iran like that. Right. There will be like a radioactive desert.
- [128:59]
Danny
Right.
- [128:59]
Max
And problem solve.
- [129:01]
Danny
We're effectively losing a war against a stone age civilization.
- [129:04]
Max
Right?
- [129:05]
Danny
Yeah, we have all the top secret like so anti gravity.
- [129:08]
Max
Where is this? Yes, that's why it doesn't make sense. Yeah, I mean obviously, like I don't know for sure. Right. I'm just telling you, you know my personal feeling. Right. My personal preference. Right. Based on my experience with engineers and with scientists, you know, I have very few reasons to believe that some super tech exists. It's just because everything I've, I've looked at, I was able either to find a problem or find a mistake and, or people who claimed they had something 20 years ago still at the same time base they were 20 years ago.
- [129:43]
Danny
Yeah.
- [129:44]
Max
So how is that if you told me 20 years ago you had a over unity machine or you had something levitating or something producing power and how come you're not like a multi trillion dollar company now if you had that 20 years ago?
- [129:58]
Danny
Right.
- [129:59]
Max
And that's kind of the pattern with all of this crazy scientists, crazy inventors that you hear on and off. Somebody invents this, somebody invents that. But 20, 30, you know, 40 years later we still don't have flying cars and we still, you know, burn gasoline. So I just think it's people high a lot more than they should have.
- [130:20]
Danny
I think so too. How much do you know about this like uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons, stuff like that. We're talking About.
- [130:28]
Max
I know a little bit. I mean, I guess three things I know, and I'm not an expert. I know that Iran's supreme leader until he was killed, he issued like a fatwa. Yeah.
- [130:42]
Danny
In the early 2000s.
- [130:43]
Max
Nuclear weapons. And that makes sense from the standpoint of. Of their religion.
- [130:50]
Danny
Right.
- [130:50]
Max
So it's not approved. It's not. Okay. It's like any. We have Christian principles and Christian principles, you say you don't kill the innocent. Right. So they, they have the same idea. So I entirely believe that it's possible that, you know, the program, the enrichment program was civilian in this sense, that the. Iran is working with Russia on civilian and nuclear power. And it would think you'd be in a better off just, you know, buying nuclear secrets from Russia because, you know, Russia did help, you know, China get nuclear weapons and probably did help, you know, North Korea, you know, get nuclear weapons. Right. So it could have, you know, helped Iran in a heartbeat. So why haven't this happened for decades and decades? Because, you know, Iran has been working on it for how long?
- [131:49]
Danny
And that's another thing, apparently, from my understanding is they've been European enriching uranium strictly for, like, manufacturing and energy for civilian nuclear power.
- [132:01]
Max
Right. You need somewhat enriched, you know, uranium fuel in order for it to participate. Participate in the.
- [132:06]
Danny
The question is just like, what's the percentages?
- [132:09]
Max
And like, exactly.
- [132:10]
Danny
All that stuff is very confusing.
- [132:11]
Max
And if you recall, South Africa used to have nuclear weapons, you know. Right, right. And then they just, you know, dismantled the program and Israel has nuclear weapons. So. So the point is legend. And North Korea has nuclear weapons. Right. And just think how poor the country North Korea is, yet they have nuclear weapons. And Iran is much larger. So clearly, if Iran wanted to have nuclear weapons, they would have had them, you know, 20 or 30 years ago, because otherwise, you know, how you can explain that, you know, such a great country with such, you know, great, you know, technological potentials, still don't have them. And the only explanation is they never really intended to, otherwise they would have had it. Right. And many people would argue it was a mistake on their part, you know, because had they had any nuclear weapons,
- [132:55]
Danny
I'm sure they wish they would have
- [132:56]
Max
done it immune from the attack. But as I said, I'm not an expert. And I do believe, you know, you need to enrich. There's no you need to enrich for this.
- [133:06]
Danny
There's this conspiracy theory that I just recently learned about that is says nukes are fake, nukes aren't real. And I think one of the main basis of it is the videos, which is wild. The videos of that the US released during the nuclear first nuclear tests. Have you seen them of like the houses being blown apart? You know, I'm talking about Steve. It. So how did the cameras survive if these houses are being literally incinerated by these bombs?
- [133:37]
Max
I will.
- [133:38]
Danny
And how did the film survive?
