I am an experienced stonemason with experience carving a vast array of stone types in the UK, and North America. What the ancients have constructed, is utterly astonishing. I would love to go back in time and witness the skills they used.
@@jeffmccloud905 The original commenter is a stone Mason and he os amazing by the carved granite in Egypt, the reply said to look at the marble statue of David see what a human and chisels can do, and I am saying that comparing doing work by hand on marble and on granite is not something you can really compare because granite is much much harder then marble.
@@jeffmccloud905 I just told you what I'm saying. I can be more specific. Marble ranks as a 3 on the Mohs scale of harness, granite is a 7. So when the original commenter is marveling at granite carvings in Egypt, and the reply is well just look at what people did with David it's not a real comparison as the material to make David is half the hardness of the material the original commenter is marveling over. Is that clear enough for you?
Jeff You don’t need to be a freaking stone mason to know stuff. The weekend backpacker rock collector or anyone taken a geology course knows granite is harder then marble. The POINT is that ARCHEOLOGISTS say that the ancients carved granite using COPPER or bronze as they didn’t have steel back then. Ya there were awesome carvings in marble even back in Greece I believe, but like for hard rock you need harder tools for quality work. It’s like using a cheap drill bit. Ya you may get a hole or two before ya break it rededecking a semi trailer for instance. But more expensive drill bits last longer and is cheaper long run and you have less down time. Like the inside of the pyramid has a granite tomb that’s pretty much perfectly square and level and they did that with crude bronze tools. It’s just like it’s extremely unlikely the quality of job done could be done with crude tools not meant for the job. But then again maybe they did have steel and were being lied to. Why does egypts museum have a display of boomerangs found in a tomb and why was cocaine found in a tomb? Maybe they grew and made cocaine there and made boomerangs but it’s unlikely.
Try explaining any of this to anyone that believes this stuff, but isn't intellectually honest with themselves let alone anything else. They will not listen. No matter what you say, they always try to think of some little thing, and then act like that thing not only disproves everything you just said but also proves they were right all along. I once had a 50 post thread just trying to explain that the H blocks at Puma Punku are not identical and do not possess perfect angles, and I could not do it. No matter how hard I tried, no one would accept that the actual real blocks at Puma Punku do not possess the attributes credited to them: it was impossible for them to believe that the blocks are not perfect, because that is how they have been described to them and to believe otherwise is to realise the people that described the H Blocks as perfect were lying to them. That is the crux, in my view, the people spreading the information don't care if they lie or who they lie to. The people believing the lies do care however, they really do not want to be the person that was lied to. I was that person, but I just accepted I was duped, and moved on. I really see no shame in it, these theories are intriguing, it's now wonder people believe in them. There's just too much dishonesty and that is where we all have to draw the line. When you find out that someone is lying to you, you can't ignore it and you have to act accordingly. It is easier to deceive someone, than to show someone they have been deceived. Don't be that person.
You're right, for some people it's a waste of time. There's a certain mentality a minority of people have where they get pleasure from thinking they're in this tiny club who know something other people don't, they enjoy the martyr complex fantasy that the mainstream is against them. They don't even care about reality or evidence, that's not the point, it's about being in 'the club'.
You’ve personally inspected the stones at Pumapunku? Try explaining any rational thought to anyone that believes the elitist bullshit narrative of mainstream academia, but isn’t intellectually honest with themselves let alone anything else. They are too conceited to listen. No matter what you say they always try to quote some asshole from some no name college that no one has ever heard of and then act like they are the end all be all authority on the matter without considering that these morons they so dearly love have a vested interest in protecting their precious narratives which is de facto protecting their precious degrees and concealing their insecurities.
@@javiersoto5223 Bronze, though... You gotta remember there were alloys of copper long before tin-bronze was discovered too. Arsenic-bronze is the one that most readily comes to mind.
There is an Iranian joke I think you might find funny, an Italian and a Iranian are walking by the coliseum and Italian guy finds a piece of wire on the ground. He showed it to the Iranian guy and says “ you see this wire? This shows Romans had telephone lines 2000 years ago!” The Iranian looks at it for a minute and then replies: you won’t find any lines in ancient Iran, we used mobile phones! Lol
your patience is astounding, the original video is so frustrating but the way you approach it openly is the best way to address this type of thinking. kudos for trying to make everyone smarter
Within woodworking mass produced items use large tools, individual woodworkers use an array of power tools. That's the camp I'm in. Then there are people who build only using hand tools. It is a completely different skill. Finally there are folks who build with only antique hand tools. Just saying you are a woodworker does not mean that you would have expertise or be able to weigh in across all these practices.
Very well put. As they say, you need the right tool for the job. And the term woodworking is almost as vague as the term sea creature. What kind of wood? What size is the project? Is it a building on land? Is it a ship at sea? Is it indoors like a table, or outdoors like a pagoda? Does it need to be strong like a spear, or flexible? Does it need to be hard wearing or carry heavy loads like a bridge? Unless I'm mistaken I think the term is very broad indeed.
And even our recent past show differences, my grandfather would do things completely differently to how I would (I having been a cabinetmaker), just in 60-70 years there's a big change. Even consider someone in agricultural areas compared to cities, they also do things differently. I find the whole notion of high tech ancients offensive, doubly so that he is Australian.
The polishing arguments ruin my brain. We literally use sand to this day. If we want a finer polish, we use ever smaller sands and start mixing it with liquids.
Every time I see these ancient high tech or alien claims, I can tell it's made by people who have never worked with hand tools in their lives. I have polished a rough river stone into a perfect oval pearl as a gift to a loved one. I did it with hand sanding with Diatom earth and oil mixture for the fine polish. The rough sanding was done via pulverized rock. I wanted to do it all by hand as a show of love. Took me about 20 hours of sanding by hand. Yes, you need massive forearms for this, but guess what, that's entirely possible to have. The secret ingredient is not high technology, but patience, blood, sweat and tears.
