Speaker 1: Imagine for a second that a brand new hip hop
track drops, okay, just you know, in a studio somewhere
in Brooklyn, right way to night, exactly late night. The
energy is high, the producer lays down that perfect heavy base,
that hook that just sort of grabs you by the throat,
and within hours or even minutes, really, yeah, that track
isn't just in New York anymore. It's it's blasting out
of car speakers in.
Speaker 2: Tokyo, being remixed in a basement club in London.
Speaker 1: Right It's streaming on a smartphone in Cape Town before
it's even really had a chance to know fully circulate
in Manhattan.
Speaker 2: It is the it's the quintessential twenty first century phenomenon,
what we call the global village.
Speaker 1: The global village.
Speaker 2: We are living in this really unique time in human
history where transportation and communication have effectively shrunk the.
Speaker 1: Planet down to the size of a single neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Precisely, and we just sort of assumed that this level
of interconnection.
Speaker 1: Where products and ideas flow instantly.
Speaker 2: Right across, we assume that's entirely unique to our modern
digital age.
Speaker 1: We do. We look at our smartphones and you know,
our fiber optic cables, jumbo jets, jumbo jets. Yeah, and
we kind of pat ourselves on the back.
Speaker 2: A bit of modern arrogance, maybe a lot of it.
Speaker 1: We think we're the first civilization to really get global connectivity.
Speaker 2: We think we invented the concept of a small world.
Speaker 1: But and this is the massive butt that we are
tackling today for you guys listening, is.
Speaker 2: A big one.
Speaker 1: What if we aren't the first?
Speaker 2: Yeah, what if this global village isn't a new construction
at all?
Speaker 1: What if it's just a renovation.
Speaker 2: A renovation of something that existed thousands of years ago.
Speaker 1: That is the central question we are grappling with in
this deep dive.
Speaker 2: Because if you open, say a standard history textbook, or.
Speaker 1: Speak to a mainstream archaeologist.
Speaker 2: Right, they will paint a picture of total isolation doubles exactly.
They'll tell you that the ancient civilization's the Pacific, the
builders in Asia, the master Masons of South.
Speaker 1: America, they all developed and independent bubbles. The isolationist theory
basically the idea that everyone was.
Speaker 2: Grounded, grounded, and separated. The standard narrative is that they
didn't call.
Speaker 1: Each other, they didn't trade with each.
Speaker 2: Other, supposedly they didn't even know the others.
Speaker 1: Existed, which is wild to think about.
Speaker 2: They were just islands of humanity separated by these insurmountable.
Speaker 1: Oceans, vast desert.
Speaker 2: Continents that were just impossible to cross.
Speaker 1: The Atlantic and Pacific were barriers, not highways, right, which,
when you look at how similar some of their stuff is.
Speaker 2: It feels a bit suspicious.
Speaker 1: It really does. I mean, we're seeing pyramids everywhere Egypt, Mexico.
We're seeing similar gold work, similar legends about, you know,
gods coming from the sky.
Speaker 2: It feels like finding the exact same graffiti tag in
New York and Antarctica exactly.
Speaker 1: And today we are pulling on a thread that suggests
these weren't coincidences.
Speaker 2: Not at all. We are looking at source material that
argues there was a literal worldwide trade route thousands of
years ago.
Speaker 1: And the kicker here it wasn't powered by camels, no
or wooden boats drifting on the current.
Speaker 2: The theory we are examining today suggests this ancient worldwide web.
Speaker 1: Was powered by advanced aviation technology air travel. We are
talking frequent flyer miles in three thousand BC. It sounds wild,
It does We're talking about the worldwide web of antiquity,
but instead of servers, it's flight paths. So welcome to
thrilling threads.
Speaker 2: Glad to be here.
Speaker 1: I am ready to have my mind blown today, but
I have to be honest with you. I'm also going
to need some serious convincing. Sure enough, ancient airplanes is
a heavy claim. It sounds like straight up science fiction.
Speaker 2: That is healthy skepticism, and frankly, it's required for a
deep dive like this. Good. We aren't here to just
blindly accept stories, right. We are here to weigh the
evidence presented by the source material.
Speaker 1: So what are we looking at?
Speaker 2: We are going to look at the arguments from proponents
of the ancient astronaut theory. Okay, researchers like David Childress,
algan Ingboom Georgi A Sucolos are going to look at
the infrastructure, the legends, the map, and even a NASA
engineer's highly technical analysis of the Bible.
Speaker 1: Because we aren't just looking at campfire stories today. We
are looking for the nuts and bolts exactly.
Speaker 2: We are asking the hard questions if this system existed,
how did it work, where did they land? How do
they navigate.
Speaker 1: It's an investigation into the logistics of the impossible.
Speaker 2: So let's unpack this.
Speaker 1: Let's do it. If we are claiming people were flying
around the globe thousands of years ago.
Speaker 2: We aren't talking about hot air balloons, no.
Speaker 1: Or kites or gliders made of reeds.
