Speaker 1: Close your eyes all right, seriously, just for a moment,
if you're listening right now. I want to build something
in your mind. And I really need a blank canvas
for this.
Speaker 2: Okay, my canvas is blank. Let's do this.
Speaker 1: I want you to visualize a stone block. But I
don't want you picturing you know, a brick you'd buy
at a hardware store, or a cinder block, or even
one of those nice landscaping rocks you'd put out in
your garden.
Speaker 2: Right, nothing you could pick up exactly.
Speaker 1: I want you to picture a single, perfectly solid block
of granite, and I want you to scale it up
in your mind until it is the exact size of
a semi truck.
Speaker 2: Wow, that is I mean, that is just a massively
heavy image to start with. It is we were talking
about something so dense, so unyielding, Yeah, and just incredibly imposing.
Speaker 1: I think gets heavier. Now, imagine cutting that block out
of a mountain, a solid mountain of bedrock granite. You
can't just slice it like cheese. This is literally one
of the hardest stones on planet Earth. Then after you
somehow cut it, you have to move it miles. You're
dragging the semi truck sized rock across shifting sand across
uneven really rocky terrain where modern wheels would just sink in,
modern steel axles would snap in half.
Speaker 2: Yeah, nature does not want that rock to move.
Speaker 1: It doesn't. And finally, the absolute kicker here, you have
to lift it hundreds of feet into the air and
set it down with absolute laser like precision.
Speaker 2: And just to set the difficulty level to basically impossible,
let's add the constraints from our history books.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: You have to do all of that without a wheel,
no wheels, without a pulley system, and without a single
iron tool.
Speaker 1: It sounds like a riddle, or like a physics problem
that a cruel professor designed to be completely unsolvable. Yeah,
it sounds like something straight out of a fantasy novel.
But this is the actual reality of some of the
ancient world's most famous monuments. Welcome to Thrilling Threads.
Speaker 2: It is so good to be here, And honestly, that
introduction really sets the stage for the sheer magnitude of
what we are discussing today.
Speaker 1: I'm so incredibly ready to pull at this thread today
because it is one of those topics that just completely
breaks my brain in the best way possible, of course,
Oh absolutely, we are looking at impossible engineering. It's the
kind of stuff that makes you look at a massive
steel skyscraper today and think, well, that's easy compared to
what they managed to pull off back then.
Speaker 2: It is certainly a topic that forces us to confront
the very real limits of our historical understanding, because you know,
we often have this very comfortable, very linear view of human.
Speaker 1: History, right, the straight line of progress exactly, that.
Speaker 2: We started with sticks and stones, and that we slowly
figured out bronze, then iron, then steal, and we just
slowly got smarter and smarter until we invented the smartphone.
We really like to think of progress as an unbroken
line moving straight up.
Speaker 1: We do.
Speaker 2: But the engineering seats we are looking at today they
suggest a massive curveball in.
Speaker 1: That timeline, a massive granite curveball. And today our mission
is to unred mystery using a very specific lens. We
are analyzing a source from the History Channel's Ancient Aliens,
specifically diving into season one. Now, before anyone listening rolls
their eyes or expects us to start talking about, you know,
flying saucers.
Speaker 2: Right, let's just be extremely clear upfront, please, the source
material we are discussing today focuses heavily on the actual
engineering arguments presented in that series. We are entirely stripping
away the speculation about extraterrestial biology or UFOs, and we
are focusing strictly on the hard data, the measurements, the
tool marks, the material science, and the.
Speaker 1: Physics, just the physical evidence exactly.
Speaker 2: The source features researchers and authors like Robert Bovol, engineers
like Christopher Dunn, and actual working Stonemasons. These guys aren't
talking about little green men. They are impartially comparing ancient
sites like the Giza Plateau and Balbeck to what we
can actually achieve today with our absolute best modern construction capabilities.
Speaker 1: And that is exactly where the tension lies. That's the
core conflict of this whole discussion, because mainstream archaeology basically says, look,
it was manpower, it was ropes, it was wooden sledges,
it was copper chisels, and it was just a whole
lot of time. The mainstream view is just lots and
lots of people pulling really really hard for a really
long time.
Speaker 2: And the experts featured in our source material are looking
at the math, the physics, and the material science. And
they are saying, wait a.
Speaker 1: Minute, the numbers don't work.
Speaker 2: The numbers do not add up at all. They're saying,
this looks distinctly like advanced technology. They're arguing that the
brute force explanation completely fails to account for the unbelievable
precision and the sheer scale of these projects.
Speaker 1: So let's get right into it. Let's go to Egypt.
When you think of impossible ancient building, everyone immediately thinks
of the Great Pyramid. Right. It's the icon.
Speaker 2: Naturally, I mean, it is the last remaining wonder of
the ancient world for a reason. It's the absolute poster
child for ancient engineering. It's the first thing you see
on any post guard from Egypt.