Actually, the polished surface won't last, any geologist will confirm that. The feldspar in the granite degrades, especially when exposed to the elements. Yet the Egyptian rose granite has retained its polish for thousands of years. Sorry if that further ruins your brain.
Being in construction myself, one needs to realize that even with power tools, for cutting metal and/or stone and masonry, the cutting blades or drill bits are either hardened or with saws, are coated with abrasive materials....
Hi Mitchell. On the Giza plateau there are off cut stones and partial cuts.. What do you suppose cut these stones leaving a kerf of ~4mm and a ~13 ft diameter ? The images indicate single point action vs grinding. I would love to see the machine and blade(?) that cut that stone.
@@ivokolarik8290 Hello Ivo, I think a pendulum would not make such even toolmarks. I'm thinking a disk with single points such as a modern circular saw with tungsten carbide, just scaled up to 13' and with diamond or some other stone for the cutting tips. Where are those tools.
@@tbohtwentyone 'humans' learnt that pissing on things can be useful ('acids') long before the discovery of fire(what chemistry can do - it can undo). Gravity and it's effects are apparent to everybody, they don't need equations(gravity fed acid.) Also - friction cutting doesn't need stone or metal...
@@giupiete6536 There is no evidence of acids used to cut stone in Egypt. The Inca may have used it to finish the joints and faci g block for their walls. They were big into mining and there found use for the acids that resulted in their refining processes.
I had to sand/polish a stone with sand paper and leather to a mirror-esque shine before in, like, 5th grade woodworking class. Not really that unbelievable if a bunch of 12 year olds can do it
I used to supervise construction projects, snd I can tell you from personal experience that the amount of labor required to do work depends a lot on culture. Working in Italy, I observed that some work was done in a manner that in the US wouldn't have been done the same way. For example in the US, most cities have large street sweeping machines. In the city I lived in, street sweeping was done by hand with straw brooms. Not because they lacked access to street sweeping machines, but because the focus is providing jobs. Using a machine would only employ one or two people, but sweeping by hand employs dozens, and requires no skill. If efficiency is not your priority, if you have plenty of labor, technology is not required, just persistence.
This is exactly what is happening in service sector in the developing country I live in. Humans are cheaper and easier to replace than tools when they wear out or become unsatisfactory. Moreover, you can move a worker to do another job without modifications to the "machinery".
The guy made an argument about sanding and polishing the granite, and how long it would take for it to be done manually, so they just had to have used power tools. Imagine how many labourers they could commission to do this simple task, and just how many hours they spent doing it daily, does he think they had labour laws dictating how many hours they could work for, or how hazardous the environment could be? They probably spent most of their day doing this, labour was replaceable too, so they could overwork people all they wanted, no need for power tools, just expendable labour.
One of the main red flags people should keep an eye out for when watching videos of different theories in any science is “we’re told”. You’re not being told anything. There’s a leading edge of current theories and explanations, sure, but that’s not the same as dogma. Please understand this.
"We're told"...... = followed by nothing. Academia quantifies its claims via evidence and sourcing. "Alternative" on the other hand is mostly unsubstantiated "innuendo" and allusion. It is all _"I think......I feel......I believe......."_ - or "we" as you say = but little else. 🤔
maybe within the profession, but lay people are in fact expected to believe what experts tell them on faith (because only experts are competent to interpret the data).
In the last year more evidence has come to light about Gobekle Tepe. The official report late this year (2022) from the people working the site indicates that they have now found domestic structures in proximity to the ritual structures. Separate as expected, but right next to them. I have watched the academic community's evaluation of the site evolve continually as new evidence was uncovered; they are hardly 'sticking to the conventional paradigm' here. Work at other nearby sites has produced evidence of a wide-spread culture in the region inconsistent with a hunter-gatherer model in terms of territory and population, and professionals commenting on the site are starting to seriously consider that they practiced agriculture. Naturally they are reluctant to commit to this position in the absence of concrete evidence, but they are open to the idea and are simply waiting for data to confirm it before committing. That's called 'science,' not a conspiracy or cover-up.
I do believe that the history of humanity is more complex than we can currently demonstrate, but I haven't seen evidence of cultures in deep antiquity producing anything that they could not have created with the tools we KNOW they had. Experimental archeology has demonstrated techniques for producing many of the features attributed to high-technology using only the sorts of tools we know people of these periods possessed. You can find videos here on You Tube documenting those efforts. Is civilization by some definition older than previously suspected? The evidence seems to indicate that it may well be. Is it possible that even older civilizations will be discovered? Sure, why not? Will they use 'advanced technology?' In terms of our understanding of the tools of their era it's possible. Not all societies progress in technology at the same rate. Some societies inevitably developed tools and techniques before others. In this instance stone-age tools and techniques, not machinery.
"Work at other nearby sites has produced evidence of a wide-spread culture in the region inconsistent with a hunter-gatherer model in terms of territory and population" Not true.
@@vids595 Yeah, I think 'evidence' of population currently can be left up to how one would interpret the uses of settlements found at GT. Unless there is new evidence that I've not seen yet.
Being open to data is 1 thing. Instantly parroting the standard propaganda, that criticizes the most obvious issues that are contrary to the propaganda is called bias NOT Science.
This video literally changed my life. I used to be heavily invested in all of these alt. history narratives pushed by the likes of UnchartedX, Ham Grandcock, Christopher Dunn, etc. etc. etc. Just being exposed to a fraction of the nuance these charlatans were INTENTIONALLY leaving out was enough to make me feel deeply embarrassed for not looking into these claims on my own.
@@wout123100 Well I was assured by the people with all the books to sell and clicks to bait that these scholarly professionals couldn't be trusted because were all just a part of some big spooky academic conspiracy to do basic fact-checking and ruin everyone's fun.... I mean "hide the truth".
"the writing is never polished" yes. like on modern gravestones, where the letters are sometimes left rough, so that their different texture stands out against the polished stone. I guess our society must not have the advanced technology needed to polish the letters on all of our graves.