Speaker 2: We're talking about machines.
Speaker 1: Complex machines. And the source material uses a very specific
word that just keeps popping up, vanas vmanas. What exactly
is a vimana.
Speaker 2: Vmana is a term originally from ancient Sanskrit texts in India, Okay,
in the classical translations of the Ramiana or the Mahabarata.
Speaker 1: Which are epics that are thousands of your goal thousands.
Speaker 2: In those texts, it refers to flying palaces or chariots
of the gods.
Speaker 1: Flying palaces. I gotta say that sounds less like a
fighter jet and more like a luxury liner.
Speaker 2: Well, sometimes they are described as huge, multi decked.
Speaker 1: Craft like a cruise ship in the sky.
Speaker 2: Sort of, and sometimes they're described as smaller, single pilot vehicles.
Got it. But in the context of our discussion today,
and this is noted heavily by researcher Elgend Ingboom. Okay,
the vimana represents the missing link of ancient history.
Speaker 1: The missing link between cultures. Yes, because usually when I
hear a missing link, I immediately think of evolution. You know,
apes to humans.
Speaker 2: Right, biological evolution. But think of this in terms of
cultural evolution.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm tracking.
Speaker 2: If you accept the mainstream view, the similarities between a
temple in Mexico and a temple in Indonesia.
Speaker 1: Are just bizarre coincidences exactly.
Speaker 2: Historians call it parallel invention.
Speaker 1: Parallel invention the idea that humans just naturally come up
with pyramids independently.
Speaker 2: And gold masks and mummifications.
Speaker 1: Because those are just obvious things to make.
Speaker 2: That's the mainstream argument.
Speaker 1: Which, to be fair, is possible. A pyramid is a
highly stable shape. It is, if you pile up a
bunch of rocks, eventually you get a pyramid. It just
makes structural sense.
Speaker 2: That's entirely true. But in Boom argues that the similarities
go way beyond just a stable pile of rocks. They're
too specific, too specific, too nuanced. He suggests that if
you introduce the vimana into the equation.
Speaker 1: A machine capable of rapid global flight.
Speaker 2: Suddenly those similarities make total sense.
Speaker 1: It's not coincidence anymore.
Speaker 2: It's contact.
Speaker 1: Ah.
Speaker 2: The Viaimana is the vehicle that allowed culture, technology, and
trade to flow from one part of the world to another.
Speaker 1: In a very short time.
Speaker 2: Right. It's the difference between walking across the United States,
which takes months and is incredibly dangerous, yeah.
Speaker 1: Versus flying, which takes what five hours?
Speaker 2: Exactly. If you can fly, the world gets infinitely smaller.
Speaker 1: You can share architectural blueprints, you can share religious ideas,
agricultural techniques.
Speaker 2: It's a game changer.
Speaker 1: In Boom's point is that the Vermana collapses the timeline.
Speaker 2: It allows for a synchronization of ancient cultures.
Speaker 1: That simply shouldn't exist if everyone was just walking or
sailing on crude rafts.
Speaker 2: It explains why we find those out of place artifacts.
Speaker 1: The anomalous finds, like traces of Egyptian substances in the Americas.
Speaker 2: Or Asian DNA and ancient South America, things.
Speaker 1: That mainstream history really struggles to explain without doing mental gymnastics.
Speaker 2: It paints a picture of a world that was buzzing
with activity, not.
Speaker 1: Sleeping in isolation exactly. And here is the logistical snag
that always trips me up when I look at this stuff.
Speaker 2: Let's hear it.
Speaker 1: Let's say I buy the idea that they have the machines. Okay,
let's say I accept the vemana. Sure, if I have
a plane today, even just a small Sessena, I can't
just land it in a dense jungle or on the
side of a rocky cliff.
Speaker 2: No, you'd crash.
Speaker 1: I need infrastructure.
Speaker 2: You need a runway, I.
Speaker 1: Need a hangar, I need a control tower. If these
guys had a global network, where are the ancient airports?
Can't just hide an airport.
Speaker 2: And that is exactly where David Childress makes a very
compelling comparison to modern logistics.
Speaker 1: Okay, what does Childress say?
Speaker 2: He points out that if we have aircraft today, we
inevitably have airports situated in strategic locations globally.
Speaker 1: You need a hub, you need.
Speaker 2: A flat surface, right, And Childres argues that when we
look at certain anomalous archaeological sites, we're looking at the hubs.
We are seeing the fossilized remains of ancient airports.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's talk about these ancient airports. That's two,
the most famous one The one literally everyone points to
is Nasca.
Speaker 2: In Peru, the Nasca Lines.
Speaker 1: We've all seen the pictures, those massive geometric lines and
animal shapes just etched into the desert floor.
Speaker 2: They stretch for miles and miles.
Speaker 1: Nasga is the classic example for this theory.
Speaker 2: Is a massive plateau, high up, very.
Speaker 1: Arid, and from the ground, if you're just you know,
walking out there.