Speaker 1: But our source, typically the author Robert Bouvall, points out
that while the pyramids are obviously impressive, there is something
else right there at Giza that is even more baffling.
He points directly to the Valley temples.
Speaker 2: This is such a crucial distinction, and honestly, it's one
that often gets lost in all the noise about the pyramids.
Speaker 1: Yeah, people overlook it.
Speaker 2: They do because the pyramids themselves are largely built out
of limestone, and limestone is a sedimentary rock. It's relatively sold.
You can literally scratch limestone with a good pocket knife.
Speaker 1: It's workable, very workable.
Speaker 2: But the Valley Temples, those are a completely different beast Entirely,
they are built with a mix of granite and limestone,
but the core structural blocks are massive.
Speaker 1: Bauvall breaks down the weight comparison here, and this is
the part that really blew my mind when I was
reviewing this source. The average block in the Great Pyramid
weighs about two to.
Speaker 2: Three tons, which is heavy. Certainly, that's the weight of
a large suv or a heavy duty pickup truck. It
is managible if you have enough guys. You can sort
of imagine twenty strong guys with thick ropes dragging a
Toyota Tundra across a field. It's incredibly hard work, but
it's a type of physics that we can intuitively.
Speaker 1: Understand, right, it makes logical sense in our brains. But
the blocks in the Valley Temples, the ones right mixed door,
they don't weigh two to three tons. They range from
one hundred to two hundred tons.
Speaker 2: That is an exponential leap in difficulty.
Speaker 1: It's insane.
Speaker 2: It's not just quote unquote harder. It is a completely
different class of engineering problem. It is quite literally the
difference between lifting a bag of groceries and lifting a car.
Speaker 1: Bo Value uses this analogy and the source that I
just love because it really forces you to put into perspective.
He says, to truly understand the weight of a one
hundred ton block, you have to imagine taking one hundred
typical family cars and squeezing them down into a single
solid cube.
Speaker 2: That is a terrifyingly dense image. Just try to image
the sheer gravity of that object sitting in front of.
Speaker 1: You, and that is just one block. And they built
entire temples out of these things, stack them on top
of each other. The question Bovall asks, and I think
it's the most basic logical question anyone could possibly ask.
Speaker 2: Is why, exactly why on Earth would you choose to
do that?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: In engineering, there is always this underlying concept of efficiency,
the path of least resistance. Good engineers are basically lazy
in the smartest way possible. They want to achieve the
structural goal with the absolute least amount of energy expenditure
and the lowest possible risk.
Speaker 1: If you can already build a four hundred foot pyramid
with two ton blocks, and that is already a massive,
era defining achievement that lasts for thousands of years, why
would you turn around for the temple next door and say,
you know what, let's make this way harder. Let's use
two hundred ton blocks of solid granite.
Speaker 2: It completely defines the path of least resistance. Balvall's central
argument here is that it makes absolutely no sense to
intentionally choose the most difficult possible way to build something
unless and this is the absolute key to his whole theory,
unless it actually wasn't difficult for them.
Speaker 1: Oh I really like that. Unpack that for me a
bit more.
Speaker 2: Well, think about how we construct buildings today. We build
massive towers with steel girders. Why not because working with
steel is inherently easy for a human being, but because
we have the massive cranes and the mechanized steel mills
to make the whole process highly efficient. It is standard
operating procedure for us.
Speaker 1: We have the infrastructure for it.
Speaker 2: Exactly now, if you only had copper chisels, some hemp ropes,
and human muscle, intentionally choosing to quarry and move a
two hundred ton block is completely illogical. It is basically
suicide for your workforce.
Speaker 1: Yeah, people are going to get crushed.
Speaker 2: They absolutely would. It slows down the entire project. It
drastically increases the risk of catastrophic accidents. It makes every
single step exponentially harder. So choosing to use two hundred
ton blocks strongly suggests that they possessed a technology that
made moving one hundred as relatively easy as moving a
small brick.
Speaker 1: That is the big aha moment right there. It's like,
if you have a hydraulic forklift, moving a heavy pallet
of brakes is easy. If you don't have a forklift,
it's a complete nightmare. It fundamentally changes the perceived difficulty
of the task based entirely on your available tool set.
If I have a heavy lift crane, a two hundred
ton block is just another heavy lift for the day.
If I only have a piece of rope, it is
a physically impossible object.
Speaker 2: Precisely and beaulvol compares this ancient reality to a modern
stone quarry. He says, if you go to a commercial
quarry today and look at the actual machines required to
move stone of that specific size. They are megamachines.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, we've all seen them on those extreme engineering documentaries,
those massive, bright yellow monsters with tires that are twice
the size of a grown man.
Speaker 2: They are essentially giant man made creatures that completely dwarf
the humans operating them inside the caps, massive hydraulic excavators,
multi axle flatbeds, towering cranes. We rely entirely on that
level of mechanical advantage.
