Evidence for Ancient High Technology - Part 1: Machining

[Music] hello and welcome to Uncharted X my name is Ben and in this video I want to share with you some of my favorite examples of the evidence for ancient forms of high technology from the machining marks and construction techniques used in megalithic construction to the measurable precision and symmetry of ancient artifacts big and small these enduring mysteries are difficult to explain from within our Orthodox view of human history often brought from the very hardest forms of natural stone these objects and the techniques used to make them represent a class of out-of-place artifacts that seems far beyond to the known capabilities and the tools of the ancient civilizations we attribute them to these astonishing precision objects undeniably come to us from the distant past they are found on ancient sites yet often they seem far superior to the work that's around them the cruder and far less precise signature common to so many Bronze Age or primitive civilizations did these same civilizations also possess some form of unknown advanced capability or the advanced tools required to make such objects I suppose it's possible but there is an utter lack of evidence for any such tools in the archaeological record nor any record of them in these civilizations own histories is it possible that these objects are far older and that the history of civilization on this planet is longer than we ever believed could the ancients at least as we know them have inherited some of these artifacts and Ark texture could they have found them to be sacred incorporated them into their cultures and used them for ritual or for ceremony after all our own modern civilization has inherited the very same objects and we still find them to be sacred we still use them for ceremony even today the technology that's evident in this type of stonework is generally dismissed as mostly irrelevant by mainstream archaeology yet it's frequently found to be utterly remarkable by anyone with an open mind and the will to apply a basic analysis of the engineering principles that must have been used in their construction many researchers and experts from the past couple of centuries have done just this and they often report being utterly awestruck by these ancient accomplishments and left wondering just how Bronze Age or other relatively primitive cultures managed such feats from the luminary sir Flinders Petrie in the 1800s one of the very first to apply engineering principles to the evidence for precision stonework in ancient Egypt - a long list of modern engineers like Christopher Dunn stonemasons like Youssef Eowyn architects like Randall Carlson and many other researchers all with expert understanding of construction techniques they all find it very difficult to reconcile these achievements with the known capability of the ancient cultures our academics insist created them their findings support the idea that these could well be in fact out of place objects and that they require a level of technology that is far beyond that of the cultures that we attribute them to along with my own observations my own travels it is on this basis on the opinion of a long list of qualified experts and not those of mainstream archaeology or anthropology that I too believe this category of stonework - the evidence for unknown and ancient forms of high technology on topics like precision engineering tool making and large-scale construction it's these people we should turn to for truly expert opinion rather than those of tenured academics who write textbooks about the people practice as traditions and the daily life of ancient cultures archaeologists don't tend to write books about precision engineering and it by no means degrades the profession by saying that many of its members generally have only our limited interest and certainly no professional expertise in construction technologies even when the engineering or technological aspects of objects are addressed by mainstream archaeology it's always cast in the life of the known capability of ancient civilizations often leading to circular logic that goes nowhere something like this an example the Old Kingdom granite monoliths like columns and boxes must have been made by copper chisels and pounding stones because that's what we know that they had there's no proof they did it any differently meanwhile analysis of the objects themselves and the technology needed to make them is direct evidence for such an advanced capability after all we have the objects which is the result of the tools and we have the markings which is the signature from the tools yet this evidence is dismissed because there have been no tools found therefore the Egyptians must have made them with copper chisels and pounding stones because that's what we know that they had it's a circular argument and it's a neat way of avoiding addressing the actual evidence for precision and high technology in these ancient objects just ask where are the tools and walk away never mind the quantifiable proof that we have of their use that is represented by the objects themselves this is why archaeologists rarely consider the manufacturing of such precision objects because the answers risk upsetting this status quo of the story of history if you're asking about the analysis of the inside of the bars is we only dealt with the contents we haven't worked on the techniques used to make the poses if the Old Kingdom Egyptians didn't have the capability to actually do this work then who did and when many mainstream archaeologists and anthropologists are deeply vested in maintaining this story of history they derive their academic power and off as the experts on this story and of all of its aspects the motive to protect it and to resist change is somewhat understandable if admittedly frustrating at times after all resisting change and maintaining the status quo is the very nature of establishment before we get into the specifics and examples I want to set up a little bit of context as