Speaker 2: The lines just look like shell trenches in the dirt.
Speaker 1: You can't even really tell what they are from eye level.
Speaker 2: No, you might walk right over the famous monkey or
the spider and never even.
Speaker 1: Know it because they are just too big. We're talking
macro engineering precisely.
Speaker 2: But from the air.
Speaker 1: They look incredibly precise.
Speaker 2: They pop out a landscape. And the argument from the
source material is that some of those wide flat bands.
Speaker 1: Because they aren't all animals, right, Some are just massive
geometric rectangle right.
Speaker 2: And some of those look exactly like modern airstrips.
Speaker 1: So the theory is they were runways for a worldwide
air transportation system.
Speaker 2: That's the claim.
Speaker 1: But let's play Devil's advocate here for you guys listening,
please do. Mainstream archaeology says these were processional routes, right, yes,
like paths for religious ceremonies.
Speaker 2: That is the standard accepted view that the lines were
walked upon by.
Speaker 1: Priests to pray for rain or worship mountain deities, And that.
Speaker 2: Is certainly possible. Humans do incredibly strange and labor intensive
things for religion.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 2: But the ancient astronaut theorists look at the geometry.
Speaker 1: It's too perfect.
Speaker 2: They look at the sheer straightness of the lines. Some
of them go over hills and through valleys without deviating
a single degree.
Speaker 1: Which is incredibly hard to do without surveying your equipment.
Speaker 2: Extremely hard. And they look at the fact that many
of the figures are only visible from.
Speaker 1: The sky, and they ask the obvious question.
Speaker 2: Why build something for the sky if no one is
up there.
Speaker 1: To see it unless someone was up there exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And Childrens points out something else about then Oscar
region that doesn't get as much press. What's up There
are mountains nearby where the tops appear to have been
artificially flattened.
Speaker 1: Flattened mountains.
Speaker 2: It's not just the lines in the dirt, it's the
actual terraforming of the surrounding.
Speaker 1: Landscape, which brings us to a site that I hadn't
really focused on before digging into this source material. Monty Alban,
Monte Alban in Mexicos.
Speaker 2: This is in the Wahaka Alley.
Speaker 1: And this site is spectacular.
Speaker 2: It's a massive complex of temples and pyramids. It deeps
back to the Zappatec civilization.
Speaker 1: Maybe five hundred BC or even earlier. Right, and this
one sounds even more like a massive engineering project than
an OSCA.
Speaker 2: Oh. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Childress describes it as a mountain where the top was
completely cut off.
Speaker 2: Leveled is the word used in the material, just leveled.
Imagine a jagged mountain peak. Okay, Now imagine simply slicing
the top off to create a massive, perfectly flat table top.
Speaker 1: That is Monte Alban.
Speaker 2: There is a megalithic city up there now, which is
extremely old.
Speaker 1: Itself, but the foundation, the.
Speaker 2: Foundation itself, the sheer flatness of the mountain is the anomaly.
Speaker 1: To slice the top off a mountain. I mean we
do that today for strip mining, sure.
Speaker 2: But we use massive explosives, earth.
Speaker 1: Movers, immense amounts of energy.
Speaker 2: We are talking about moving millions of tons of solid rock.
Speaker 1: And then you have to move that rock somewhere.
Speaker 2: Else exactly, and we are told the builders of Monte
alban didn't even have the.
Speaker 1: Wheel let alone dynamite.
Speaker 2: So why go to the trouble.
Speaker 1: Right, Why not just build around the peak.
Speaker 2: Or build on the valley floor where it's already flat
and there's a water source.
Speaker 1: Why haul everything up a mountain only to spend decades,
maybe centuries, flattening.
Speaker 2: It, Unless the flatness was the whole point.
Speaker 1: Childress's conclusion is that the flatness was the feature, not
a bug.
Speaker 2: It was a functional necessity.
Speaker 1: Of Vimana Airport.
Speaker 2: If you're piloting a craft, landing on a mountaintop is
strategically brilliant.
Speaker 1: You're defended from ground attacks, you have perfect clear visibility,
and if you level the top you have a perfect
unobstructed platform.
Speaker 2: It paints a wild picture, it really does.
Speaker 1: Imagine you're flying your Vermana from the NOSCA hub in Peru,
heading north, heading north, and you look down and see
this perfectly flat topped mountain in Mexico, a.
Speaker 2: Perfect landing pad right in the middle of rough terrain.
Speaker 1: It implies a network.
Speaker 2: It implies that these weren't just isolated random projects.
Speaker 1: They were nodes in a system.
Speaker 2: And a network, implies Cord nation.
Speaker 1: It implies that someone in Peru knew someone in Mexico and.
Speaker 2: They agreed on travel protocols and infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Standards, which brings us right back to that global village concept.
Speaker 2: If these sites were airports, then the ancient world wasn't
a collection of isolated tribes. It was a connected grid,
a fully operational grid.