Speaker 1: The hydraulics, the gearing, the massive diesel engines.
Speaker 2: Yes, to do this work today, we absolutely require that technology.
The source suggests that logically the agents must have had
some sort of equivalent. Maybe it wasn't a diesel engine,
maybe it wasn't paid to yellow, but they had to
have an equivalent mechanical advantage.
Speaker 1: And that perfectly brings us to our next expert featured
in the source, And honestly, this guy is probably my
favorite part of this entire discussion, Christopher Dunn.
Speaker 2: Christopher Dunn is such a fascinating and vital voice in
this specific debate because he is not an archaeologist, he's
not an egyptologist, he's not a historian. He honestly doesn't
care about the dynastic timelines or translating the religious texts.
He is an mechanical engineer and a master ex machinist.
He spent his entire career in advanced manufacturing, making incredibly
precise parts for the aerospace industry.
Speaker 1: He looks at these ancient monuments and he doesn't see
culture or religion first. He sees manufacturing. He sees tooling
and machining. When he walks up to a giant statue,
he's looking at exactly how the stone was cut, not
which farroh it represents.
Speaker 2: He brings a very tragmatic, hands on, blue collar perspective
to this grand historical mystery. He looks at the mainstream
toolkit that Egyptologists universally claim was used, and he essentially
just asks, from a machinist's perspective, does this tool actually
make this specific mark.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about their mainstream toolkit. Let's really unpack that.
What are we formally told they used? Because you know,
when I picture ancient Egypt from the textbooks, I just
picture lots of guys in loincloths pulling ropes on wooden sledges.
Speaker 2: Well, the standard historical narrative, if you open literally any
university textbook on the subject is that the ancient Egyptians
used stone balls stone ball, yes, specifically dull right pounders
basically just hard round rocks. Along with those, they used
simple copper chisels, hollow copper tubes for drilling, and ordinary
sand for grinding away the stone.
Speaker 1: Sand and copper against solid grains, yes, and.
Speaker 2: Against dirite, which is even harder and denser than granite.
Speaker 1: Now, for the listener who might not be a geologist
or a material scientist, explain why that is such a
massive problem. Why can't I just take a copper chisel
and cut granite.
Speaker 2: It all comes down to the Mose scale of mineral hardness.
The Mose scale, right, it's a standardized one to ten
scale using geology to classify how hard minerals are. Diamond
sits at the very top at a perfect ten. Granite,
depending on its exact quartz content, usually sits right around
a six or seven.
Speaker 1: Okay, so six or seven pretty hard, and copper copper
is a three three. So it's literally like trying to
cut a frozen steak with a soft banana, huh.
Speaker 2: Essentially, yes, or like trying to saw your way through
a thick steel pipe using a wooden stick. There's a
fundamental mismatch of materials. If you repeatedly hit solid granite
with a copper chisel, the copper just bends and blints immediately.
The granite wins every single time. So the mainstream workaround
theory is that they used.
Speaker 1: Sand because sand has quartz in it.
Speaker 2: Exactly. Sand is mostly which has a hardness of seven,
so it can act as a natural abrasive. The theory
is they were taking the copper tools, putting sand down
and furiously rubbing the copper against the stone with the
sand trapped in between, to slowly grind it away.
Speaker 1: Which, okay, that works theoretically, right. You can technically sand
down a rock. Water erosion wears down entire canyons over
millions of years.
Speaker 2: It works in theory, yes, but it's excruciatingly slow and done.
Basically looks at that theoretical list of tools and says
absolutely no way. He argues that the physical information perfectly
preserved in the stone itself directly argues against the notion
of such simple primitive tools.
Speaker 1: It's the precision, isn't it.
Speaker 2: It comes down entirely to precision and efficiency. Yes, You
can slowly sand a rock down over months, but can
you sand it perfectly flat to within a thousandth of
an inch? Can you sand a perfect internal right angle?
Speaker 1: Let's really get into the logistics of that, because Doun
brings up the Great Pyramid again here to prove his point.
We mentioned the two ton blocks earlier, but we didn't
mention exactly how many of those blocks there actually are.
Two and a half million, two and a half million blocks. Yeah,
I feel like we just say that huge number in documentaries,
but we need to really let it sit. That is
a literal city made of stone, just.
Speaker 2: In the Great Pyramid alone. That's not counting the paving stones,
the temples, the enclosure walls.
Speaker 1: Done actually does the math on the pure logistics, if
you will. He calls it the stat problem, and I
think this is the exact moment where the brutal manpower
argument really starts to totally crumble under its own weight.
Speaker 2: It really becomes a simple, undeniable scheduling problem. Mainstream history
definitively tells us the Great Pyramid was built in roughly
twenty years during the reign of the Farokufu.