- [133:40]
Max
I'll tell you something else. I do believe that nuclear weapons are outdated. Like when military technology makes progress. It's like every once in a while, old technology is discarded and new technology is brought in. Think about in the First World War, for example, right? Tank, you know, was the main thing that changed the static warfare into dynamic warfare. And Germans really perfected it. And that's why they had the upper hand, you know, throughout, you know, early years over World War II, then before that, why Napoleon became great because he figured out how to use artillery. So before him, nobody, you know, artillery existed. Just nobody knew how to employ it efficiently. And he really took advantage of it. And he was able to, you know, crash and smack his enemies like no tomorrow because he was an artillery genius. And then, you know, nuclear weapons were developed and. And now we think, oh, it's an ultimate weapon. And the truth is it. It no longer is because now we have high precision weapons. And that's what you really need to accomplish military objectives, which is war in Iran is clearly showing, you know, Israel and United States can bomb and destroy any target anywhere, like within seconds using conventional weapons. Because you don't need a large megaton explosive in it to destroy, let's say, a bunker or a launch vehicle or something else, Right. You need a small but precisely positioned weapon. And that's, you know, what the modern warfare is about. It's. It's about precisely positioning, you know, small explosives where they need to be.
- [135:22]
Danny
Right?
- [135:22]
Max
So you will not gain much by deploying nuclear weapons. In fact, all you're gonna gain is, you know, death and destruction of the world because, you know, the area is going to be mutually assured destruction.
- [135:34]
Danny
Yeah.
- [135:34]
Max
Yes. In a water we drink, air we breathe is going to be contaminated worldwide. You know, these weapons are untouchable because, you know, the second you start using them, you know, you end life on this planet as we know it. I mean, not like totally, but, you know, our standard of living and comfort, and it will just disappear because of all of the outcomes. So I think fall intensive purposes, nuclear weapons are dead because you cannot use them because it destroys the environment at such an uncontrollable rate to where nobody is going to Tolerate it. But there is more importantly, there is no like military reason to use them because you can, you know, you can do things a lot better and a lot more efficiently with, you know, precisely delivered conventional weapons. Hell, you know, with drones. Right. You know, you.
- [136:25]
Danny
So, so this is the video I wanted to show you of the, what the United States released when they first did the nuclear weapons tests.
- [136:32]
Max
Right here.
- [136:33]
Danny
Steve, can you play it for us real quick? In the 1950s, so how did they film this is the question. If that house literally got incinerated like that, vaporized, how is this camera, not only how is the camera surviving, but how is the film inside of this? Because this is shot on film, obviously. How does the film survive? If a film, if film gets damaged going through airport X ray scanners or airport security, how the hell does it survive this?
- [137:09]
Max
Well, I can have a plausible explanation. So clearly, you know, the camera must have been positioned in explosion proof enclosure. So it could have been a concrete bunker that is also screened with lead and whatnot to protect the film. Because radiation is directional. So when you explode a nuclear ordinance, the radiation is directional. So you know where it's coming from. And the shockwave is directional too. It's coming from the epicenter of the explosion.
- [137:36]
Danny
But it also, it also does like a sucking too. Right. Not only does it explode out, but that it sucks back in.
- [137:42]
Max
Right. But so, so in principle you can have a concrete bunker that is with an opening, you know, for the camera. And the opening for the camera is on the side, opposite to the side from where the shock wave is approaching. So I think you can in principle protect the camera from radiation from the shockwave.
- [138:03]
Danny
Mm, interesting. I wonder if you can ask. Ask God.
- [138:08]
Max
You know, once again, I'm not an expert. I just ventured an opinion.
- [138:12]
Danny
Yeah.
- [138:13]
Max
And I could come up with, you know, on the spot. This is a metal structure, huh? Right. But I know from, from geology, you know, trinitite, Israel, you know, trinitite, the rock that was formed when they blew up, you know, the first and nuclear weapon.
- [138:34]
Danny
What is it called?
- [138:35]
Max
Trinitite.
- [138:35]
Danny
Trinitite, yes.
- [138:36]
Max
It's when they set off, you know, the trinity, the glass was formed on the surface of the desert.
- [138:45]
Danny
Oh yeah.
- [138:45]
Max
And that became like a collectible rock because it's, it's radioactive. It has this glassification in it, vitrification from the heat of the nuclear explosion. And, and it circulates like all over the place. A lot of it, you know, was collected and given away. I don't think you can find it anymore. But you Know it exists, it's real, it's radioactive from that explosion. Yes. Trinitite.
- [139:11]
Danny
So that's the only way it can be created.
- [139:13]
Max
I cannot say it's the only way. But you know, to me it's, it's a tangible evidence of the explosion of the first nuclear weapon. Mm.
- [139:25]
Danny
What was the other? There was another element that was found on Earth that was also found on Mars.
- [139:30]
Max
That's very interesting. Yeah, that's interesting. So I don't know how to explain it. And that's an interesting. Because it's a radioactive isotope that does not. We don't know of a process that forms it naturally.
- [139:40]
Danny
Right.