there are certainly a lot of interpretations of just what ancient high technology could mean and statements or terms like this get thrown around quite a lot in my case it's pretty specific I'm talking about the evidence for technology that is not explainable by the tools found in the archaeological record nor is it explainable by what we know of the capabilities of ancient civilizations I'm not talking about lasers or spacecraft or mystical energies and crystals I'm talking about the verifiable and measurable evidence of advanced tooling and machining of very hard types of stone and the advanced construction methodologies that must have been used in the creation of various forms of ancient megalithic architecture or artifacts this evidence isn't in every part of ancient civilizations in fact far from it and one of the distinguishing factors that I'll illustrate in this video is exactly this point that quite often this evidence all these objects stand out in stark contrast to the relatively primitive levels of Technology in the ancient work that's around them or even on them as is the case for much of the horror glyphs that have been badly scratched into precision made objects like the boxes and statues from ancient Egypt I also want to state why I think this set of evidence is important as it goes against the narrative of the development of civilization as we know it it's an important part of framing the wider argument that for a revaluation of the roots of human civilization with the idea that we've both risen high and been struck down by catastrophe before I've got specific videos on several of the other aspects to this argument things like the Younger Dryas Cataclysm the extension of the human timeline or even what the ancients that themselves said about their own origins both the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians trace their civilizations back tens of thousands of years further than we give them credit for and you would be hard-pressed to find any ancient culture that didn't have fire flood or Cataclysm myths in their own origin stories events that they're advanced gods or ancestors barely lived through and because of them were forced to restart civilization again modern science is validating the evidence for catastrophism and the grains of truth that are contained in these stories catastrophism is now part of mainstream earth science but its impact has not yet been truly felt when it comes to the cultural implications and the soft sciences of history or archeology with the 1980s what we see is this acceptance of catastrophism and earth history right and so that by the time we get to the turning of the millennium right by the year 2000 catastrophism is now pretty much an accepted paradigm in earth history but not necessarily in human history no this is now I would say is the next evolutionary development in catastrophism yeah is recognizing its role in our human story on earth and and that leads us directly into the issue of why for example we don't find that hard evidence for ancient advanced technological civilizations that the critics are so insistent upon is acquiring oh yeah I see but what they don't understand and this has become clear to me talking to them reading their stuff seeing seeing them you know on various venues is that they don't understand the scale of these global events they don't understand how extreme the Younger Dryas event and and and associated for shocks and aftershocks really were I think this evidence for ancient high technology is a vital piece of the overall argument for a revaluation of human history and our origins and to me it's an indicator for a past that is both longer and far more complex than the one we generally accept you know the one that says human civilization only really began around 6000 years ago even saying that at this point sounds a little bit ridiculous to me but that is indeed still the Orthodox position without derailing this video I do want to make a point here as I'm sure some of you might be thinking hang on hasn't the discovery and dating of gobekli tepe with its eleven thousand year old radiocarbon dating and deliberate burial hasn't this pushed back the date for human civilization you would think so and I and many others certainly think so but if you follow the mainstream debate such as it is or if you look up the entry for gobekli tepe on that bastion of establishment groupthink that is wikipedia you'll find that the site is still attributed to Neolithic hunter-gatherer cultures mainstream archeology you see rather than risk being wrong about their precious story of history a story from which derives all of their academic authority and tenure simply changed the definition of what it means to be a hunter-gatherer as if one of the largest megalithic sites in the world with hundreds of expertly made pillars and stone circles with individual pillows ranging from 10 to 50 tons in weight as if all of this was made by pneumatic tribes of loincloth wearing savages as some sort of weekend hobby you know the boys get together go camping get away from the kids to a bit of rock carving that type of thing it's ridiculous the site obviously requires real civilization to have been built it obviously requires decades of training and expertise for the quarrying shaping and the artwork wrought in the stone it obviously needed a large population base and diversified organized culture in order to support such activity we now know that Gobekli Tepe may have represented something even more important and more profound its artwork seems to represent a dating system and might contain a record of the Younger Dryas Cataclysm itself along with other cosmic events at the time dr. Martin Swetman author of prehistory decoded has discovered a strong link between the artwork at gobekli tepe and the alignment of constellations going back in time including what seems to be a connection to the Younger Dryas comets or cosmic bodies themselves I've interviewed Martin on this channel and he has an excellent series of videos