Speaker 1: Twenty years to quarry, move and stack two and a
half million blocks.
Speaker 2: If you sit down and do the math on that,
And this is assuming they work twelve hours a day,
three hundred and sixty five days a year, absolutely no holidays,
no sick days, no breaks for weather. That means they
had to fully quarry, transport, shape, lift, and perfectly place
a block every couple of minutes.
Speaker 1: Every couple of minute, like literally every two or three minutes.
Speaker 2: That immediately, it implies a relentless just in time delivery
system on a scale that honestly rivals our most advanced
modern manufacturing. Think about a modern highly automated car factory. Today,
a finished car rolls off the assembly line roughly every minute.
But that requires an army of precise robots, perfectly synchronized computers,
and massive global supply chains.
Speaker 1: And here we are talking about multi ton blocks of
solid stone. You physically cannot have a dozen guys sitting
around pounding a rock with a round dolerite ball for
three weeks to shape just one block. If the foreman
needs to place thousands of blocks a day just to
meet the twenty year dubline.
Speaker 2: Exactly, it's a massive bottleneck. If it takes a team
of stone masons a full week to shape just one
casing stone using dolrite, powders and sand. You would need
literally millions of highly skilled stone masons working simultaneously just
to keep up with that required rate. And the Giza
plateau itself isn't physically big enough to hold that many
people working at once.
Speaker 1: Right, where do they stand? Where do they sleep? How
do you feed millions of workers in the desert if
you're really just pounding rocks with rocks? The pyramid doesn't
get finished in twenty years. It gets finished in yeah, never, or.
Speaker 2: Maybe five hundred years. Yeah Done argues this required output
demands high efficiency cutting and placement. It absolutely requires a
process that is rigorously standardized, incredibly rapid, and fully mechanized.
You need an industrial factory floor, not a disorganized group
of guys with hand tools.
Speaker 1: And the thing about Done is he isn't just sitting
in an armchair speculating about this. He actually went to
Egypt looking for physical proof of these machines, and he
found what he called is a literal smoking gun. But
the crazy part is it wasn't even at the Great Pyramid. No.
Speaker 2: He traveled a few miles north of the main Giza
Plateau to a much lesser zone site called Abu roh Wash.
It's a bit more desolate out there. It's far more
ruined and excavated, But sometimes that is exactly where the
underlying secrets are exposed. The polished facade is gone.
Speaker 1: Okay, tell us everything about Abu Rahwash. What exactly did
he find out there in the desert.
Speaker 2: He found a granite block, but not just any random block.
This specific piece of granite had a very deep cut
running through it pronounced slid. It literally looks like someone
started cutting right into the stone and then just stopped
halfway through the job.
Speaker 1: And this is where that trained machinist's brain of his
totally kicks in right. He sees this cut and it
just haunts him.
Speaker 2: He describes literally waking up at three am in a
cold sweat, just scratching his head over it. He couldn't
figure it out. He was obsessively puzzling over the exact
geometry of this specific cut for days.
Speaker 1: I honestly loved that image, just this highly technical guy
in the middle of the night, staring at his hotel ceiling,
completely obsessing over a broken rock in Egypt. It really
shows you how deeply this kind of anomaly bothers a
mind trained in precision engineering.
Speaker 2: Well, that is exactly how major breakthroughs happen. You instinctively
know something is terribly wrong with the official historical story
because the physical physics of the object sitting right in
front of you doesn't sit right in your head. And
eventually he finally realized something crucial about the curvature of
that cut.
Speaker 1: The curve. Explain this to me, because this seems to
be the lynchpin. Why is the curve of the cut
so important?
Speaker 2: Think about how a handsaw works. Ideally, if you were
using a flat hand saw, like a long, flat copper
blade being pulled back and forth by two guys with sand,
the bottom of the cut channel should be perfectly flat,
or if the metal blade SAgs slightly in the middle
from gravity, it might be slightly curved upwards.
Speaker 1: In the center right like a lumberjacksaw.
Speaker 2: But if the bottom of the cut channel is curved concavely,
plunging deeper into the stone in a perfect arc, it
means the cutting tool itself was circular. The cut in
the stone perfectly mirrors the physical shape of the tool
it made it.
Speaker 1: Oh, like pushing a pizza cutter down into a thick dough.
Speaker 2: That is exactly it. The cut matches the continuous arc
of the spinning blade, and based on measuring the exact
depth the cut and projecting the radius of that specific
concave curve done mathematically calculated exactly what kind of tool
must have made it, and the final verdict A circular saw.
Speaker 1: A circular saw in ancient Egypt, where we are told
they supposedly only had primitive copper chisels.
Speaker 2: But it gets crazier. It was not a handheld circular
saw like you'd buy a hardware store. This is the
truly staggering part. Based on the geometry of the curvature
he measured, the circular saw blade would have to have
been thirty five feet in diameter.