- [139:41]
Max
So we know a process that forms it as a part of nuclear explosion, but we don't know if it can of any other ways it can be formed. Therefore it, it's a viable hypothesis. So you cannot dismiss it offhand. And in order to dismiss it offhand, you need to find another way that isotope could be synthesized and then you can challenge the nuclear war explanation. So I'm saying you have to be consistent in your logic, in application of your logic. Right, Right. So when you dismiss hypothesis, you don't dismiss them because they're crazy sounding. Right. You need to dismiss them only when they lack evidence. Right. And we don't have evidence for these xenonized forming in any other ways, then this is the only explanation. But in the future, you know, could be different, you know, as we learn more, you know, who knows what we don't know. But for the time being, I'd say it's the only explanation. Right.
- [140:40]
Danny
Yeah. The nuclear question is certainly interesting because that's, that's true, that's.
- [140:46]
Max
Or that Oklahoma natural reactor in I think in Gabon. You familiar with that?
- [140:51]
Danny
No.
- [140:51]
Max
There is a, a natural fission reactor that was discovered in, in Gabon. I believe it's called Oklo natural nuclear reactor.
- [141:05]
Danny
Oh, I do remember that. I think you mentioned this last time.
- [141:08]
Max
Yeah. So to me it's, and once again, you know, I'm not an expert on the subject, but whatever little I know, it's very difficult to explain that naturally because the premise there is this uranium is depleted. So whenever you mine uranium, uranium has certain proportion of fissile isotopes versus non fissile. So you have uranium 235 and uranium 238 and 235 is, is what goes in, into nuclear weapons and what goes into nuclear power plants and 238, nobody cares about. Yeah.
- [141:49]
Danny
So Earth's 2 billion year old natural nuclear reactor.
- [141:53]
Max
And I find this Very hard to believe, because the idea goes like this. In order for uranium ore there to be depleted to the extent it is, that reactor must have operated for many millions of years. And for reactor to operate for many millions of years, you need to have the conditions just right for many millions of years. A nuclear reactor is a very complex thing in the sense that you built
- [142:25]
Danny
one in your garage.
- [142:26]
Max
Right. In the sense that, let's say if. If the fuel is not sufficiently pure, you can have some poisons to develop in it. And those poisons basically would absorb your nutrients and extinguish your nuclear reaction. Or if your proportion of isotopes is not just right, your reaction will either fizzle out or it will result in. Into an explosion. And there are many considerations like that that students and engineers study in the field of nuclear engineering. So in order to build a functional nuclear reactor that operates for a meaningful amount of time. Yeah, let's say 10, 20 years. A lot of conditions need to be just right. And if any of the conditions are not met, the reactor will either stop working or explode. Right. And now you're telling me that by chance in nature, you know, the conditions were just right for millions of years. I just find it impossible to believe.
- [143:38]
Danny
I find a lot of things impossible.
- [143:40]
Max
It's far easier to believe it was a remnant of an ancient, you know, nuclear reactor.
- [143:44]
Danny
I mean, what about the sun? What about the moon? What about the universe? All of this shit's impossible.
- [143:48]
Max
Yeah, but, you know, with the sun, you have advantage of scale, and that's what makes it work. You know, sun, where we believe that the sun is the large natural thermonuclear fusion reactor.
- [144:02]
Danny
Thermonuclear.
- [144:03]
Max
Thermonuclear. Right. And the reason that works is because, you know, sun is so large and the gravity contains the plasma, so it doesn't fly apart, you know, does not become a cloud just because gravity holds us all back. And when we're doing. When we're trying to scale the sun down to, let's say to this and put it in a car, the problem is, you know, how do you contain sun in this small form? And that's the containment problem. And the best solution? Well, it's magnetic field, and then it's difficult, it's expensive. It requires large, complex engineering because you don't have this massive force of gravity to keep it all together. But in the case of the sun, you have this scale, and the gravity holds it together naturally. But in the case of the Oklahoma fission reactor, it's not thermonuclear fusion, it's fission. So where uranium fissions, as I'm saying is so many conditions need to be just right. I could believe it happened like for a few seconds and then it blew up or fizzled out. But for it to be right for millions of years, I think other explanations are more likely. Yeah, but you know, I'm not an expert on that topic, so I cannot really argue it it, you know, with scientists unless I study it. But just from what I know, I'd say easier to believe aliens built it or you know, Atlanteans built it because it makes a lot more sense. So we know this is possible. So we know that you know, aliens could have visited and built it or.
- [145:33]
Danny
Well, we also, we also know what we don't know and we, we what, what is also true is that we keep finding evidence that human beings at least were on this earth way before we knew previously. We there, there evidence keeps coming out that makes us older and older and older. There was this, this article that came out about a year ago about this skull found in China. Human skull that's over a million years old. So you know, it's certainly possible that we existed or some version of us, some multiple versions of us have existed on this earth millions, possibly billions of years ago that we would have no evidence for.