They are left rough on modern gravestones, because the relatives of deceased didn't think it necessary to pay shit a lot of money for polished engraved letters or they didn't have the money. For example rich people tend to play extra for piece of art grave stones with polished mirror like surfaces and silver/gold engraved letters or some kind of extravagant sculpture grave stone. And as far as I know the Egyptian Pharaohs where the rich one and I guess they required the finest work from the most skilled sculptors.
@@MrAwesomeBikerDude We don't have any reason to. Engineering is usually about keeping costs down, while still complying with code (so it's not so cheaply made that it kills the occupants). Ancient people were amazing, but if we can machine hardened cannons to send shells 30 miles with almost perfect precision, then we can probably get that kind of perfection out of stone, too.
"Most scholars DREAM of upsetting the status quo!" For real! The reason most studies and papers are revisions of recontextualizations of specific niche elements of single topics isn't because modern scholarship is cowardly and hidebound, it's because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This isn't the Wild West anymore, a single psychologist can't just claim that there's a secret shared unconscious all people are hooked into that feeds them ideas and be made a household name. (Thanks a lot, Jung.)
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," is unscientific drivel. They require the same amount of evidence. Ironic you got that wrong because you probably fancy yourself as a scientist.
I love the way the imperfect rocks that have been left behind at quarries are proof they had high tech and not low tech that resulted in a lot of failures left behind in quarries...
Well their reasoning is that it was so easy and fast to cut stones, if you weren't careful you would over cut or stray from the cut line easily. It makes a lot of sense.
@@SamBorgman It actually makes no fkn sense at all. Aliens that had the tech to get here could not invent a guard that prevents overcutting? Gimme a fkn break!
There's been a similar case here in Brazil lately, where an ancient Amazon basin civilization has been unearthed. And they apparently had an "ancient high technology" known as agri-forest (which is apparently the reason why, when the forest re-grew after their mass-death by European diseases, so many useful plants remain). But the mainstream media did a shit job of reporting the findings, and now many people treat it like they just found the Amazon's Atlantis. It's been really hard to tell people who are ignorant of the actual finds about the discovery, without sounding crazy in the process.
Yes I saw that. Amazing to me it wasn't like front page news all over earth. My understanding is that there's absolutely no way , scientifically speaking, that so many useful trees plants bushes, grow in the way they do. The only explanation is they were cultivated. Interesting. Very interesting
They dug all their waste into the ground, and eventually it became fertile soil (called terra preta), a process that was probably accidental at first. It's clever, but not exactly what most people understand as "high technology". It does seem as if early European descriptions of large populations all along the Amazon were correct, after being dismissed for centuries. Tragically it seems that European diseases killed the vast majority of these people before Europeans even penetrated their territory, so when they did, the rain forest had already taken over their settlements, so it was assumed those early descriptions were travellers' tales..
@Paul Holloway Terra Preta isn't the result of just burying their waste into the ground. We still do that today. It appears to have come from leaving smouldering embers there for an extended period of time kept lit/smouldering burning away, or so it's believed nobody is 100% sure. There are efforts by brazilian companies trying to recreate it at the moment.
There is a difference between approaching something with an open mind and approaching something with an empty mind. We are to hear arguments and fairly evaluate them... not let other people photocopy their ideas onto us without evaluating them using the best available experience, research, logic, and evidence.
Truth is there are too many missing pieces of information. Mainstream history is doing the same thing alternative history does, it believes in the most logical explanation according to the evidence(except mainstream is getting paid to do research right). My point is there is no evidence to prove almost anything about the pyramids which is really sad. ( dont tell me a piece of wood and a few scrapes of charcoal can be evidence for the date of construction of the pyramids, because thats what mainstream history says if im not wrong)
The thing I found most disappointing about academia is how close-minded it generally is. It seems to be more about arriving at pre-determined results based on the scholar's viewpoint, and the politics within the discipline, than anything else.
10:0611:2414:1827:442:41:32 For those who are interested in the topic of polygonal masonry. A number of methods for obtaining the polygonal masonry are proposed. The basis of the proposed methods is the use of clay/gypsum replicas, reduced clay models of stone blocks and a 3D-pantograph, as well as a topography translator. The results are presented in the article: “Fabrication methods of the polygonal masonry of large tightly fitted stone blocks with curved surface interfaces in megalithic structures of Peru”. I do not provide a direct link, because RUclips does not allow a comment with this link. Search by the article title.
. I read somewhere that it was incredible to believe that so many pyramids were made across the ancient world. Someone opined, "Yet beavers across the world make intricate dams and have never met each other"
🤭 Yup. Of course it helps when they are = all beavers...... Thus all humans are endowed with the same capacity for "pattern recognition" - it being the basis of much of our knowledge. We see things in the world around us and are able to "make connections" which help us to learn. So a "pyramid" is nothing more than stacking blocks one atop another in a tapering fashion. It has the added benefit of being a stable structure. Finally it can be viewed as "a man made mountain" which is important considering ancient man ascribed greatness to such things. Moral of the story: give a child with no understanding of geometry blocks to play with. After a time using trial & error and the aforementioned pattern recognition they will eventually create pyramidal shapes. So the only thing "strange" about seeing pyramidal structures built around the planet by otherwise disparate cultures = is that some feel it is supposedly strange.
@FreedaPeeple-in2mn Yep. I've often thought the ancient architects of the pyramids would be equally staggered and baffled by modern skyscrapers. Maybe they'd think aliens must've made them.
When he speaks about grinding It really grind my gears... as former glass grinder I would say that sometimes you just need to polish (or even smooth-grind) some specific things by hand. It is ussualy painful and painfully time consuming, but it is necessary in cases machine are just uncapable achieve the desired "perfection" 🙂
I absolutely do not have a clue whats your point, obviously I do not speek yours clan tongue :-D But I have a feeling that you telling that Im idiot that my machine cannot do something… and I telling you, something just need its time and cannot be done in a hurry - for example (!!) some fine poloshing of glass needs to be done slow or it gets ruptured, cracked, or you may harm by heat its subsurface layer and it gets then much easily broken… or if you need to do some smooth grinding in order to be able to UV-glued two pieces it is best to do it slowly by hand ontop of sheet of glass… So I suppose each and all materials has something similar no mater if it is stone, metal or wood...