Speaker 1: Thirty five feet that is, I mean, that's the size
of a ferris wheel. That's the height of a three
story building.
Speaker 2: It is unfathomably massive, and the engineering implications of a
blade that size are just staggering.
Speaker 1: I mean, seriously, just think about that for a second.
If you have a solid thirty five foot saw blade,
you aren't spinning that thing by hand. You aren't just
wrapping a hemp rope around the axle and having some
guy's pulling correct.
Speaker 2: A circular saw of that immense scale implies a massive,
continuous power source. It implies incredibly rigid, heavy duty machinery
just to hold the blade steady so it doesn't wobble
and shatter. You can't just casually hold a thirty five
foot blade against granite. It needs a massive structural chassis.
It needs heavy duty bearings that can withstand immense torque.
Speaker 1: Right the friction would be unbelievable.
Speaker 2: It implies a level of advanced industrial engineering that is
completely one hundred percent absent from the accepted archaeological record,
except of course, for these specific marks left in the stone.
Speaker 1: This is a gergantuan deviation from the Copper Chisels narrative.
We just went from pounding rocks with other rocks to
a full blown industrial power saw in one.
Speaker 2: Massive leap, and Doune was absolutely convinced. He states clearly
in the source that to his EXPERTI that is unmistakably
a machine mark. The parallel striations left in the cut,
the constant feed rate of the blade, the polish on
the inside of the cut channel, It all screams high
powered machinery.
Speaker 1: But the skeptics, and I know you're the expert here,
so I want you to play a devil's advocate for
a second. The mainstream skeptics would immediately say, well, where
the machines, Chris, If they really had thirty five foot
power saws, surely would find a giant, rusty blade buried
somewhere in the sand, or a massive gear, or even
just a large metal bolt.
Speaker 2: That is the most valid and common counter argument. We
simply have not found the actual machines. But Dun's rebuttal
to that is really interesting and quite practical. He essentially says, look,
I see the mark. I know exactly what kind of
physical tool makes that specific mark. Just because I can't
currently find the tool itself buried in the sand doesn't
mean the mark on the stone is lying to me.
Speaker 1: It's like finding a deep tire track from a tractor
in the mud. You might not see the tractor anywhere around,
but you know for a fact a kid on a
bicycle didn't make that massive track.
Speaker 2: Precisely, you logically infer the tool from the definitive market
leaves behind. In modern forensics, investigators do this all the time,
you look at a unique wound profile, and you can
determine the exact type of weapon used, even if you
never find the gun under the knife. Yeah, Dunn is
basically performing forensic engineering on ancient stone, and once he
realized this, he started aggressively looking for other evidence. He
started entirely reinterpreting the ancient landscape itself.
Speaker 1: And this naturally brings us to the famous boat pits. Now,
I have seen pictures of these things. They were these
incredibly long, deep, rectangular trenches perfectly cut directly into the
solid bedrock all around the Giza plateau, and mainstream archaeology
confidently calls them boat pits.
Speaker 2: Yes. The prevailing theory is that they were either strictly ceremonial,
meant to symbolically hold magical solar barges for the pharaoh's
spiritual journey into the afterlife, or they were functional, perhaps
holding actual physical wooden boats used during the funeral. And
to be perfectly fair to the archaeologists, they actually have
found dismantled wooden ships buried in some of them, which
obviously lends massive credence to that idea.
Speaker 1: But Dunn looks at a thirty five foot circular saw.
And then he looks down at these massive de excavated
pits and a giant light bulb goes off in his head.
Speaker 2: He speculates that these deep bedrock depressions are the absolute
perfect size, shape and depth to structurally mount those thirty
five foot saws.
Speaker 1: He hypothesized, So they weren't boat garages at all, They
were actually saw pits.
Speaker 2: Imagine it. Imagine the massive saw machinery secular mounted inside
the bedrock pit to give it absolute stability. The bedrock
acts as the rigid chassis. Then, using tracks or rollers,
you run the massive, rough granite blocks right through the
spinning machine, rapidly cutting them to perfect size before moving
them over to the pyramid for final placement.
Speaker 1: Wow, that actually makes the whole two and a half
million blocks problems seem a lot more realistically solvable. It
completely turns the Giza plateau into an industrial factory floor.
Speaker 2: It really does. It radically changes the entire context of
the site. It shifts it from a purely quiet religious
monument built by pious workers to a loud, mechanized construction
site of immense in dufat scale. It explains the rapid
speed of construction It perfectly explains the rigorous standardization, because
if you're cutting blocks with a giant fixed machine, of
course they are all going to be the exact same size.
Of course they fit together perfectly. The machine guarantees the uniformity.
Speaker 1: But he didn't stop out in the desert, did he.
He actually took this forensic mindset indoors. He went into
the museum, specifically the Luxur museum.