on his youtube channel for anyone that's interested in his work all the science behind the Younger Dryas in general there's some links to those below or you could just buy his book I think that the late Klaus Schmidt who was the director for the excavation at gobekli tepe for many years I think that he knew that this site represented civilization but he was very cautious to not risk his archaeological career by coming out and challenging the status quo story of history with a direct claim against it instead he said that it represented a transition from hunter-gatherers to an agricultural society which to my mind is a roundabout way of calling it civilization such is the state of modern archaeology when new ideas or new data challenge the status quo things like the evidence for the Younger Dryas or for unexplainable high-technology or even the things ancient cultures said about their own ancestors these ideas are first ignored then they're attacked mostly by attacking the man and not the argument if attacking the argument fails then the context around the evidence is twisted such that it becomes essentially meaningless to the narrative of history just look at the treatment Graham Hancock has received by academia throughout his career for the crime of successfully raising such ideas and opening so many minds across the world most recently he was the subject of a full 27 pages of ad hominem and straw man arguments and attacks by Professor John hoops and the Society of American archaeology these articles are mostly aimed at Hancock's new book America before but rather than address the specifics of his arguments head-on they seek to reset the context around it framing it all as some sort of fringe esoteric tradition not worthy of serious consideration invoking Bigfoot ancient aliens Atlantis and all number of things that have really thing to do with Hancock's book the articles attempt to discredit anything that wasn't written from within the safe spaces of tenured academia as pseudoscience or pseudo archeology not only that but hoops also sees fit to attach the worst type of modern dog whistling course for outrage to Hancock's work and to the entire field of non mainstream history research I was genuinely appalled when I read this and I felt the need to deconstruct these articles and their logical fallacies in some depth on one of my recent live streams and there's a link to that one below hoops and his establishment crowd have also been actively working on social media to discredit the Younger Dryas cosmic impact hypothesis as nothing more than the recycling of ancient esoteric comet myths or catastrophes books from the 1800s written well before the concept of plate tectonics was even known yes people have been talking about comets for a long time and for good reason just ask the dinosaurs but accounts from the past have nothing to do with the modern scientific work that's uncovering the truth of the Younger Dryas event hoops chooses to completely ignore the now hundreds of scientific peer-reviewed papers that have come out since 2007 when the theory was first proposed and in doing so he discredits the many dozens of qualified scientists that are behind that work George Howard and Mark Young have put together a comprehensive list of all of the scientific papers surrounding the Younger Dryas cosmic impact it's in a bibliography on the cosmic tusk website and that's all the bibliography is it's a list with links to the individual papers it includes the papers for the impact hypothesis which is the majority of papers and it also includes those against it or critical of the theory despite not being involved in any of these papers nor even in the scientific disciplines that are mostly behind them hoops insists on calling this bibliography biased and from his high seat of academic tenure vocally and repeatedly recommends that instead of looking at the scientific evidence the public should only read the entry about the Younger Dryas cosmic impact that is on as he claims this to be a truly unbiased source it may not come as a surprise that this Wikipedia entry also strays far from the scientific literature it invokes Graham Hancock Ignatius Donnelly and it suggests the whole theory is a recycled idea from so called fringe authors and it only barely stops short of calling the whole thing pseudoscience perhaps it says this because it's professor hoops himself that has been writing this article just click on the revision history of the document on Wikipedia and the proof is right there it's brazen I'll give him that but he really must think that the general public like you and me are pretty stupid because I don't think I could find a better example of academic establishment bias than this in another recent live stream I dug into the history of this document and George Howard has a great new article up on the cosmic tusk that shows just how john hoops has been trying to discredit the Younger Dryas cosmic impact links to both of those are below sadly this isn't an isolated example of establishment bias and manipulation that gets employed in order to maintain the status quo of history in my documentary on the ancient egyptian tube drills I showed how Christopher Dunn confirmed the claims of Flinders Petrie claims for a spiral groove on the famous drill core number 7 and these grooves indicate advanced technology and these grooves were both measured and confirmed by done with modern tools I also show how done exposed the entire establishment argument against Petrie's claim boiling down to some deliberately manipulated and tilted photographs in a textbook these photographs were tilted in order to make the groove look horizontal on the page rather than spiral this actually gets quoted as an authoritative source in other mainstream textbooks you see we just can't have new discoveries or scientific evidence upsetting the mainstream narrative Wikipedia pages get edited photographs get tilted and gobekli tepe was nothing more than a weekend playground for bored hunter-gatherers okay derailing