@@MaXxProsTe so an ancient who carved a perfect artifact out of a material harder then the tools he has a impossible feat hand rubbed the whole thing out ?or was there a civilization before that had the tools and know how. the experts said the panda did not exist there are black bears brown bears and white bears these no such thing as a black and white bear that eats only bamboo all bears are carnivore's . they were wrong maybe the tools to do such feats once existed with a civilization prior to the Egyptian's .
@@jamessimkowiak1194 you have obviously totally wrong rudimentaries...and that terrible language do not helps me either. Im sorry, but seems you do not know a thing about anything. The tools softer than processed material..? How do you suppose the diamonds get shaped (or got shaped in early days)? By even harder diamonds? No - by "softer" tools. That can by applied to anything... rocks get carved by water (and grains in it).
When I sculpt with stone there always comes that point where I put down the tools and finish it by hand. It sucks, but the results always feel great. That and I can take small sculptures to the porch, sit on my grandparents old swing bench, and polish until the fireflies come out.
On what I would consider evidence of ancient high technology: ball bearings would do it for me. We take them for granted these days, but ball bearings are *very* hard to make, because of the materials required and the difficulty inherent in machining spheres small, smooth, and consistent enough. Even today, there are nations out there that cannot make them in any real volume and rely almost entirely on imported bearings to keep their economies rolling smoothly.
@@TheLizardKing752 I like how he was able to include the pun... while still keeping his bearings. If I tried that it would probably... spin out of control. (case in point) ;)
Artists and artisans become obsessed and will stop at nothing to make their vision manifest. Limitations and handicaps are met with dedication, ingenuity, and a helluva lot of elbow grease. Seemingly superhuman reserves of patience, tenacity and focus can be summoned to serve the final product. I’m guessing X has never experienced this for himself. His ignorant dismissals insult not only ancient people, but all of human creativity. Thank you for making this wonderful video.
This is such an excellent point I am right this very moment making some sweat pants for myself and while I could finish the waistband on the sewing machine in about 2 minutes it wouldn't be as tidy or as strong as if I do it by hand. Consequently I'm stitching my waistband by hand because I have a vision of how I want it to look and that vision is better obtained by hand stitching. What is the point of my resorting to "primitive" sewing techniques other than a dedication to preservation of my vision, lol.
Dude you get it. I love sewing garments by hand with a needle and thread and am quite good at it now. I've been practicing little by little pretty much my whole life. I go through long periods where I don't sew much as I work full time and sewing by hand is obviously, time consuming, but I do a little every year. My skills have grown slowly over the years and while I can now produce garments that are beautifully made with stitches that are both fine and uniform I am always looking for better methods, and practicing new techniques. I have sewn many a thing over the course of several days that I could easily throw together in a few hours if I used a sewing machine but that's boring and not at all fun so despite the harder work of sewing by hand I stick to it.
I used to believe that all the ancient mysteries were the result of 'patience, tenacity, and focus' (and it certainly still may be), but all of that takes TIME, and TIME contradicts history. If you find a way to build the pyramids in *20 years* with nothing other than pounding stones, copper tools, and elbow grease, please share. The key being time. If time was not a factor, I'd agree that the Pyramids are egyptian, but in 20 years? Have you ever visited the pyramids and actually absorbed how truly massive they are? Hell, I'd even go as far as challenging you to make a single granite vase in those 20 years with the same tolerance and geometric accuracy of the ancient artifacts. I believed for the longest time that they were simply "clever solutions" to old problems, but many of the tolerances on these ancient pots are truly more perfect than what we can reproduce today on actual CNC machines. Im not saying they used CNCs, but im simply using that as a comparison of quality. They are actually *perfect* which is not something most people can appreciate unless they've tried to make something truly perfect.
@@Creator-of-None You don’t “agree that the Pyramids are egyptian” ?? Sir, I think your journey into “ancient mysteries “, and UnchartedX and possibly Graham Hancock, have led you astray, and I want you to come back. Those pyramids were built IN EGYPT, by the people who lived there at the time, i.e., EGYPTIANS. Yes, apparently it took about 20 yrs (for 20k people) to build one pyramid, but they practiced this method of construction for 1,000 yrs or more. The early ones were crude, over TIME they hit their stride and built some really fine ones, and then I believe they half-assed a few more crappy ones before they gave it up for good and moved on to Victorian Bungalows. I could be wrong but the point is they had plenty of TIME. I hate to break it to you but nothing is PERFECT. Not the Hubble Telescope lens, not Michelangelo’s David, and not Ancient Egyptian stone vessels. Personally, Salma Hayek seems perfect to me, but I’m sure if I examined her very closely and took accurate measurements I would find some tiny flaw. To say those vessels are perfect is simply repeating someone else’s hyperbole. By the way, a RUclips channel called ‘Scientists Against Myths’ has videos demonstrating the very real possibility of recreating complex stone vessels using primitive tools, and these are exemplary of the point I was trying to make in my original post. Lastly, Alexander, it’s very easy and also very cowardly to criticize and deny the centuries of accumulated data earned through real work by actual scientists, without ever daring to make a positive claim or offer a theory of your own to be addressed and scrutinized. This is why UnchartedX invents a mystery and then vaguely alludes to an even bigger mystery, without ever making a specific claim. It’s cowardly and lazy. I would respect someone more if they had the balls to make their claim and own it. If you think it’s Aliens, say it’s Aliens! Tell us what they ate, what kind of hat they wore- why they flew across space just to make perfect shit out of stone and bury it with those Pharaoh guys. Just don’t be like that, Alexander. Consider Occam’s Razor, avoid the Argument from Incredulity… and recognize that History, Archaeology, even Reality itself is wondrous and fascinating enough without manufacturing unfounded “mysteries “ that only insult and cheapen it. Come back to us Alexander !