- [146:19]
Max
Yeah, Besides, it doesn't have to be people, right. Could have been reptilian billion beings for what?
- [146:25]
Danny
So less than a year ago this was published. A million year old skull rewrites human evolution, scientists claim. And then a million year old human skull found in China suggests the Homan Homo sapiens began to emerge at least half a million years earlier than we thought. Yeah, insane.
- [146:42]
Max
It's. You're absolutely right. So much we don't know. And you think Earth history is billions of years old. So maybe intelligent beings evolved in the times of dinosaurs or maybe you know, many times since. And this is actually a legitimate topic for scientific discussion publication where people discuss what traces of technologically advanced civilization, you know, you can find and in human geological record.
- [147:09]
Danny
Or maybe it's just us and we, we like lost the plot along the way. You know, like right now if, if there was a thermonuclear, global thermonuclear war went down, they'll probably, you know, one of the only groups of people to survive would be you know, indigenous tribes in the Amazon or like people who are current day hunter gatherers that would be become like cargo cults that would civilization would have to restart, but it would still be Us, it just wouldn't be how we think of us.
- [147:40]
Max
Yeah. Besides this, this happened in the past for sure. Because if you read about human genome, it's not diverse.
- [147:48]
Danny
Right.
- [147:49]
Max
In fact, when you compare human genome to let's say chimps genome, so chimps a lot more genetically diverse than humans. And the way it is explained is at some point in the past, and not so distant past, like entire human population came through a bottleneck of only like a few hundred individuals, Right?
- [148:08]
Danny
Yeah. I think we had a genome expert on the show, Kevin McKiernan, and he was saying that every human on earth came from like 20,000 humans, right? Yeah, that's the variation.
- [148:17]
Max
Yes. So you know, clearly this speaks of some kind of catastrophe that happened or
- [148:23]
Danny
when did that bottleneck happen? Find that. See, see, find out when the, the, the bottleneck in the human genome was dated to.
- [148:31]
Max
So that's why I want to chisel my poetry on a slab of granite.
- [148:35]
Danny
Yeah.
- [148:36]
Max
To where if.
- [148:37]
Danny
Let them all know that you made
- [148:38]
Max
it all happens, all the paper and discs will burn out, but they'll find this rock with my words chiseled on it and it will be the only.
- [148:48]
Danny
We need to go put it on the moon. We need to go put a bunch of hard drives on the moon. Major severe human ancestral bottleneck is dated between 930,000 to 813,000 years ago. The bottleneck lasted approximately 117,000 years, reducing the breeding population to roughly, oh, 1,200 individuals and bringing human ancestors close to extinction. H. I thought it was way more. I didn't know it was that low. 1200 individual.
- [149:14]
Max
I thought it was more recent than that one bottle.
- [149:18]
Danny
There might have been another bottleneck. Yeah. Find out the most recent bottleneck. Stephen, when is the most recent bottleneck in the human genome?
- [149:27]
Max
Just put that in there. F.
- [149:34]
Danny
Oh, it says the same thing. Find out what Kevin McKiernan said on our podcast if you can, but yeah, certainly. I mean written history only goes back what, like 800 B.C. something like that or. No, no, when is this. It would be Sumerian. Sumerians, right.
- [149:54]
Max
That's what I was going to mention. You know, if you read, you know, Sumerians tablets or Sumerians legends, you know, they say we were created, you know, this story of human race being, you know, created by gods, I think we should take it seriously. You know, why not make it a topic of scientific exploration? Because there are a lot of abnormalities, let's say in human physiology. Like everyone's back hurts.
- [150:21]
Danny
Yeah.
- [150:22]
Max
You know, why is that? Right? Then, you know, reproductive cycle. Why all animals reproduce only in spring and human beings reproduce all the time. And that doesn't make sense.
- [150:33]
Danny
And also we're one of the few, we're one of the few species on Earth, maybe one of the only species on Earth that our offspring is completely helpless for years from starting at birth.
- [150:47]
Max
Yes. But there is an even more fascinating subject. You know, the human growth hormone. And what's the organ in our brain that's producing it?
- [150:59]
Danny
Pituitary.
- [150:59]
Max
Pituitary, thank you. Yeah. And you're a professor at Penn State who was studying pituitary gland all his life doing experiments in space on NASA's space stations. International Space Station. Turns out pituitary doesn't work in space. So if human beings go inside, I've
- [151:20]
Danny
heard this, they go into.
- [151:21]
Max
Yeah, body falls apart extremely quickly. And one of the reasons is pituitary doesn't work. And he studied it in all his life.