over let's get down to some examples of ancient high technology I've grouped these examples into categories and this will be a two-part video in order to cover as many of them as I can and I want to start with the evidence for machining by this term I mean the marks and indications of advanced tools that have been used to cut or shape stone blocks and objects and these tools are definitely not found in the archaeological record the examples take the form of saw cuts and machining marks and tube drill holes and caused striations and lines of varying fineness that indicate degrees of machining many of the objects with such marks come from sites known to exist during the Old Kingdom period of ancient Egypt or from other parts of the world that also had an equivalent Bronze Age technology typically with no access to iron or steel tools the tools that are found that come from these periods are primitive hand tools Flint knives copper or bronze chisels adzes or stone pounders these do not produce machining marks and clearly none of them were mechanized or powered what's more the old kingdom was not thought to have had access to the wheel yet in many old kingdom locations we can see the evidence for precise and powerful tools that certainly operated on principles involving the wheel and that seemed to have cut through incredibly tough material like granite diorite or basalt with seeming ease some of these machining marks left consistent and measurable arcs arcs that we can use to estimate the source size and these tools must have been truly monstrous they must also have been powered by some mechanism perhaps my favorite example of what must have been just a huge circular saw or perhaps a swing saw is found at the Old Kingdom site of aboo-seer this megalithic block of basalt that sits in front of one of these several pyramids on that site looks much like many others that are found here yet a close examination reveals some astonishing characteristics the top of this block although weathered from millennia in the desert has clearly been cut by a blade that has a very distinctive circular arc to it it left obvious striations and grooves in its passing indicating a rapid rate of cutting through this very hard material and a bit of water poured over the block shows these marks very clearly the block appears to have not been cut all the way through something that we are very fortunate to have evidence for as it also appears to have been a remarkably thin edge only a few millimeters of material as evidenced by the lip that is left on the edge of this block look at the arc to the saw and just try to imagine the diameter of the tool if it was indeed a circular saw it may have been as much as 8 or 9 meters or 25 feet or more in diameter some saw cuts that left precise arcs have been estimated by Christopher Dunn to have been made with sores up to 11 meters in diameter which is over 30 feet primitive hand tools made from copper indeed I think this particular block was never quite finished and it seems likely to me that many of the other basalt blocks that form part of the megalithic floors and walls on this site will likely cut in a similar fashion and then they were polished to an astonishing level of flatness which removed the grooves and the striation marks from the cut these types of large diameter saws were also used on many other blocks at aboo-seer and we see their markings in many other places at Giza and on other sites we have actual circuits that were started and not finished the basalt floor to the east of the Great Pyramid has several such marks made into it a close examination of the granite box inside the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid also reveals the striations and markings of great sores that were used to cut and shape it look for the flat surfaces on the top of this box inside the King's Chamber and also the faint lines that indicate the machining process that are etched into the side of this box as you enjoyed the just epic resonance in this amazing room [Music] sixty well when it comes to these types of boxes these giant saws were obviously also used to cut the lids from the same original block of stone that the boxes themselves were shaped from and in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo there is what's known as the unfinished box it has a huge saw cut showing how the lid was being removed from the back of the stone block I've also seen photos of circular saw marks made into stone at Tiahuanaco and Pumapunku in Bolivia although I can't seem to find the photographs that I've seen of them despite searching around a fair bit maybe you guys can help me out in the comments section below and point me to some of these examples it's certainly something that I'll be looking for the next time I get to visit that incredible place and just as a reminder using circular saws like this isn't the typical way any civilization quarry stone right up until we get into the modern mechanized age in these days we do indeed use huge circular saws or swing soars or other types of mechanized saws in order to cut granite but until barely a hundred years ago the technique used in the field to cut through granite was far different and far more primitive we see these primitive quarrying marks everywhere as the ancient Egyptian stone monuments have been used as quarry's for millennia now small hollows our first carved into the rock usually with steel chisels and it forms something that looks kind of like a dashed line you'll see this all over Egyptian sites and on many of the blocks after this line is carved wood is inserted into these gaps and then the wood is wet the wood expands the block cracks hopefully it cracks along the quarry line itself and there you go you have yourself a piece of granite the circular saw marks that have quite clearly been used to cut large blocks of stone don't match any technique known from the ancient world but they certainly seem to indicate some form of mechanized capability much like our own when we see these marks there is