It’s telling that Ben never responded to this, considering it’s a thorough detailed and length debunking that easily makes its case. It’s also telling that he deletes any mention to this video on his RUclips channel. Well done on such a thorough effort - I learned a lot!
To respond would require knowledge of the subject far beyond anything he feigns to have........ It would also further open him to additional exposure of said lack of understanding. Thus Ben like all monetizers of the "alternative" schtick off no meaningful engagement. Their game is all assumptive "innuendo" to leave the viewer filling in their own blanks based upon their own ignorance and fantasy-based assumptions. There is no compelling argument for that - nor defense really. They are purveyors of rhetoric and sophistry.
Ben has been running around and creating a lot of new content. Why waist time replying to century old academic arguments? All of Ben's work has been countering these arguements, you want a reply video??? he already has a full channel of them. And the whole monetization and scamming accusation is the most pathetic, Ben's work and many others is FREE. How much do Universities charge to dogmatically protest Clovis First!! Or that The Great Pyramids were made before a wheel barrow??? You mainstream academic hardliners are the egotistical dogmatic lunatics who think native people are savages who know nothing of history, you would support priests for burning people who say the earth is round.
@@RockKnocker17 ginning up new rationalizations for what are fundamentally = the same arguments - is not "new content". It is simple "obfuscation". If you want an analogy: _"Intelligent Design"_ That is where the Creatards "fluff up" their Creationist worldview via junk science claims to try to make it appear as scientifically plausible. Remove that "filler" and you are left with the same old argument...... Moral of the story: adding "new details" to what is fundamentally a flawed argument does not make it new.......
@@varyolla435ginning up contents? That's great. He is making content so good that is changing the antiquities markets.... do you understand that? One video is scientifically measuring a perfectly flat box burried in Egypt, then fragments of the largest statue I've ever seen, the next video are aerospace experts measuring jars with their lab equipment. You act like he daily vlogging his life for views, all the work many people have done on this topic and his content IS changing the world, you call it "ginning up." It's your ego that cant handle the reality here.
No, you've got me completely wrong. I'm not an academic, and i used to heavily believe in the high tech belief system. I've been studying this since the 90s... you know what i did? I kept digging. Ben is behind, he chooses to ignore a bunch of research that goes WAY beyond what he documents. There's a weath of information that goes back into the 1800's, and once you start to look deeper into this, It's easy to debunk Bens' work. He's holding onto a lot of easily disproved stuff and chooses to ignore it. We don't need some high technology bullshit, we just need to think about how people 6000 years ago did things... and many people are going down that path now, and it's FAR MORE INTERESTING then coming up with hair brained theories talking about ancient computers and cnc machines that make absolutely no sense... (trying to supplant todays technology into civilisation 6000 years ago is insane and lazy) ask yourself this... if high technology existed... why is nothing duplicated exactly the same... wouldn't they use such 'high technology' over and over... ? Yet all those vases.. are different... the boxes in the seapeum range dramatically in quality... Do yourself a favour and look beyond Ben's bullshit. Ben DOES NOT counter these arguments, sufficiently at all, and for you to say so only illustrates you're unaware of the depth and breadth of this subject level... Instead of countering arguments ... he simply calls any opposition 'logical falacies' and is silent for a LOT of content that completely blows his 'research' out of the water. He also actively censors anyone who dare bring this stuff up in any of his communities.. i've seen it first hand.... the truth is out there... but you need to be brave enough to challenge your preconcieved ideas and bias's. I did, can you? BTW that 'flat box' you talk about isn't as flat as he makes out, is has inperfections, and t's surrounded by others boxes that can be dated to the same period that arn't "precise' at all. All this can be easily looked up and many people have covered it far more comprehensively then Ben... and he chooses to ignore that these videos exist, because it completely dismantles his work as lazy, and exposes him as a creator that won't admit the truth, because he would have to declare that his work needs a complete revision... alas, he chooses not too. Have fun on your research journey! @@RockKnocker17
2:37:54 - A large Greek (Corinthian-style) column in Alexandria is briefly shown in the clip. In the U-X video, he implies that it too is a product of his lost civilization. Interesting that the Egyptians only stole palm-leaf and lotus-topped columns from the Atlanteans, and were nice enough to leave all the Corinthian columns for the Ptolemaic Greeks to repurpose.
Just playing devil's advocate here so don't come at me lol. But let's just say for a moment that he's right, and that ancient cultures appropriated stone artifacts from an antediluvian civilization. We could further assume that this ancient civilization wasn't entirely homogenous, and that its various cities would each have their own unique art, architecture, and linguistics. And also their own climate and ecosystem. So if you were a Greek person appropriating the artifacts you found in your own backyard, you would perhaps expect that the Egyptian thousands of miles away might find something completely different, but that the influence of that found object would be equally profound on the development of his own culture.
@@Jack-ny7kn Any mega, worldwide flood, that is believed to have destroyed all evidence of a previous high tech civilization, would have damaged beyond recognition any construction consisting primarily of lime stone. Post flood, no beautiful pyramids.
@@russellmillar7132 I think given all the flood myths we have to accept a deluge on some level. How much land was inundated, how fast the water was flowing, and for how long are all unanswered questions. Even theologians who take their holy books at face value disagree on the exact meaning of the text, in terms of the totality of the deluge. It was likely different for different areas. Coastal areas almost certainly would have taken the worst beating, but areas inland like the pyramids might have sustained less damage. I don't think there's anything physically prohibitive with the idea that some stone ruins could have survived a civilization ending cataclysm. Particularly since this scenario also presupposes the survival of people.