- [151:28]
Danny
It's called pregnenolone Steel syndrome, I believe. Google that.
- [151:33]
Max
And they didn't find the answer. And they were joking. Oh, there must be a switch in your heel.
- [151:39]
Danny
A switch where?
- [151:40]
Max
In your heel. Pressure switch. Yeah. I mean, it's a joke. But that was, you know, after 40 years of research on the topic, the best answer they could give was a joke. There is a switch in your heel.
- [151:52]
Danny
Pregnant Steel syndrome is a theory suggesting that chronic stress causes the body to divert pregnenolone, a human, a, a precursor hormone, away from producing sex hormones like progesterone and testosterone. Type in pregninolone steel system syndrome. Astronauts. Because I think this, they studied this act, actually. Astronauts and chronic. Oh, so. So they're saying it's related to high cortisol and creating low sex hormones from DHEA to progesterone and testosterone. Yeah. Also, you know, another crazy thing is that, you know, when you're in space and you're around all that stuff, you're not getting any light, you're not getting any sunlight on you. And I know it's like really unhealthy to not get like UV light and full spectrum sunlight on you. That's why people get so sick when they are constantly inside under fluorescent lights.
- [152:54]
Max
So say you can make a good point and argue that humans were, you know, somehow engineered from more primitive beings that existed on Earth because this anomalies don't make sense. But if you consider them as a whole, it becomes a byproduct of genetic engineering or maybe unintended outcome of it.
- [153:16]
Danny
Also, pretty much every species, plant, every plant and animal on Earth is locked into this coherent symbiosis with nature, except for us. We're like the one that doesn't really fit, you know, like even down to like phytoplankton and everything. It works in this, this synergistic stream within nature. Right, Yeah.
- [153:41]
Max
I would take it even further. Why is the idea of God so infectious? You know why? We believe in God and we are servants to the God. It's as if it's ingrained in us by design.
- [153:51]
Danny
Yes.
- [153:52]
Max
We want to serve God. So we've been built, born, created. We have been created by God to be its servants. That's like the highest aspiration in human spirituality, to be with God, to serve God. Why is this? You know, I'm a scientist and I cannot escape the same thoughts, you know, they permeate through my poetry, through my feelings. And I'm thinking, why is this I am so driven, you know, to be with God, to serve God. Makes no sense. Unless, of course, you know, you've been built biological slave to another species.
- [154:30]
Danny
Well, just by the fact that human beings are, are the only species on Earth that are able to reason. Right. We have to. We know that we came from someone, that I came from my dad, he came from his dad. But if you extrapolate that all the way to the beginning of time, where did the first one come from?
- [154:47]
Max
Yeah, I mean, you can argue that elephants and dolphins can. And apes can reason to some extent.
- [154:54]
Danny
Right. But we're the only ones that can communicate it to our, you know, coherently and write it down and study it and try to figure it out. And there's no reasonable, there's no like, it's. It's like a gap in our understanding of where did the first one come from? You know, there must be some sort of creator. And I think it kind of. It fills a spot in the human psyche that kind of gives us a sense of purpose.
- [155:18]
Max
Yes, yes. You know, why do we need the sense of purpose? And I'm. I was thinking, you know, about this philosophically for the longest time, and I would say, you know, what is the difference between man and God? So God does not need a sense of purpose because he is the purpose. And we need a sense of purpose because we're not gods. Without the sense of purpose, our life is useless. So why do we feel that way?
- [155:42]
Danny
Right.
- [155:43]
Max
And it's in such a universal, you know, human thing is to have a purpose, to be helpful. You're not a person if you're selfish. And, and then it brings a blasphemous. Point then, is God, you know, selfish? Is God evil? Because it does need a purpose. It serves only itself or himself, you know, however you want to refer to it. Because everything that's good, that's human is, you know, you serve somebody. But God does not need to serve.
- [156:13]
Danny
Right?
- [156:14]
Max
It's a thing in itself.
- [156:15]
Danny
So also, if there is this all seeing, all omnipotent God, that means he knows everything that's going to happen in the future already, which means the future is already written, right? Which means there's no free will, Right?
- [156:29]
Max
Yeah. And, you know, which brings another interesting point. You know how in, in quantum mechanics, everything is indeterminate, that everything is probabilistic? And there is a Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics where there is no deeper truth to what probabilities tell you. So you can never predict what an electron would do. And many scientists find this idea uncomfortable because we're used to determinism, right. So. And the idea was, well, maybe if you include additional parameters, you'll figure out what the electron will do. You just don't have the enough data to make that, you know, decision. And Niels Bohr was vehemently opposed to this point of view because he believed on philosophical grounds in free will. And he believed that electron was in a sort of as a quantum of free will. It was a fool's errand. Try to figure out why electron goes this way or that way because he fundamentally believed it was free to do however it pleased. And it was stupid. Trying to question why did it turn left and why did it turn right? It's. It's like trying to understand in a human psyche. Right. It was that, you know, fundamental to him, and that's why he fought nail and tooth, like, what's the word? Deterministic explanations of quantum mechanics.