really no mainstream explanation for how they were made in antiquity other than with the idea of some form of two-men copper or bronze saw being pushed back and forth by a couple of guys using sand or some other abrasive material too slowly very slowly grind through the stone although this technique will indeed eventually wear away the stone it's more of a grinding motion than a cutting mechanism and there are really several problems with the idea that this type of saw made these types of marks firstly the obvious one it doesn't leave anything like the marks that we find on blocks like the one at Abu Cyr as it's a grinding process not a cutting process like we see on this block these marks are all consistent in terms of their radius this tool wasn't moved around very much in relation to the block everything seems to have been held very firmly as the saw progressed through the cut the very tiny width of the blade as indicated by the lip at the edge of this cut makes it nothing short of impossible that such a sword have been made from a soft material like copper or bronze and still managed to cut through basalt then there's the obvious problems it would simply take far too long to grind through all of these blocks in this way and many of the blocks that seem to have been cut in this manner are way way too large to have been done by hand with primitive tools like copper saws while this basalt block here at abbaseya isn't itself that large consider trying to soar or grind through something that is 10 11 or up to 20 feet long or even longer like the large granite slabs that are in the Great Pyramid or the great boxes of the Sarah pium and you can quickly see the issues with the idea of doing this type of thing by hand with copper saws the most befuddling evidence for some form of advanced machining comes from a notorious slab of granite that's found at the Old Kingdom site of a beaver wash it has the same circular saw marks these circular grooves that we saw on the basalt block at average sear but it also seems to have been subjected to at least a two-stage machining process the saw has been used to cut horizontally into the block as we're viewing it in this footage and it left the same saw cut marks as we saw on the block at aboo-seer however it also has a machined lip that's been cut vertically into this cut surface as if a very large circular saw or wheel was used to cut just a small amount out vertically shown by this slight yet consistent concave arc to this second cut this is a very complex mechanical signature it's not something that could have been made with hand tools and frankly it bends my mind a little bit trying to imagine just how this series of cuts were made Christopher Dunn has made an excellent study of this block at a Burrell wash along with the other evidence for mega machines in his book lost technologies of ancient Egypt I plan to produce more detailed investigations into the specifics of these circular saw markings sometime in the future and give it a treatment much like I have done for the tube drills but my intent in this video is to cover a wide breadth of examples for high technology and to try to not get too lost in the details speaking of tube drills or core drills there yet another example of machining marks that are not explainable by the tools or techniques in the archaeological record yet again here we have evidence for advanced tools that seem to have cut through tough material like granite at a rate far greater than we could achieve even in modern times and if you'd like some clarification of that claim please do watch the documentary about it on my channel there's a link below I will add that we do see evidence for core drills or tube drills in other parts of the world notably South America although not a common find there are many examples of large core drill blocks and holes in the andesite and granite of structures like the coricancha in Cusco i've seen reports and images of holes drilled into stone from around the world including some from europe and i think that all of these examples could benefit from lidar or hyper spectral imaging tests in order to help uncover their secrets even at puma punku-- which is a site we'll get into in the second video there are many examples of tiny little drill holes pushed into the andesite these may not have been core drill holes but they're remarkable in their precision and in their all most delicate placing nonetheless at the other end of the scale some of these tube drill diameters seem almost impossibly large certainly way too large to even consider doing it by hand something like this incredible coffer that's housed in the Egyptian Museum with four just massive tube drill holes drilled into it these tube drills have also been used to make some very complex objects like this one which is a hole a tube drill hole that's been drilled into a core from a larger tube drill which is also housed in a museum this block that's being shown by use of a 1 was at least last time we saw it located at Giza it's another example of a hole drilled into a larger piece that may actually be something from another tube drill but sadly this block is now missing it's no longer at Giza at least we couldn't find it and this is an all too common occurrence for evidence that doesn't really fit at the mainstream narrative using manpower alone and manual hand tools like pounding stones or copper saws and chisels it takes literally days of effort to grind away a very small amount of material in the very hard stone types like granite or diorite why then do we find clear evidence for over cuts in so many objects and slabs we find these over cuts on the precision statues of ancient Egypt you can find these over cuts under the arms or at the edge of the seat you also tend to see tube drill holes drilled between the feet there are other machining marks that seem to indicate some form of powerful industrial process was used to shape and finish the stone one of the best examples is this remarkable slab tucked away in a corner at aboo-seer