@@Jack-ny7kn Hey Jack, thanks for taking the time to respond. I think a reasonable person knows that floods are, and likely always have been, part of life on Earth. After the last cycle of warming (Bolling-Allerod) into the fairly rapid cooling period (Younger Dryas) after the end of the ice age, catastrophic regional floods were very common compared to today. Sea levels rose, then receded again with the cooling in the YD, over a period of decades, during about 15,000 and 11,500 ybp. The circumstances around such mega floods as caused the channeling scab lands in Washington State and the draining of Lake Bonneville, resulted from breaking ice dams that released amounts of water equivalent to half of Lake Michigan all at once. Any people who witnessed these events and survived, would doubtless have a story about a flood that, from their limited perspective, covered the whole world. The flood story I heard as a child, from the Bible, it seems, is the same flood myth, with some differences, as the previous stories from Sumerian, Akkadian, and other ancient Mesopotamian cultures. So that's really just one flood myth retold in succeeding ages by successive cultures. To my knowledge there was never a time, during the time that humans have walked this Earth, that the entire globe was covered (above all the mountain ranges) with water. This would have resulted in a mass-extinction that would likely have meant the near total destruction of all species of plant and animal. In my opinion, if this happened a mere12-6000 years ago (depending on who's dating we would accept) there is no way the planet could have, in this geologically short period of time, recreated life with all the diversity we have today, especially human life. I think flood myths, although they may be inspired by actual events, serve a function in giving cultures identity. The fact that not all ancient cultures, or even a majority, have flood myths should ring a bell or light a bulb that if not all cultures recorded this supposed global event, then the flood myths are more likely stories about how floods affected their own people (or people in their ancient past) and a relatively few of them were spared.
1. I'm a fabricator and sculptor and I have used hand tools as well as as high tech equipment and while current technologies could produce many of these artifacts I have found that will-power is the most important factor in making. If you wanted to make a diorite sarcophagus with copper tools that bend and break with every 5-10 blows (or less) you would do it anyway. While it seems to us to be too difficult to achieve, humans are great problem solvers. There is evidence that stone carvers would have dozens of copper chisels ready for them and those tools that were "busted up" were reworked and reused. As a maker: I buy this possibility. 2. The whole "power in academia" is an invention necessary to create a straw man. Create the bad guy and point at them when your ideas (without evidence) veer into fantasy. For example: "The pyramids were constructed in space where gravity couldn't be a building obstacle, and anyone saying I'm wrong is saying that because they are gatekeepers of an academic status quo." Anyway...
@@vids595 So give me an example, please. Something built today that could match the ingenious interlocking polygonal 2 ton blocks with no regular sides and using no mortar? Do you seriously think we could match any of that shit? Don't yo think someone would have done so? Where?
@@GalileosTelescope Fair enough. I tend to focus on the "structure" behind the argument rather than what is being said per se. The "alternative" schtick all falls to the same assumptive argumentation and relying upon conjecture to support what are really conjecture-based claims. I guess I have become jaded in that I have listened to that twaddle for decades now. The names and faces change = but the arguments do not. So listening to them is to me is like listening to Charlie Brown's teacher - _wa wa wa......wa wa....._
5,000 years ago, somewhere in Egypt … Apprentice mason: “Shouldn’t we write down how we do this?” Master mason : “No. If others want to know they can come and learn from us. Plus, in a few thousand years it will drive people nuts trying to figure out how we did it. We will become immortal through our work.” -- An UnchartedX came up in my feed after watching a lot quality Egyptology videos. His breathless astonishment, constant hyperbole and argument by insinuation were unconvincing.
The Egyptians actually did paint/write down quite a lot about their construction techniques. Google it. We have contemporary paintings of how material was moved, what kind of tools they used, and how carving and masonry was done. They were happy to tell us what they did, and none of what was written down or painted involved magic or lasers.. which they probably would've mentioned at some point, had they seen or used something like that
I lived in Cairo for several years and marveled at how they accomplished what they did. Cutting stones did not surprise me. What did was the precise hieroglyphs and amazing statues.
I lived in Heliopolis in '90/'91. Awesome country and people :) I've forgotten most of the Arabic I learned :( I'm like you, was amazed at the precision they achieved. Even after all these years its still very impressive.
The merit of power tools in the modern production process isn't 'perfection' but rather enabling production at scale of relatively standardized products in a relatively short timeframe. A corollary of this is that the use of modern tools and production processes allow those products that fail to meet standards to be rejected at relatively lower cost. As a result, boxes with imperfections or 'unfinished' boxes would simply have been rejected and should not have been there at the site. That is a fundamental unanswered question in any such 'ancient supercivilization experienced a calamity' hypothesis. Granite countertops, for example, are almost ubiquituous today because of the use of modern power tools in quarrying, production and finishing processes (as well as in transport and incorporation into the construction of our buildings). If these tools and processes existed then, why is the evidence so scanty? Why were granite boxes not a more commonly used funerary accompaniment? By the way, Doc, love the painstaking dissection of the numerous flaws in the arguments presented.
Wow.. How about you actually watch some of this stuff and you will quickly realise your uninformed questions make no sense at all. You obviously have no idea about the observations and facts put forward by the countless people actually researching this topic.
If you can sit through 3 and half hours of this dribble surely you can find the time to watch a bit of what Ben and the countless others have to say on the topics
Ben's argument is simple. The current narrative regarding the origin of so many of these items makes no sense whatsoever. Historians and archaeologists constantly fail to provide answers which stand up to the scrutiny of engineering experts.
Should see Australia in the flooding seasons when the rivers grow so large, so rapidly that entire summer homes go under water before the residents even know they have to evacuate. Pictures of dudes sitting on their roofs waiting for help are everywhere.
As someone who's studied engineering for a very, very long time (I've wanted to be an engineer since I was six years old), the fact that you can move just about anything (that's strong enough to not break under its own weight) with enough manpower and time and some simple machines is extremely basic, like pre-Engineering 101. That's like primary school stuff. I definitely already understood that by the time I was 10 because I was already planning how to make use of it. I've always been a "I don't like having to do this, how can I make something to make it easier for myself?" kind of person. "Give me a long enough lever, and I can move the whole world," as the saying goes. Also, while we know the pyramids were built by skilled artisans and not slaves, civilizations all over the world *did* use slave labor to build megaprojects, up to and including gulags and modern concentration camps. You can make progress a lot faster if you just don't care about the safety or rights of your workers, which is how a lot of societies got things built far faster than we'd be able to manage in modern day. Not to mention that they usually wouldn't have had to file for permits or the like. If the god-king of your society says "make this for me", you're not going to have to say "your wish is our command, your holy-highness, but first we need to fill out and submit paperwork and then wait 6 to 8 weeks for the government bureaucracy to review and stamp our files and send them back" And on the subject of polishing, UnchartedX should check out Dorodango, which is the traditional Japanese art of polishing balls of dirt. If humans can manage to polish regular old dirt to a high gloss finish with little more than their hands and a cloth, I'm sure we can manage to polish granite, which is much easier to do.