Speaker 2: Yes he did. He is always hunting for tool marks.
He's looking for the distinct signature left behind by a machine,
because machines, when they fail or slip, make entirely different
types of mistakes than human hands do.
Speaker 1: And he actually found one of these mistakes on a
beautiful statue of the god a Moon. Now, listener, I
really need you to picture this. It is a gorgeously carved,
highly polished statue sitting in a museum, but Dunn entirely
ignores the face, He ignores the higher glyphs, and he
zooms in on a very specific weird.
Speaker 2: Spot the buttocks.
Speaker 1: Ah, Yes, the buttocks, specifically the exact corner where the
buttock of the statue meets the flat bench that the
figure is sitting on.
Speaker 2: It sounds a bit funny to focus on, but that
tiny detail is absolutely critical to this theory because right there,
in that tight corner, there is a distinct undercut in
the hardstone.
Speaker 1: Describe this undercut for us. Why does a little groove
matter so much?
Speaker 2: Because it strongly looks like a tool slip, a slip,
like a mistake, a slip of a powered tool. Now
think about manual carving. If you are a stone mason
slowly tapping away at hard stone with a chisel in
a mallet, you are working very, very deliberately, tap, tap, tap.
If you happen to make a mistake or swing too hard,
you might ship off a piece of the stone, But
you don't accidentally slip deep into the material in a smooth,
continuous line.
Speaker 1: Right Because you have total physical control over every single strike,
you aren't implying a massive amount of continuous, unstoppable force.
You literally pause after every single hit of the mallet, exactly.
Speaker 2: But if you are using a high speed, high powered
rotary tool like a modern router or an angle grinder,
and your hand slips just a fraction of an inch
where the machine suddenly jumps off the surface, what happens.
Speaker 1: It aggressively gouges the material, It cuts way deeper than
you ever intended. Before you can even react and pull
your hands back.
Speaker 2: Exactly, the machine keeps spinning and cutting. Dunn argues that
this specific mark on the side of the Omlind statue,
this deeply cut, perfectly smooth undercut, is the undeniable signature
of a high speed tool. Slipping it heavily implies mechanized
efficiency and continuous power, not slow manual chipping. To a machinist,
it looks exactly like a rapidly spinning rotary tool that
just got away from the operator for a split second
and bit into the bench.
Speaker 1: It is always those tiny little details that really grab you.
It's not just the giant, obvious pyramids. It's the small
human mistakes, the little oops, moments frozen in stone that
fully reveal the hidden process behind the perfection.
Speaker 2: It strongly suggests the ancient craftsman was moving very fast
using a tool that cut through the hard stone almost effortlessly.
Wasn't desperately fighting the stone with a piece of copper.
He was smoothly guiding a powerful tool right through it.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we have theories of giant circular saws, massive
industrial saw hits and high speed rotary routers in ancient Egypt.
But the source material takes us on a road trip.
For the next major section, we are officially leaving Egypt
and heading north to Lebanon.
Speaker 2: To the incredibly massive Temple of Jupiter at Belbeck.
Speaker 1: Now, if you thought the two hundred ton blocks in
the Egyptian Valley Temple were big, really buckle up, because
Bellbeck genuinely makes the Giza Plateau look like a child's
lego set.
Speaker 2: Bell Beck is home to the real monsters of the
ancient world. The three absolute largest man made stones ever
placed in a structure are found right here. They're collectively
known as the Trialthon.
Speaker 1: Give us the hard stats, make us really feel the
weight of these things.
Speaker 2: Each of these three stones weighs and estimated one thousand.
Speaker 1: Tons one thousand tons.
Speaker 2: That is two million pounds each.
Speaker 1: That is I literally cannot even process that number in
my head. That's what five hundred family.
Speaker 2: Cars roughly, Yes, imagine five hundred cars perfectly compressed into
one solid, rectangular block of stone. And the craziest part,
they aren't just sitting on the ground. They were somehow
lifted and precisely placed into a retaining wall twenty odd
feet up in the air. Twenty feet up, yes, and
they fit together so incredibly perfectly that you literally cannot
slide a modern razor blade between the joints.
Speaker 1: But wait, it actually gets wilder because there's an even
bigger one still sitting nearby.
Speaker 2: Right. Yes, the famous Stone of the Pregnant Woman.
Speaker 1: Such a great name, by the way, very evocative and
ancient sounding.
Speaker 2: It really is. It's located in a quarry just a
short distance from the main temple complex. It was apparently
never fully finished or completely moved out of the quarry pit,
but it gives us a terrifyingly clear idea of their
ultimate ambition. This single stone weighs twelve hundred tons.
Speaker 1: Twelve hundred tons, just a giant, perfectly cut rectangular block
of bedrock weighing two point four million pounds.