Speaker 1: But a grid needs legends, right, what do you mean, Well,
if people were actually flying around, the locals would have
talked about it. Of course, even if only the gods
or the elite kings were flying, the common people on
the ground would have seen these things.
Speaker 2: It would be the most amazing thing they ever waitnessed.
Speaker 1: They would have written it down or at least told
stories around the fire that.
Speaker 2: Got passed down, and they did, which brings us to
the Middle East and Africa.
Speaker 1: This is where we moved from the physical earth, the
runways and mountains the textual evidence, and we have to
look at something called the Kubra Nugast. Yes, Kubra Nugast
sounds intense. What is it exactly?
Speaker 2: It translates to the glory of the kings. Okay, It's
a holy book of the Ethiopian people. It was written
down sometime before the second century AD, but drawing on.
Speaker 1: Oral traditions that are much much older, vastly older.
Speaker 2: Georgio A Suklos actually calls it the most important text
you've never heard of.
Speaker 1: That's a bold claim. Why is it so important? Does
it literally have ancient flight logs.
Speaker 2: In a way, Yes, it does.
Speaker 1: Really.
Speaker 2: It focuses heavily on King Solomon.
Speaker 1: The biblical king Solomon of Israel, the very same.
Speaker 2: Now we all know Solomon was famous for his wisdom
and his incredible wealth.
Speaker 1: He built the first temple in Jerusalem, right.
Speaker 2: But the care of a Nagast claims he had something
else entirely.
Speaker 1: A flying machine.
Speaker 2: A flying machine out.
Speaker 1: A chariot, not a really fast horse.
Speaker 2: The text describes him having access to a vehicle that
allowed him to travel great distances in the air. Wow.
The text literally says the king flew on a wagon without.
Speaker 1: Wheels, a wagon without wheels.
Speaker 2: And this connects directly to the very famous legend of
the Queen of Sheba.
Speaker 1: Okay, I know this one.
Speaker 2: The story goes Solomon gifted her a flying carpet.
Speaker 1: Okay, hold on a flying carpet. Yes, that is straight
out of Aladdin.
Speaker 2: It sounds like it.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's a fairy tale. Yeah it's Disney. Are we
really going to use a flying rug as evidence of
advanced ancient technology? That feels like a massive stretch.
Speaker 2: I understand the hesitation, but this is where we have
to be very careful with language and cultural context.
Speaker 1: Okay, walk me through it.
Speaker 2: Suclos and Childress urge us to look past the literal
modern translation. Put yourself in the shoes of someone living
in the Middle East three thousand years ago.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm there.
Speaker 2: You are a weaver, I make rugs. You understand textiles. Yeah,
that is your pinnacle of technology.
Speaker 1: Ooh, patterns looms. Got it.
Speaker 2: Suddenly you look up and you see a flat craft.
Maybe it's metallic, Maybe it's hovering silently, just floating through
the air. You don't have the word airplane. No, you
don't have the word to hovercraft.
Speaker 1: Definitely not.
Speaker 2: You don't have anti gravity platform in your vocabulary.
Speaker 1: I have never seen metal fly exactly.
Speaker 2: So what is the closest thing in your existing vocabulary
to describe a flat decorated object that sits above the ground.
Speaker 1: A carpet, A carpet, it's flat, it hovers. Yeah, Okay,
I see where you're going with this.
Speaker 2: The source material argues that flying carpet was just a
colloquial term used liberally in that region to describe these machines.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a literal woven rug.
Speaker 2: No, it was a descriptor, a metaphor born of necessity.
Speaker 1: Just like native tribes in the Pacific during World War
Two called American planes.
Speaker 2: Great birds, exactly the same phenomena, because birds were the
only things they knew that flew.
Speaker 1: They use the vocabulary they have.
Speaker 2: It's a recognized concept called linguistic relativity. Your world and
how you describe it is strictly defined by the words
you know.
Speaker 1: That makes a scary amount of sense. We always just
assume myths are pure imagination, but usually.
Speaker 2: Myths are just bad descriptions of real events, bad.
Speaker 1: Descriptions of real anomalous events. Yes, so if carpet actually
means vermana or craft.
Speaker 2: Then the story of Solomon giving Sheiba a carpet.
Speaker 1: Is actually Solomon giving her a private.
Speaker 2: Jet essentially, yes, a diplomatic gift of high technology.
Speaker 1: And he wasn't just using it for joy rides, right.
Speaker 2: Not at all. The traditions in the Middle East mention
highly specific flight paths.
Speaker 1: They talk about Solomon flying to the Mountains of Solomon.
Speaker 2: Which are peaks that are geographically distinct and incredibly hard
to reach on.
Speaker 1: Foot, and she'll just suggest these were the landing.
Speaker 2: Pads, similar to Maddi Alban. He didn't climb the mountain,
he just landed right on top of it.
Speaker 1: So Solomon has his hubs, he has his runways.
Speaker 2: He does.
Speaker 1: But the connection doesn't stop in the Middle East, does it.