- [157:59]
Danny
Oh, Steve found more bottleneck info. Neolithic Y chromosome bottleneck, 5000 BCE estimated ratio diversity dropped to approximately 1 reproducing male for every 17 reproducing females. What does it say? Does it say, like, how many individuals breeding survivors estimated between 1 to 10,000. Thousand individuals.
- [158:19]
Max
Yes. So this is the total.
- [158:21]
Danny
Oh, these are different catastrophes. Okay, I see.
- [158:23]
Max
This is the most recent one.
- [158:24]
Danny
5,000 years. There's no number because it's so random. Yeah. Next one was the out of Africa,
- [158:30]
Max
which is what Kevin was talking about.
- [158:32]
Danny
That's one to 3,000 breeding individuals that
- [158:35]
Max
made it through right around 50,000 years ago. Wow.
- [158:40]
Danny
It's pretty wild. And those are the. I know. Those are the ones that, that we know about. And Earth is So many billions of years old. There's got to be so much we, we just don't know.
- [158:50]
Max
Yeah, that's why exploration is fascinating. You know, we are curious. Like Einstein said, I don't have any special talents, I'm only passionately curious. That's what we got to do. I've got to dig, analyze.
- [159:04]
Danny
I think if aliens are real, they're probably time traveling humans.
- [159:09]
Max
I'd like to think that aliens are aerial because, you know, you watch Star wars, you see all of this species and the life finds a way refuse to believe we're alone. In fact, I think probably George Lucas got it right. You know, maybe that's how who got it right?
- [159:25]
Danny
George Lucas.
- [159:26]
Max
Yeah, that's how universe is, you know, countless aliens everywhere because life takes it easily. So I don't believe we're exceptional.
- [159:35]
Danny
Yeah, I just think all the accounts, all the accounts that people have given that have experienced these things or allegedly seen these things, these like gray aliens have two arms, two legs, upright, walking hominids. I, I think that it's most likely they evolved here and not anywhere else because other Goldilocks planets that we know of don't have the same atmosphere, they don't have the same gravity. They're mostly water worlds.
- [159:57]
Max
So actually Veronica, my lovely wife Veronica makes a good point. You know, we have all cell phones and cameras everywhere.
- [160:05]
Danny
Yeah.
- [160:05]
Max
How come there isn't a good picture of any alien that they claim to have seen here or there or craft? You know, it's always blurry, always grainy, yet you know, in every pocket there is a cell phone with a camera. You know, what's up with that? Right?
- [160:22]
Danny
That's a good question.
- [160:23]
Max
And it just makes no sense. And you know, when you look at this perspective. Yeah, sure. I mean, I think it's far more likely that government is doing some sinister stuff that they do and blaming it on aliens because then there is no accountability. And we know that American government has done, you know, terrible things to Americans. You know, like LSD testing in California and enforced sterilization of African Americans and you know, wiping out of native American population.
- [160:52]
Danny
Yeah.
- [160:52]
Max
When all that, they've done it. So it's so easy to dress somebody funny and do some sinners to stuff and blame it on aliens. Then look, it's not us, it's aliens.
- [161:05]
Danny
Yeah. We've done some of the most sinister stuff. And regarding nuclear weapons in general, like not just, not, not even just dropping nukes on civilian populations, but some of the experiments that we did with nuclear weapons here in the United states on our own people, our own citizens and our own soldiers. Have you seen the nuclear soldiers? I get so many headaches every month.
- [161:27]
Max
It could be chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more.
- [161:32]
Danny
Botox Onobotulinum toxin a prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for Those who have 14
- [161:39]
Max
or fewer headache days a month.
- [161:40]
Danny
Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life threatening condition.
- [161:53]
Max
Patients with these conditions before before injection are at highest risk.
- [161:56]
Danny
Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection.
- [162:06]
Max
Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle
- [162:08]
Danny
or nerve conditions including als, Lou Gehrig's disease, Myasthenia gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.
- [162:17]
Max
Why wait? Ask your doctor.
- [162:19]
Danny
Visit botox botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-844botox to learn more. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone Paying Big Wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good
- [162:32]
Max
in this world, stop with Mint.
- [162:34]
Danny
You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month.
- [162:37]
Max
Of course, if you enjoy overpaying.
- [162:38]
Danny
No judgments.