Speaker 2: Now let's bring in the modern engineering comparison again, because
the source material interviews Peter Poludakov, who is a highly
experienced modern construction industry expert, and he poses a very
simple practical question to the camera, how exactly would we
try to move the Stone of the Pregnant Woman today?
Speaker 1: What's the modern solution.
Speaker 2: He calculates that just to lift the stone off the ground,
you would need twenty one modern heavy lift construction cranes
working in absolute perfect unison.
Speaker 1: Twenty one massive cranes. Just to pick the thing up, just.
Speaker 2: To lift it a few inches, you'd have to design
and build a custom steel harness system that connects all
twenty one cranes simultaneously to the block, and every single
crane operator would have to communicate and pull at the
exact same millisecond.
Speaker 1: Because if one pulls early.
Speaker 2: If one crane lifts slightly too fast or too slow,
the two million pound load shifts, that tension transfers unequally,
and absolute disaster happens. Cranes would topple like dominos.
Speaker 1: But here is the real kicker that blew my mind.
Ruodakov points out a massive logistical nightmare that we completely
forget when we just look at the raw lifting numbers.
To get twenty one heavy lift cranes up to a
remote mountainous site like Baalbeck, you need infrastructure, You need roads,
all right.
Speaker 2: These modern cranes are unbelievably heavy machines themselves.
Speaker 1: They are massive. He says, it's virtually impossible to do
today because the existing mountain roads and the surrounding terrain
simply cannot physically support the concentrated weight of the machinery
needed to move the stone. The ground pressure from the
crane treads would cause them to immediately sink deep into
the dirt or completely tip over.
Speaker 2: So we literally cannot even get our most advanced mechanical
robots to the site just to try and lift the rock.
But the ancients, who mainstream history insists didn't even possess
the simple wheel at this time, somehow moved a thousand
ton stones out of that quarry and hoisted them twenty
feet into the air.
Speaker 1: Without modern diesel cranes, without high pressure hydraulics, without pay
asphalt roads.
Speaker 2: It really makes the classic ropes and rolling logs theory
just completely crumbled to dust, doesn't it. I mean, just
imagine the sheer thickness of the hemp rope you would
need to securely pull two million pounds without snapping.
Speaker 1: The friction alone is just mind boggling to think about.
Speaker 2: And if you are theoretically using wooden rollers, stripping hundreds
of tree trunks and shoving them under a thousand ton weight,
the logs would literally be crushed into woodpulp instantly. Standard
wood simply cannot withstand that kind of concentrated point pressure.
The logs would just explode under the stone.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't physically work. The basic material limitations of
natural wood and woven hemp rope make the whole endeavor
practically physics defying, and.
Speaker 2: That logical dead end leads us perfectly into the final
section of our sources argument today, what they call the
brutal man power myth.
Speaker 1: Right, they interview Roger Hopkins, who is a highly experienced
real world stonemason, and he shares a personal story that
I think perfectly illustrates this massive disconnect between theoretical academic
history and real world muddy boots construction reality.
Speaker 2: The Palm Springs experiment.
Speaker 1: Right. So, Hopkins is out working on a commercial landscaping
project in Palm Springs modern day, and his crew is
trying to move a large decorative stone.
Speaker 2: He says it was a stone weighing quote well in
excess of five tons, so let's call it roughly ten
thousand pounds.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's just pause and frame this five tons
compared to the one thousand tons sitting up at Baalbec.
This rock is basically a pebble.
Speaker 2: It is literally half of one percent of the weight
of a single Ballbeck Trilton stone. It is barely a
rounding error in ancient terms.
Speaker 1: And Hopkins and his crew they have modern machinery on site.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, they rented one of the absolute largest diesel
excavators available on the commercial market, a massive, state of
the art hydraulic machine.
Speaker 1: And what actually happened.
Speaker 2: They profoundly struggled. Hopkins describes how they had an incredibly
hard time just lifting it up enough to carefully load
it onto the back of a flatbed truck. The heavy
duty machine was audibly straining, the high pressure hydraulics were
whining and pushing their maximum load limits. It was a
genuinely difficult, dangerous operation for an experienced modern crew with.
Speaker 1: A mere five ton rock and a massive modern machine. Yes,
and yet mainstream history asks us to unquestioningly believe that
ancient people smoothly moved stones that were two hundred times
heavier than that entirely by hand.
Speaker 2: Hopkins is extremely blunt about this. When he speaks, he
directly critiques the comfortable academic view. He basically says, we
are supposedly expected to blindly accept that ancient builders entirely
without wheels, pulleys or iron brackets, achieve this using just
brutal manpower and little pieces of.
Speaker 1: Strength pieces of strength. I honestly love that phrasing. It
so perfectly highlights the absolute absurdity of the proposed toolkit.
Speaker 2: His final conclusion on the matter is pretty damning for
the mainstream narrative. He just shrugs and says, quote, the
context does not fit the evidence.