that has many such markings on it blades or sores have dipped into the material and then backed out and cuts have been adjusted I can only describe this block as having been machined it's very flat its corners and angles are very precise and there are power tool markings all over it that seemed almost delicate in their application even the end of this slab appears to have been cut through and then you can see where the stone was broken away and just look at the flatness of these surfaces and the sharpness of the angles I really hope this slab is left where it is it seems small enough that it could be relatively easily carried away and I'm looking forward to examining it one more time when we visit Abby's ear again later this year there's one other dimension to machining that I want to cover and it's something that I've talked about before that is the polishing or the finishing of precision-made stone objects once again we're talking primarily about the boxes and the statues in many cases the stone has been worked to a point of reflecting light which is not a natural characteristic for grano diorite or other hard Stone's it needs to be worked extensively to get it to this point there appears to be several stages of finishing that's required in order to get to this mirror like finish and this process is best illustrated by the mighty single piece boxes that are housed in the underground catacombs of the Serapeum of Saqqara while most of these giant 24 boxes have been finished to a almost mirror polish there are several that show various stages of polishing which makes the whole complex all the more remarkable because it indicates that this finishing work was likely done in situ underground and in very tight quarters this giant black granite box one of the biggest boxes in the complex complete with its massive lid it's tucked away in a corner that's generally off-limits to the public and it has been precisely made but not quite finished perhaps because it developed a large crack in the end here this box shows the rough machining stage of work which was then followed by a much finer process that then flattened the surface but didn't actually polish it this nearly polished stage of finishing can also be seen on the under sides of the lids of the other boxes or on other surfaces of the boxes that were never meant to be fully polished and a careful examination reveals some very fine lines or some markings from some form of tool that must have been used at this stage here also we have other machine probably the latest there we saw how the rough machining reaches a certain point we have more machining here look at the fine lines is it yes that looks like the final process or the final stage of smoothing before they give it the shiny polish so the shiny and you see it here too vitrification on Australia I say the same a lot of the same thing about that stones include transformed you can see there's almost like a layer of granite on top that's it's polished like it's is layer then lastly we have the actual polishing stage that brings the material to the point of reflecting light even while covered in dust the perfect nature of the finish on these boxes really is remarkable particularly in some of the interior spaces in the boxes which appear to have been polished almost perfectly if you've seen my syrupy series you'll know that there is some astonishing evidence that a liquid may have been used to achieve this finish you can see the markings left by what appear to be liquid drops on the underside of the lid here so now this isn't a varnish or a polish at least as not as we know them and many people have suggested this to me that's not what this is because these liquid pooling marks that are shown here they are noticeably smoother than the surrounding material this is not a process nor a chemical that we know of our granite blocks and the slabs that we use are polished with mechanical devices and varying levels of grit before they're shipped to your house and installed as a kitchen counter now the Orthodox explanation for this polishing is of course cast in the light of the primitive capabilities of the ancient Egyptians academics claim that this polishing was done simply by rubbing sand and rocks onto the surface while this seems fairly ridiculous this might actually be a plausible technique for polishing a flat surface never mind how you got the surface flat in the first place but even if it took years to achieve it just isn't realistic when you consider the vast array of non flat surfaces there are many complex irregular surfaces that are on these objects that have been polished just as well as the flat parts it's not just the boxes that are polished we also see a very fine degree of finishing in evidence on many statues plenty of these are housed today in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and many of them are made from types of stone they're even harder than granite note how every surface is polished and in some cases the reflection of light is used to emphasize features like the rib cage on this statue or the chest of this seated figure the inside of the fingernails are polished the artistic lotus flower motif on this side of the throne here is polished and this polished finish which when shown next to the writing shows us one of the hugely obvious contradiction when it comes to the varying level of technologies that we observe in ancient Egypt the technology reflected in the writing on this statue does not remotely reflect the technology that was used to make the statue itself it doesn't even come close this is one of those things that once you see it you can't easily unsee it because you start to notice it everywhere the glyphs carved into these objects display the signature and the marks that handheld chisels leave when used on stone in a manner like this compared to the object itself the writing is generally always pretty rough work the builders obviously had the ability to polish any surface at any angle as I've just shown yet the writings are never