Speaker 2: No, it expands outward.
Speaker 1: The source material through a major curveball here that I
honestly wasn't expecting.
Speaker 2: Tibet, Tibet. This is a truly fascinating thread.
Speaker 1: So we have to talk about Nicholas Rowich.
Speaker 2: A famous Russian American explorer.
Speaker 1: He was traveling through Central Asia and Tibet in the
nineteen twenties.
Speaker 2: A time when these places were very, very closed off
to the west, almost impossible to access.
Speaker 1: And Rorick wasn't just some tourists. He was a serious scholar,
an artist, a mystic.
Speaker 2: He was looking for Shampala right he was.
Speaker 1: He was obsessed with the hidden history of the world.
Speaker 2: And while he was in Tibet, high up in the Himalayas.
Speaker 1: He recorded local traditions.
Speaker 2: And what did he find. The Tibetans, thousands of miles
away from Israel, had their own stories about King Solomon,
which is crazy.
Speaker 1: Why would Tibetans care about a Jewish king from the
Middle East?
Speaker 2: That is the big question.
Speaker 1: That's literally halfway across the world. They have their own
incredibly rich history and pantheon.
Speaker 2: But specifically, they had traditions of King Solomon flying to
Tibet in his aircraft, not riding a horse, not walking
the silk road fight.
Speaker 1: So we have the keeper Negust in Ethiopia saying he flew, We.
Speaker 2: Have Middle Eastern legends saying he flew.
Speaker 1: And we have Tibetans in the hig Himalayas saying, oh, yeah, Solomon,
he flew here too.
Speaker 2: Bablish is a distinct pattern.
Speaker 1: It does.
Speaker 2: If this was just one single culture's myth, we could
easily dismiss it as a metaphor or a religious allegory.
Speaker 1: But when you have the exact same specific historical figure.
Speaker 2: Associated with the exact same specific technology, flight across vastly
different geographic regions.
Speaker 1: Legions that supposedly weren't even talking to each other.
Speaker 2: You have to ask the question, was Solomon a frequent
flyer on this ancient global network.
Speaker 1: It's like finding a Yelp review for a specific airline
in newspapers from three different continents.
Speaker 2: It strongly suggests the airline actually existed.
Speaker 1: So Solomon is zooming around. Maybe he's checking on his
trade routes, maybe visiting dignitaries.
Speaker 2: Stay visits.
Speaker 1: But if you're flying that much, you need more than
just a landing strip you do. You need a way
to navigate. You need a map.
Speaker 2: Navigation is the absolute.
Speaker 1: Key, because if you are flying, you are seeing the
world from a perspective that no one on the ground
can even imagine. You see the coastlines, you see the coance.
Speaker 2: And interestingly, the caber Nagast actually mentions Solomon using his
airship to make maps of the world.
Speaker 1: Make maps of the world.
Speaker 2: That is a very specific technical claim, which.
Speaker 1: Brings us to one of the most mind bending parts
of this entire deep dive for you guys, the impossible maps,
the cartography conundrum.
Speaker 2: This is where the evidence moves from just oral stories
to something you can actually hold in your physical hand.
Speaker 1: We've talked about the Pierees map on other shows before.
Speaker 2: It's the famous one from fifteen thirteen, right, the one.
Speaker 1: That shows the coast of South America way too accurately
for the time.
Speaker 2: But the source material for today highlights a couple of
others as.
Speaker 1: Well, the Orantius Fenias map and the Mercator maps.
Speaker 2: Graham Hancock, who is a leading voice in this field,
points out something incredibly disturbing about these maps. Disturbing how
they don't just show the world as it looked in
the fifteen hundreds. Okay, they show Antarctica.
Speaker 1: Which absolutely shouldn't be there. No, Antarctica wasn't discovered by
modern explorers until the eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 2: Captain Cook crossed the Antarctic Circle in the seventeen seventies. Yeah,
but he never actually saw land.
Speaker 1: It wasn't until eighteen twenty that anyone actually laid physical
eyes on the continent.
Speaker 2: Correct. But these maps from the fifteen hundreds show it
plain as day.
Speaker 1: But it's not just that Antarctica is on the map, right,
it's how it is depicted exactly.
Speaker 2: These maps show the land mass of Antarctica in great detail,
Bayz Mountain ranges, rivers, but Antarctica is covered in miles
of ice.
Speaker 1: It's been covered in ice for millions of years.
Speaker 2: Well, this is where the geology gets very interesting. Okay.
Hancock argues that these maps depict Antarctica as it looked
during the last ice Age. Wait what, or perhaps during
a warm period within the ice age when the coastlines
were actually free of ice.
Speaker 1: Oh wait wait, let me get this straight.
Speaker 2: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: So we have a physical map showing a continent that
no one supposedly knew about. Yes, and it shows that
continent looking the way it did ten thousand or twelve
thousand years ago.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is the implication.
Speaker 1: Yes, So who he was drawing the map?