Speaker 1: That is exactly the perfect summary line for this entire discussion.
The context meaning that the primitive tools we are strictly
told they had entirely fails to fit the physical evidence
the absolutely massive stones we can clearly see they moved
and precisely cut.
Speaker 2: It is a massive, glaring discrepancy. On one hand, you
have the undeniable physical objects sitting right there in front
of you, a perfectly carved, one thousand done block of granite,
and on the other hand, you have the accepted historical
narrative copper chisels, sand and lots of sweating guys pulling ropes.
The two realities simply do not intersect anywhere in the
realm of physics. You absolutely cannot bridge that massive technological
gap by just saying, well, they just use more people.
Speaker 1: So really, where does that actually leave us. We've got
deep cuts in hard granite that fundamentally look like they
were carved by giant thirty five foot circular saws. We've
got perfectly placed stone blocks that easily defy the lifting
capacity of fleets of modern construction cranes. We've got a
historical timeline that dictates these people were barely out of
the hunter gatherer phase, with a little bit of basic
agriculture and an architectural output that loud industrial revolution.
Speaker 2: It leaves us deeply embedded in a mystery that stubbornly
refuses to go away, no matter how much the textbooks
try to gloss over it. The source material we review today,
drawing heavily from the engineering investigations in ancient Aliens, obviously
leans very strongly towards the idea that this required technology
was external, or at the very least far far more
advanced that we currently give human ancestors credit.
Speaker 1: For right, and whether it was Aliens from another star system,
or some highly advanced lost human civilization that got wiped out,
or just really really incredibly smart Egyptians who discovered a
fundamental principle of acoustic physics or levitation that we somehow
completely lost. Honestly, the how is the real smoking gun
here exactly?
Speaker 2: We consider out a debate the theoretical who all day long?
Was it Atlanteans? Was it extraterrestrials? Was it a lost
Ice Age civilization? We honestly don't know for sure. But
the how the required technology that isn't theoretical, that is
entirely physical, that is tangible. You can physically walk up
and touch the circular cut mark in the stone. You
can literally calculate the sheer mass and weigh the stone.
Speaker 1: And that undeniable physical evidence practically screams for an explanation
that goes far, far beyond wow, they just pulled really
hard on some ropes.
Speaker 2: It absolutely forces us to fundamentally reconsider the entire upward
trajectory of human history.
Speaker 1: Here's a really provocative thought to leave you with today
as we wrap this up. If these ancient civilizations truly
had thirty five foot power saws, if they truly possess
the mechanical ability to casually lift twelve hundred ton blocks
of bedrock, where did all that massive machinery go.
Speaker 2: Now, that is the great lingering question, because machines rust,
iron decays, wood rots away to nothing, but stone stone
remains forever.
Speaker 1: Is it entirely possible that human history is actually cycle,
that we rise up to a tremendous level of high
tech capability, we build these impossible, massive things, and then
some cataclysm happens and we fall right back down to
the Stone Age, and thousands of years later, all that's
left surviving the elements are really really big rocks.
Speaker 2: It's entirely possible, and it's a humbling thought. We might
literally be looking at the eroded remnants of a technological
peak we didn't even know humanity had reached. Yeah, just
imagine if our own modern civilization completely collapse tomorrow in
ten thousand years. All the steel skyscrapers would be completely
rusted away to nothing, the billions of computers and smartphones
would just be toxic dust in the soil. But the
Hoover Dam or Mount Rushmore, those massive stone and concrete
structures might still be sitting there. And future primitive people
might look up at the Hoover Dam and say, Wow,
how did they build that with just plastic spoons and
copper wire.
Speaker 1: Oh man, it is such a haunting thought, but I
will say it makes walking through a natural history museum
or looking at ruins a whole lot more interesting.
Speaker 2: It certainly does. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
You start looking at the ancient statues totally differently. You
stop looking at the faces and you start actively looking
for the slips. You start searching the corners for the
hidden tool marks.
Speaker 1: Speaking of which, listener, I really want to ask you directly,
when we talked earlier about that weird little mark on
the museum statue of a moon, that supposed slip of
the high speed rotary tool right there on the buttock,
what is your personal stand on that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, do you see a definitive slip of a high
powered mechanized tool, or do you genuinely just see a
really unfortunate chisel error made by a tired manual worker.
Speaker 1: Ponder that for a bit, Look up the pictures online,
closely examine the tool marks for yourself, and please leave
a comment to let us know exactly what you think.
We genuinely want to hear your theories.
Speaker 2: On this always, because the absolute best insights often come
from fresh eyes looking at an.
Speaker 1: Old problem, absolutely true. Thank you so much for joining
us on this wild journey into the realm of the
impossible today.
Speaker 2: It has been an absolute pleasure to break this all
down with you.
Speaker 1: This has been thrilling. Threads keep pulling at those loose
ends in the narrative. We will see you next time.