As you noted the pyramids were not built by slaves. As an aside. While slavery certainly existed for centuries in various cultures = slavery as a general rule is inefficient and economically not very tenable. As you say you either must compel them to work - which wastes resources - and/or you lose manpower which necessitates replacement. With that said people need to understand the ancient Egyptians employed = _"the corvee."_ So during the Old and Middle Kingdom periods Egypt used the corvee which required able-bodied Egyptians to work part of each year on public works. The State in turn supported them during that time via food and housing - and if required medical care. Ancient Egypt much as today had a tax system in place - theirs being a commodity-based economy rather than using specie as today. Egyptologists have archeological examples of ancient tax records while it also appears the State maintained "State farms" which supplied foodstuffs to public works. The use of slave labor/military captives is seen in the archeological record at the New Kingdom period. Having expelled the Hyksos conquerors who overran northern Egypt after the collapse of the Middle Kingdom and taken their lands Egypt was at its' height geographically and militarily. This is when the iconographic record depicts military captives. An example of your "expendable workforce" is seen here. Akhenaten as an example built his new capital of Amarna. Egyptologists found the graves of the workforce who built it. They represented young people who appear to have been underfed and worked to death to be dumped in mass graves. Those who built the pyramids conversely were well fed and treated well as one would expect people in the employ of the State or corvee workers. Enjoy your day.
Ive never been sucked into any of the alternative history theories, but I did used to really love watching ancient aliens, and still find the idea of ancient alien theories to be really intriguing and entertaining. What I really like about your approach is that you respect their opinion and calmly and gently explain your side. It's much more persuasive than having some snide, sarcastic ass ripping them apart to make the point.
Never been sucked in..but watched more than one episode and then called it entertaining hhmmm ? Seen some episodes myself but came to the conclusion it’s bs ..it was irritating more than entertaining.. “each to their own” I suppose
I can never seem to get enough of that show either. I mean I really get a kick out of it! weather It is David Childress constantly counting his fingers or the ongoing question of our times, "Will Giorgio ever get a haircut? The thing that ticks me off about the show is that every now and then they drag out something totally stupid, like pointing to renaissance era paintings that have artistic depictions of the sun and moon and saying "See! look! UFOS! I mean if you have Earth shattering evidence, why pull out something like that? It makes them look pretty silly to me. Even more so than constantly counting your fingers or keeping your hair in a mess. I really think they make interesting points every now and then. Then they go and jump off of the deep end and lose me.
I want to add on to your point at 1:04:54 that even today when you're cutting tile for your floor at home you will typically use an abrasion saw and lots of water to accomplish it. Abrasion is STILL a favorite method of cutting stone for a lot of purposes
Yes, with a blade rotating about 5000 rpm. Also cutting a tile which is 10mm thick. And the water is to cool the blade. So I’m not sure what your point is.
@@jamisojo Tube drill holes in Egypt show striation marks that cut at a depth per rotation which exceed the use of a simple copper tube drill with an abrasive being done by hand. No one argues that you can cut stone with copper and an abrasive, but the signature left on the rock doesn't match the use of a copper tool with an abrasive done by hand.
I am astonished for two reasons: 1. The amount of downvotes, despite the video being so thoroguh, polite and fact driven. 2. That people really think all this stuff needs advanced technique. I mean seriously, stone masonry is around for thousands of years, it's amazing from the perspective of work that wents into it but not from the perspective of technology. Thanks for the video, I am glad people still react to these videos (and misinformation). This is really important work.
I'm astonished for only one reason. Someone could write such a sycophantic comment and also be the prominent replier to negative comments. To admit they can see the down votes (data only available to the content owner) is truly astonishing. I'm going to send this to Ben to see if he can work out how this could be so. Ben will probably tell me they downloaded a programme specifically designed to view down votes on RUclips channels and nothing is suspicious.
@@johnadams1147 Why do you send something to Ben, when you already know the answer? But how should it be suspicious? Who doesn't use a browser applications to see downvotes o_O?
The people who downvote this are small children inhabiting the bodies of adults, who throw tantrums when you contradict the fantasies they believe in because those fantasies make their brains do a happy. They don't care how thorough or fact-driven you are, because they didn't arrive at their points of view by any thorough, fact-driven analysis. So you can't change their minds that way either.
I still think it's absolutely fascinating that that one guy demonstrated that he could move a tonnes heavy slab of stone over long distances, just by using a couple of pebbles and understanding of physics ❤
Wow some of these comments were written by ppl who were actually angry. They read more like somebody insulted their religion rather than simply someone disagreeing about history. There's a very cultish vibe to a lot of them. It's fascinating.
It shouldn't be. I'm a tool maker. I make things every day that rival anything ever found in egypt for technical expertise and precision. 2 things. You cannot shape granite with copper or bronze. It is too soft. The crude hieroglyphs scratched into everything attributed to the early and old kingdoms prove that, unequivocally. Those scratchings are all they could do to the stone with copper. And the tolerances and symmetry they were able to achieve are impossible to do with the naked eye. Telling the difference between what was found by dynastic egyptians and what was made by the dynastic egyptians is very easy. Is it mindblowing? Not made by egyptians.
Just gets to me how these confirmation bias fancy chasers "think". Really would be akin to someone who lives in a English village saying Aliens or an ancient advanced intelligence must have made the local church steeple because it is the tallest building in the village by far and nobody has made a higher one since. Many aspects of how even that church was made may not be precisely known, but that does not mean it was not made by people in the Middle Ages. Nobody having repeated it since in the village is meaningless. Oftentimes we can only guess what methods they may have used...and even if we can't guess a particular way, it still does not mean it was impossible for them. Simply might have been a way they could have still within the confines of Bronze age technology.