- [162:39]
Max
But that's weird.
- [162:40]
Danny
Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [162:47]
Max
of $45 for three month plan equivalent
- [162:49]
Danny
to $15 per month required Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mint mobile.com the the US soldiers there's a great Vice documentary on this. It's called, it's called, I think it's just called Nuclear Soldiers where they took US servicemen and women, put them on aircraft carriers or ships in the ocean, and detonated nuclear weapons way off in the horizon and purposely had them stare at at the nuclear weapons to see what the reaction would be, what the long term effects, what the short term effects would be. Some of these folks are still alive and have to deal with all kinds of cancers. Sterilization. They said we were guinea pigs. Would you explain what the new nuclear bomb blasts feel like? There's a. Yeah, there's a video on this on YouTube where they interviewed a bunch of them. They, they have yearly meetups that they go to. And it's crazy. And not only. Not only did we do that kind of testing on our own people, but we also did where these things, experiments on the east coast of the United States. We've looked this up before, where we took disabled children and experimented with injecting them with uranium and different nuclear materials to see what would happen to them. And I think Bill Clinton, like, exposed all this when he was president. He came out and did some sort of a public thing where it was either like reparations for these families or something like that, but this. This all came out under Bill Clinton. Remember when we talked about this? Yeah. Crazy. It's just. It's crazy the stuff that the government has done.
- [164:31]
Max
I guess the evil has no limit. So here is the point I want to make. I think the purpose of life, of every good person is to fight evil. That's the only, you know, true purpose that we have in our life. There is so much evil all around. We all have to fight it collectively or else it will proliferate. And evil starts, unfortunately, with lying. You know, you lie. That's the smallest evil you commit. And then it goes from there. You know, violence grows from it. So I think that's the fundamental purpose of life, fight and combat evil. And you start just by being honest.
- [165:12]
Danny
Yeah, I think you got a great point there. I think you're right about that. All right, well, so to wrap this up, what are your plans for the future when it comes to studying these ancient bases and some of this ancient. Some of this stone stuff? And. And you obviously got your paper published about the vases. What are your next goals?
- [165:33]
Max
I do have some plans. Two things I'm doing. If anyone, you know, wants a vase like this, you know, just contact me, and you can donate money to research, and I'll make you a vase. And this is important because we're starting a new project. I have a partner now, Rico Horta, and we're gonna go to Peru to take some 3D scans of Peruvian megaliths, the polygonal blocks that I want to subject to the same rigor of study, where we can determine, hopefully know better, how they were made and what they look like by producing the data sets, the analyzable data sets of how the stones look in 3D. So 3D scanning, and he might call the project Scan Civilization or whatnot. I think it's important that we acquire and share data. So one person cannot discover all of the truth, but one person can help others by documenting carefully and by publishing what one finds. And that's what we would like to do. We would like to scan as many stones and artifacts as we possibly can over a period of time and put all of that in public domain, publish all of that for other researchers to do their own investigation. Because we need brilliant minds looking at the data and making sense of the data. So the least I can do is capture the data, provide you with high quality of data. But young minds, capable minds will see so much more in it. And that's how I believe, you know, we can move closer to, you know, learning the truth about our past.
- [167:23]
Danny
Some of the stuff in Peru is astonishing. The way it looks like it was melted together. They look like melted marshmallows.
- [167:30]
Max
Right.
- [167:30]
Danny
And it's like, looks like even with some of the stuff in Egypt as well, like the, in the ocerian, it looks like this stuff was just heated up and molded together. Would there be a way.
- [167:41]
Max
Yes.
- [167:41]
Danny
Of testing that to see if it was ever heated?
- [167:43]
Max
Yes. That's a second motivation. I'd like to be able to collect some of the samples from those rocks, stones and put them into my electron microscope and I'll be able to tell if the surface was modified, you know, what elements it contains and whether it looks different from. Yes. So I think it's very important to be able to sample some of this polygonal in a masonry blocks and subject them to microscopy to see how it was made. Because you will see if the surface was melted or if it was chemically altered or if some chemicals were used. You will see all of that under electron microscope. And that's what I also intend to do. And you know, of course I'm very interested in, in scanning, you know, sarcophagy in Egypt, but I realized that that requires, you know, permits and applications for permits and that one of the motivators for me to keep publishing papers because, you know, the more papers you publish, the higher your, you know, credibility and scientific community is. And that's what you need in order for, you know, to obtain a permit.
- [168:45]
Danny
Yeah, but then you join the dark side.
- [168:47]
Max
Not necessarily. I don't believe that. And I, and I could be naive and, and who knows, but the best thing, you know, we can do is try, right?