Speaker 2: Exactly the right question. Perie Race, the Ottoman admiral who
drew the.
Speaker 1: Famous map the fifteen thirteen one.
Speaker 2: Yes, he wrote directly in the margins of the map
that he didn't survey the land himself.
Speaker 1: So where did he get it?
Speaker 2: He compiled his map from ancient source.
Speaker 1: Maps, source maps from where maps.
Speaker 2: That were supposedly rescued from the Library of Alexandria before
it burned.
Speaker 1: So he was copying a copy of a copy, right.
Speaker 2: And to create the original source map of a subglacial continent.
Speaker 1: You either need ground penetrating radar.
Speaker 2: Which we only developed very recently.
Speaker 1: Or you need to have seen the land before the ice.
Speaker 2: Covered it exactly. And to map an entire continent with
that level of accuracy calculating longitude.
Speaker 1: Which is notoriously difficult to do even with ship instruments.
Speaker 2: You need to be in the air.
Speaker 1: You cannot map a continent by just walking around the icy.
Speaker 2: Coastlines, especially not in the Antarctic where the conditions are lethal.
Speaker 1: You need an aerial perspective, you need altitude.
Speaker 2: So the logic chain presented by the material goes exactly
like this.
Speaker 1: Let's hear it.
Speaker 2: These maps exist, we have them. Fact, they are copies
of older lost source maps. Okay, those original source maps
must have been created by someone who saw Antarctica ice free.
Speaker 1: Which places the original cartographers deep deep in antiquity.
Speaker 2: And the sheer accuracy of the coastlines suggests they had
the ability to survey from the sky.
Speaker 1: It literally implies that someone was flying over the South
Pole ten thousand years ago, taking notes.
Speaker 2: It implies that the ancient global village included Antarctica.
Speaker 1: That is heavy.
Speaker 2: It is, and it fits perfectly with the Solomon legends.
Speaker 1: Because if you can fly to Tibet, you can fly
to the South Pole.
Speaker 2: If you have the technology, the entire globe is open
to you.
Speaker 1: It suggests that the ancients knew the true shape and
size of the world long long before Magellan or Columbus.
Speaker 2: It all comes back to the air.
Speaker 1: It does the runways in Peru, the leveled mountains in Mexico,
the flight lugs of Solomon, and now these aerial maps
of the ice a.
Speaker 2: It is a remarkably consistent narrative across different disciplines.
Speaker 1: But and I have to be the skeptic again, it
is all still circumstantial. It's lines in the dirt and
old campfire stories and weird anomalous maps. Yes, for the
listener who needs hard data, Is there anything more technical?
Speaker 2: Technical in what.
Speaker 1: Sense, anything that reads less like a myth or a
legend and more like a user manual.
Speaker 2: Well, if you want technical, we have to go to
the most scrutinized book in human history.
Speaker 1: The Bible.
Speaker 2: The Bible. Yeah, specifically the Book of Ezekiel.
Speaker 1: Okay, I remember Sunday School. Ezekiel is the wheel within
a wheel.
Speaker 2: Guy.
Speaker 1: He is Ezekiel saw the wheel, and.
Speaker 2: For centuries, mainstream theologians have interpreted his vision as purely symbolic.
Speaker 1: They say, the wheels represent God's omnipresence.
Speaker 2: The eyes on the wheels represent God's all seeing nature, its.
Speaker 1: Spiritual vision, a metaphor for the divine glory of God.
Speaker 2: That's the traditional view, but the source material for this
deep dive takes a very very different approach.
Speaker 1: They say, forget the symbolism.
Speaker 2: Read it literal, Read it like a tech manual.
Speaker 1: It's the ancient alien's perspective.
Speaker 2: Essentially, exactly, Ezekiel wasn't having a spiritual hallucination. He was
having a close encounter of the third kind.
Speaker 1: He was an eyewitness to a spacecraft landing.
Speaker 2: Let's actually break down the description in the text.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's look at the text.
Speaker 2: Ezekiel is standing by the river Chebar. He sees a
whirlwind coming out of the north, a great cloud, and
a fire infolding itself.
Speaker 1: Fire enfolding itself. That is a very interesting specific phrase.
Speaker 2: It sounds exactly like the plasma exhaust of a rocket
or a jet engine.
Speaker 1: It's not a normal campfire. It's a contained, highly energetic reaction.
Speaker 2: It has a center of intense brightness.
Speaker 1: And then he sees living creatures with the likeness of
a man. But they have sparkles like burnished brass.
Speaker 2: And wheels, wheels that go specifically within wheels.
Speaker 1: And the text says when the living creatures moved, the
wheels moved.
Speaker 2: And they lift it up, the wheels lifted up.
Speaker 1: It heavily emphasizes the mechanical connection between the entities and
the wheels.
Speaker 2: It literally says, the spirit of the living creature was
in the wheels.
Speaker 1: So how do we get from angels and wheels to
NASA's spacecraft because.