polished even in large symbols with plenty of space look at this box for example although it's heavily weathered you can still see the light that reflects from its surface yet despite it being utterly covered in horror glyphs you can see the obvious hand tool nature of the work and how the writings were made by chipping away at the polished stone look at the writing on this box in the Serra pium we've looked at it before but I like to make the point that if the builders could make perfectly straight lines in the object itself they could make perfectly square corners like those seen on the interior why then couldn't they manage to draw a straight line on the outside of the box the simplest answer is because the writing most likely came later and was done by a civilization that lacked the same capability to work the stone the thing that would challenge the engineers today and then you will be challenged just by having the right answer especially that we have seen many many good examples of dynastic Egyptians relief and deep relief and high relief superior writers and we know that process over time we know the tools and as a stone carver and someone who been studying this I haven't seen really any writings and hieroglyphics even the best quality ones which I love so much relief or high relief relief that reflects powertools I have seen it in status and in boxes and in slabs but I haven't seen it yet in any right terms I know how it was done this is my friend Yousef Iowan he's a master stonemason a Kemet ologist and the son of the legendary indigenous wisdom keeper Hakim la1 and he's been studying these objects and ancient Egypt his entire life he understands in a way that few do what it really takes to work in and carve stone both by hand and with power tools and he really knows what he's talking about I greatly respect his perspective and his knowledge and I agree with him when it comes to the technology level that we see in the writing there's some nuance here to explain the dynastic Egyptian civilization lasted a very long time many thousands of years they eventually developed iron tools and although this was long after the Old Kingdom they certainly developed the ability to do very fine work into hard stone I'd imagine that being a scribe or a stone carver and writing hieroglyphs was a lifelong trade and would have taken decades of training to become truly proficient this proficiency in writing extended even to erasing old glyphs and replacing them this process is well demonstrated by an example here at Tanis on this obelisk fragment see how the bird glyph is being blended into the writing I think that this is why ramses ii seems to have had his name on everything once he tagged it it was his forever and we still attribute endless statues and monuments to him while i think the truth is more likely that he was just the last guy to write his name on something that was vastly more ancient undoubtedly some of the carving that's been done into obelisks and statues is really excellent work it looks very sharp and well-defined particularly on obelisks like this example at karnak temple however as yusuf said even with these examples he knows how it was done and it was done with hand tools he's lived and travelled in egypt his whole life and he's never seen any right that reflects machining or the use of power tools we do however see this evidence on the objects themselves on the boxes on the slabs on the columns the obelisks and on the statues the writing is without fail always used to date the sites and to date the objects that are found on the sites despite in many cases there being a huge disparity in technology levels how could anyone say that these poorly made scratches into this incredible box at the Serapeum were made by the same people that made the box itself yet this is exactly how we date and relate to this site and its objects at the Serapeum this box is considered to be the most valuable because it has writing on it I would prefer to call this what it is a priceless high technology ancient object that was inherited and then vandalized with a chisel by a later and far less capable ancient culture maybe it's high time that we opened our eyes and used some of our own high technology capability in order to re-evaluate these ancient places so that we might get just a few steps closer to the truth [Music] [Music] hey guys I hope you enjoyed that that's the end of part 1 part 2 of this series will be the very next video that I produce and in it we'll continue this investigation by taking a look at some of the logistics and construction methodologies around moving some of the really big heavy stuff we'll also take a look at what I think is the most convincing aspect of ancient high-precision ancient high technology which is precision we're going to get into all of the little vases the symmetry in the stone vases the columns the boxes the obelisks the various aspects of precision that are both measurable and quite evident in that video I'll also give you my opinion on what it is that I think we're really looking at here when we look at all of this high technology and precision objects that are mixed up in kind of the rougher and less precise work from other ancient civilizations I do want to take a minute to just say a huge thank you to everybody that does support the channel by the value for value model it it means a lot to me it's the only reason that I'm able to take the time to make and edit these videos whether you're doing that through patreon PayPal SUBSCRIBE start there's a bunch of ways that you can do it they're all listed out on uncharted XCOM slash support I also wanted to say a big thank you to Stephanie channel patron Stephanie for designing the new logo I really I really dig it I've put it on a bunch of new merchandise I'm using it in the videos as you can tell and yeah that's great I'm not that talented in an artistic direction so it was great to get some help there otherwise I hope you enjoyed it and I will see you guys in the next one Cheers you [Music]