- [168:57]
Danny
Yeah, you should, you should try. You should try. You should try to have one foot on both sides of the fence and try to look at things objectively with nuance months and not try to look at it tribally.
- [169:06]
Max
And if, you know, if the journals refuse to publish my findings, you know, I'll publish them on my blog on my website. But it's important to capture high quality data and I don't know how to do it in Egypt, you know, without getting permits, you know, in Peru might be easier. We hope it's easier because, you know, there are lots of sites that are not restricted and in the sense we should be able to scan it.
- [169:30]
Danny
But yeah, have you looked at this Egypt scan thing with the big things that go underneath the pyramids?
- [169:34]
Max
Yeah, that's like freaking fascinating. I, I, I, but if there's a
- [169:40]
Danny
lot of issues with it, if you're
- [169:41]
Max
talking about the, what they like determine from space.
- [169:45]
Danny
Yeah, well, the, the, what are they calling it? Aperture Radar.
- [169:48]
Max
Yeah, I don't believe that. So that as a scientist and after reading the paper, I think it's utter and completely.
- [169:55]
Danny
Jeffrey Drum did a beautiful breakdown for us on this podcast of all of that stuff and all of the stuff, all the evidence they gave and all the scanned. He debunked it, all the technology and essentially. Oh yeah, he found gaping holes.
- [170:09]
Max
Yeah, it's, it's absolutely, you know, so
- [170:11]
Danny
yeah, like one of the craziest things was their scans showed giant king's chamber sized chambers in the central Coffre pyramid. And we know that there's, they're not in there and there's, there's just lots of inconsistencies in that stuff. And Jeffrey Drum does a really good job.
- [170:28]
Max
That's why I said, you know, all evil begins with lying. So don't lie. You know, be honest.
- [170:34]
Danny
Right.
- [170:34]
Max
And you know, in your own research, the easiest person to fool is yourself. So if you don't have integrity, you know, you'll fool yourself very quickly. So I may not deliver a sensation, but I'll deliver, you know, a good data set that you can analyze. Yeah. So if there are any listeners listening into this podcast and if you want to help with this project, you can help us. You know, getting permits to scan or just getting introductions to various, you know, museums or sites, you know, we could use that because, you know, we don't want to be breaking laws or violating regulations whatnot. So it will, it will take, I think, a collective effort of people who are really, you know, genuinely interested in learning truth about the past, you know, to pull our resources together in one capacity or the other. So we get the necessary permits, collect and publish the data and let everyone analyze and make sense of it. Because it may be different from what we believe now, maybe more interesting and more fascinating than we could ever imagine, but we need to be truthful and honest about it too.
- [171:44]
Danny
Well, super impressive stuff, man. I'm really impressed by, by how, how far you're, you're going to produce some of this evidence and replicate some of these results and, and, you know, call balls and strikes with this stuff because it's, it's refreshing in today's day and age.
- [171:58]
Max
Thank you.
- [171:59]
Danny
It's very kind for you to say so. We'll obviously link everything below, but are there any specific links people should be aware of to find your work and find you online or anything like that?
- [172:08]
Max
Yeah, Maximus Energy is my website and that's your best, you know, starting point because on my website there is a blog dedicated to Egyptology and to my fusion research and to general physics. And this is where you can read more about, you know, my ideas and my findings and all the links and references to the papers. So Maximus Dot Energy, and I'm not much of a YouTuber. You know, I do have a YouTube channel and the link is on, on my website too. It's either you do research or you produce content. So I kind of focus on research and I'll let you produce the content.
- [172:43]
Danny
Cool, man. Well, thanks again, Steve. We have Patreon questions. We have a couple Patreon questions. We'll do. All right, that's the end of the podcast. Good night, folks. You can't reason with the sun. Trust us.
- [172:54]
Max
We've tried.
- [172:55]
Danny
This summer, it's time to put that
- [172:57]
Max
angry ball of fire on mute.
- [172:59]
Danny
Columbia's OmniShade Technologies Ng. Engineered to protect you from the sun's
- [173:03]
Max
harsh rays that can burn and damage your skin.
- [173:06]
Danny
The sun is relentless, but so is our gear. Level up your summer@columbia.com to spend more time outside and less time slathering on aloe lotion.
- [173:15]
Max
You're welcome.
- [173:16]
Danny
Columbia engineered for whatever. Save on family essentials at Safeway and Albertsons. This week at Safeway and Albertsons, fresh cut cantaloupe, watermelon, pineapple or melon medley bowls, 24 ounces are $5 each and wild caught lobster tails are $4.99 each. Limit eight member price. Plus selected sizes and varieties of Doritos Lays, Cheetos, sun chips and Kettle cook chips are $1.99 each, limit four member price. Hurry in. These deals won't last. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.