Speaker 2: Angel usually means wings and halos, not thrusters and landing gear.
Speaker 1: Right, So we have to introduce Joseph Blumric.
Speaker 2: This is where the story gets some real, undeniable scientific weight.
The rocket scientist, the quintessential rocket scientist, oh is it.
Joseph Blumric was a chief of the System's Layout branch
at NASA.
Speaker 1: Okay, so a heavy hitter.
Speaker 2: He worked on the Saturn V rocket, the Moon project,
so he knows his stuff. He was a man who
understood structural engineering, propulsion, stress tolerances, heavy lifting. He built
the things that took humanity to the Moon.
Speaker 1: And he didn't start out as a believer in this
ancient astronaut theory the opposite.
Speaker 2: In the early nineteen seventies, he heard about this theory,
mostly promoted by Eric von Dani at the time that
Ezekiel saw a spaceship.
Speaker 1: And what did he think?
Speaker 2: Bloomenrich thought it was absolute nonsense. He thought it was pseudoscience.
Speaker 1: So he set out to dun't get.
Speaker 2: He wanted to use his massive engineering background to show
that the description in the Bible was technically impossible as
a flying machine.
Speaker 1: I absolutely love when that happens. The skeptic sets out
to debunk and ends up converting himself.
Speaker 2: It is the classic scientific journey.
Speaker 1: So what happened?
Speaker 2: Bloomrich spent months analyzing the text. He didn't just read it,
he analyzed.
Speaker 1: It structurally as an engineer.
Speaker 2: He looked at the angels moving back and forth like
flashes of lightning.
Speaker 1: And what did he conclude?
Speaker 2: Bloomrich thought that sounds exactly like retro rockets or control
thrusters firing for stabilization.
Speaker 1: And the burnished brass.
Speaker 2: Leg landing gear shock absorbers. Wow, if you look at
a modern lunar lander, it has legs, it has shiny
metallic foil.
Speaker 1: Insulation to a primitive profit from ancient times. A shiny
metallic landing leg looks exactly like the leg of a
glorious being.
Speaker 2: And the wheels within wheels.
Speaker 1: That's the most famous part, right, How did he explain
that mechanically?
Speaker 2: This is the absolute genius part. Blimerich realized that if
you want a heavy craft to move in any direction
on the ground without having to rotate the entire vehicle.
Speaker 1: You need a special type of wheel.
Speaker 2: He realized Ezekiel was describing an omnidirectional wheel, a wheel.
Speaker 1: That can roll forward but also roll sideways exactly.
Speaker 2: And if you have to describe a complex multidirectional rover
wheel to a person from six hundred BC, a.
Speaker 1: Wheel within a wheel is actually a perfect functional description.
Speaker 2: It describes the mechanism perfectly.
Speaker 1: So blum Rich, the chief NASA engineer, concludes that Ezekiel
is actually describing a highly functional shuttle craft.
Speaker 2: He was so thoroughly convinced that he wrote a whole
book about it, called The Spaceships of Ezekiel.
Speaker 1: That is wild.
Speaker 2: He even patented the design of the omnidirectional wheel. Inspired
by the Bible.
Speaker 1: He filed a patent based on Ezekiel.
Speaker 2: He did. He concluded that Ezekiel's description was one hundred
percent technically sound. He even calculated the vehicle's weight and
fuel capacity based on the dimensions given in the text.
Speaker 1: But the story gets even more interesting when the craft
actually lands.
Speaker 2: Because usually in these Bible stories, the angel says fear
not and delivers a spiritual message about the future, a.
Speaker 1: Prophecy, But here the interaction is completely.
Speaker 2: Different, very different. Ezekiel falls to his knees in absolute terror.
Speaker 1: Which honestly, I would too if a Saturn rocket landed
in my front yard.
Speaker 2: The noise and heat must have been deafening.
Speaker 1: He is terrified because he has zero frame of reference
for this level of technology.
Speaker 2: But then a being comes out of the craft, and
what does it look like? A being in bright clothes
that looked like metal, a spacesuit, that is the direct implication.
And this metallic being gives Ezekiel a job.
Speaker 1: Who doesn't say pray for your sins, No.
Speaker 2: He says, I brought you here to measure this building.
Speaker 1: This is the part that always weirds me out about
this story. Why does an all knowing god need a huge.
Speaker 2: Surveyor exactly why does an angel need a human to
take physical tape measurements.
Speaker 1: The second part of the Book of Ezekiel contains forty pages.
Speaker 2: Forty pages of specific mind numbing measurements, lengths with materials
gateway sizes. It is incredibly dry reading. If you are
looking for spiritual enlightenment, it's just tedious.
Speaker 1: But if you are an engineer, it.
Speaker 2: Reads exactly like a structural blueprint.
Speaker 1: The source material suggests this wasn't a temple on the
religious sense at all.
Speaker 2: No, it was a facility, a hangar, a maintenance bay,
a landing site.
Speaker 1: The glory of the Lord, which in this theory is
the physical spacecraft lands there, and.