Channel: UnchartedX

Views: 925,950

Rating: 4.826323 out of 5

Keywords: Egypt, megalithic, pyramid, serapeum, granite, tomb, pyramids, cheops, khufu, Osiris, peru, Bolivia, Giza, Technology, ancient aliens, Ancient, History, Archaeology, Egyptology, graham hancock, randall carlson, Underground, Catacombs, Limestone, Caves, Tunnels, yousef awyan, Apis, Greek, Roman, Masonry, brien forester, younger dryas, comet, evidence, science, scientific, dynastic, joe rogan, documentary, machining, precision, circular saw, polishing, puma punku, construction, khemit

Id: 6KUDu40BC5o

Length: 47min 19sec (2839 seconds)

Published: Thu Jan 16 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/crocodileghandi1]

It's not impossible that a combination of both lost tools and lost craftsmanship contributed to the manufacturing of some of these items. The drill cores and some of the circular saw blade marks (fyi both are called kerfs) are yet to be explained. We can see millmarks on a micro and macro level when they were made with stone or copper. One thing to take into consideration is there was iron components pulled out of the great pyramid.

[u/tn_titans_fan_08]

UnchartedX makes great videos. Quality content.

[u/capmtripps]

maybe its not machined. maybe its cast in a mold.

[u/Darkmaster85845]

I wish someone would try to reconstruct those jigsaw walls found in South America with copper tools..... Or even with modern tech.

[u/TheCrazyChristian]

Harmonics. They used sound. No physical contact.

[u/babaroga73]

Some of those walls are milled, brushed, but some like that in Inca temple looks like it was softened, stacked up then hardened. No sensible explanation why the irregular shapes and non-aligned contact lines, and also, if I remember correctly, we also lost even more recent recipe for Roman empire concrete, that seem to be of more quality and longevity than anything we can produce today. It's said they use volcanic ashes as additive, but the recipe is lost.

Also, Roman aqueduct system is a feat of engineering impressive by even todays standards. One system that is 50km long drops only 17 meters in height on that span, and one tunnel (in Syria and Jordan) is said to be 94 km long. That's ninetyfour kilometers long... tunnel.

[u/drcole89]

What's more likely... High tech stone cutting methods that no one has ever been able to find proof of, or highly skilled workers spending hundreds or thousands of hours carefully crafting something of importance to them?

[u/docgrippa]

I find all this stuff far out, and interesting. But I feel like it’s a bit of an insult to our ancestors. You expect some nerd in a university, that’s probably never truly worked with his hands to figure out how they did it? I’d love it to be something else, but it’s probably just lost skill sets...and lots of slaves.

[u/Jasonic_Tempo]

Were they cut, or moulded? That's the question. Lots of evidence in support of moulding, with a geopolymer. However, if that's true, then how were the moulds cut?