Speaker 2: The Being asks Ezekiel to measure it precisely.
Speaker 1: Why why involve him?
Speaker 2: Perhaps to preserve the knowledge of the structure for future generations.
Speaker 1: Or maybe to verify that it was built to spec
by the locals.
Speaker 2: It feels much more like a pragmatic engineering survey than
a religious ritual. The Being literally says, that is why
we brought you here.
Speaker 1: It implies a mission. We are here, we have a ship,
we have a base. Ezekiel right down the specs. It's
so pragmatic, it's bureaucratic almost.
Speaker 2: And that pragmatism is what makes the theory so seductive
to so many.
Speaker 1: People because it strips away the magic.
Speaker 2: It replaces magic with technology.
Speaker 1: If you assume our ancestors were intelligent but just lacked
the technical vocabulary.
Speaker 2: Everything from the flying carpet to the wheel within a
wheel resolves into a very coherent picture of advanced machinery.
Speaker 1: It turns the Bible into a flight manual, It really does.
So let's zoom out and look at the whole picture
we've painted today.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's synthesize this.
Speaker 1: We have the physical infrastructure, the massive runways at NASCA,
the artificially leveled mountain at Monte Albin. We have the
network King Solomon flying his craft from Israel to Ethiopia
to Tibet. We have the navigation impossible maps of an
ice free Antarctica surveyed from the air during the Ice Age.
And we have the eyewitness account Ezekiel describing the nuts
and bolts of a landing craft, structurally verified by a
literal NASA engineer.
Speaker 2: It creates a worldwide web of antiquity, a.
Speaker 1: Web of trade, travel and connection that mirrors our own
modern global village.
Speaker 2: But predates it by millennia.
Speaker 1: It really challenges that standard idea that history is just
a straight upward line of progress from caveman to the iPhone.
Speaker 2: We like to think we are the smartest people who
ever lived, We really do. We tend to be chronocentric.
We think we are the absolute pinnacle of achievement.
Speaker 1: But this evidence suggests history might be cyclical.
Speaker 2: That perhaps a high tech civilization existed, connected the entire
world and then vanished.
Speaker 1: Or was forgotten, which leads to the big frustrating.
Speaker 2: Question, the elephant in the room.
Speaker 1: Where is it all? If there were ancient airports and
aluminum ships and hangars, where are they?
Speaker 2: It's the ultimate mystery.
Speaker 1: Why are we only finding the leveled mountain and not
the bulldozers that leveled it?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Why are we finding the maps but not the satellites
or the planes.
Speaker 2: Perhaps the machines were taken away, or perhaps the materials
simply corroded.
Speaker 1: Because metals don't last like stone does.
Speaker 2: If you leave a modern car in the jungle for
a thousand years, it turns to dust, it's gone.
Speaker 1: Or perhaps, as Arthur C. Clark famously said, any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Speaker 2: That is a perfect quote for this.
Speaker 1: Maybe we are looking at the magic, the legends, the miracles.
Speaker 2: And missing the technology that caused them because we simply
don't have the physical receipts.
Speaker 1: Anymore, or maybe the receipts are staring us.
Speaker 2: Right in the face and the lines of Nasca.
Speaker 1: Or the verses of Ezekiel.
Speaker 2: And we just refuse to read them that way because
it breaks our comfortable understanding of history.
Speaker 1: It forces us to keep an open mind, to.
Speaker 2: Not dismiss the myth just because it sounds fantastic at
first glance.
Speaker 1: Because today's science fiction is often tomorrow's science.
Speaker 2: Fact or, in this case, yesterday's history.
Speaker 1: It suggests that the humans story is much longer and
much more complicated than we give it credit for.
Speaker 2: And that is a humbling thought and a thought.
Speaker 1: That will definitely keep me up tonight. Just the idea
that we are rediscovering flight, not discovering it for.
Speaker 2: The first time, as it should keep you up. It's fascinating.
Speaker 1: So we want to turn this over to you, the listener.
We have thrown a lot at you today, from Solomon's
frequent flyer miles to NASA's Biblical blueprint. Where do you stand?
Speaker 2: Is the flying carpet just a poetic way to describe
a rug or.
Speaker 1: Is it a misunderstood memory of a hovering machine.
Speaker 2: Does the fact that a NASA rocket engineer signed off
on Ezekiel spaceship change how you read the Bible?
Speaker 1: We want to know if you see the global village
of the past or if you think we're just staring
at the clouds and seeing patterns?
Speaker 2: Is this tangible evidence of a lost chapter of human history?
Speaker 1: Leave a comment, send us a message, Let us know
your theories.
Speaker 2: Because if history has taught us anything, it's that the
truth is usually much stranger than the fiction.
Speaker 1: Indeed, keep questioning the narrative and.
Speaker 2: Keep pulling on those threads.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to thrilling threads. We'll catch you in
the next deep dive.
Speaker 2: Goodbye.
Speaker 1: See