36:15 -- If I may be allowed to steelman for a second, I would like to point out that the actions of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the late 1970s provide a plausible scenario for how a society may purge itself of people whose role is knowing things. But on the other hand, we have to believe that this happened simultaneously, everywhere this ancient "high technology" society existed.
I think one thing that we/they should have in mind is that "never", "improved", "more advanced" technology don't necessarily means "better results". If you want to make something, anything, you have plenty of options of how to go about it. Sure, depending on the tools and methods you chose the final quality may vary, but you can also aim for the same final quality electing different sets of tools and methods. For stone work current technology means primarily faster work as opposed to better work. You will not do a better work with modern tools just because you have modern tools, it depends on your skills with those tools. But independent of your skills the modern tools will make you finish the work faster, that's the biggest difference that seems missed when they rise these questions. A single small piece in a year of work may see too slow, but those societies had a lot of people doing this work.
A friend of mine is a classically trained stone mason, through him I know that "the ancients" were perfectly capable of precise stone work because the techniques are still being tought today, it´s just that, as you said, modern tools help immensely and make the work a lot easier and faster
Idea for a future video (next time you're traveling in Europe 😄) : Go to a Gothic cathedral. Get footage of the columns, arches, flying buttresses, statuary, etc., then narrate it with lots of commentary about how "advanced" and "precise" it is, then say things like "academic historians claim this was built in _the Dark Ages_ with primitive hand-tools!". Then make the case that the medieval Christians "must" have appropriated the structure from a much more ancient civilization with advanced machine tools and computer-controlled CNC machines. 😂
@@synisterfish No, I was suggesting that our genial host make a parody video. I don't know if he can do an Australian accent or not, but if he can, that would be a bonus. 😂
I feel like the work hours talked about to achieve this are not so outrageous considering thousands of men worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for their whole lives. 12 guys working around the clock everyday in shifts to carve out a sarcophagus would probably amount to 6000 hours of work in a few weeks. In the Scenario I’ve given, it would take them a little over a month to carve out that sarcophagus. Not so outrageous that it’s impossible to do without high technology.
As I recall the ancient evidence relating to the work crews of the Valley of the Kings used to work a set schedule as you say. They would work for 10 days in a row - then have a few days off. In their "off time" the clearly had the time to scribble down many things about their daily lives such as Egyptologists now have access to. Some also spent their spare time working on tombs for themselves near the valley - some with interior design almost as nice as those for the royalty. So obviously it was not as terrible as far as conditions as LAHT tries to claim. While labor intensives the workers probably had a standard of living above that of the average Egyptian working in the fields. p.s. - your sarcophagus reference is probably correct. LAHT devotees always seem to forget the Egyptians or whomever had the benefit of cumulative knowledge and were part of a structured operation. An example of the latter would be partially completed tombs in the Valley of the Kings. You can see where someone laid out grids on the walls to achieve scale ----> someone came behind them to draw the designs ----> a "supervisor" came behind them to make corrections = before a likely master craftsman then painted the final picture. Moral: these things were not the result of some rando working alone in a mud brick hut. They had specialized work crews doing specific tasks based upon knowledge as alluded to which was developed and improved upon over generations.
It always amuses me that these Atlantis-hunters can’t understand why the Bronze Age or Iron Age doesn’t have an exact starting date. KV 26 in the Valley of the Kings included an iron knife, which should not have existed when that tomb was sealed in antiquity. It is entirely possible that the reason we don’t find iron chisels from earlier is just because such expensive and rare tools would not have been just abandoned. A bent or broken iron chisel would have been reforged, so as not to waste such a precious commodity as iron. It is far more likely that rare iron tools existed hundreds of years before the widespread adoption of iron working than that there was an ancient culture that vanished entirely or that aliens with lasers cut the stone.
With a few rare, possible exceptions, all of the iron objects from ancient Egypt were of meteoric origin. The dagger found with Tut's horde is a well-known example. But you're right about the value of iron, it was worth far more than gold in those times and would never have been discarded
After the Africans were attacked and almost annihilated by Alexander the great, the European could not penetrste the deep forest so they settled in Egypt and enjoyed playing the God game. The Africans were were rounded up later when the European came looking for the source of the Nile, by the cape route down down south, looking for the source of the Nile( where the water of the Mile comes from) Also looking for the Caves of the pharaoh's of the old kingdom. But they found that the African lives in thatch roofed mad houses and nothing to show of their old wisdom. All this year's you could not understand that the truth was hidden in the spoken word even when all the books are distorted, at the right time the truth is in plain sight waiting for the appointed time.
@@janewamaitha970 I've heard the story you're trying to tell before. It lacks any sort of citation and forgets that there are multiple dynasties' worth of evidence that discount it.
If you suggest that iron tools existed before the widespread adoption of iron working, would we not also expect some mention of them or how they were forged?
👍 Thanks for linking. Also the Scientists Against Myths team has released a new video on Serapeum on their Russian language channel. The English version is coming. They measure another coffer and show the imprecision as well as imperfect hand work. They also address another LAHT claim that they couldn’t be made by modern machines, and yes they actually claim that. It would require to be made in many pieces and fastened together. Along with other claims Chris Dunn has a letter, a letter from a precision surface plate manufacturer who makes tabletop instruments, but a not a letter from a granite monument manufacturer. It’s sad that the Scientists Against Myths actually had to ask for a quote to make a granite box.
I have subscribed to both of your channels I think you would make a great team in “setting the records straight” with the AHT Nonsense. I’m just a layman and thanks to you both I get to know the facts not the non fiction .. you are my heroes the dynamic duo!! Real talk 👌
@@rossnolan7283 "Likewise just ONE vase of comparable quality ,wall thiness, symmetry, etc would prove the crude rock and stick method was how it was done - so far nothing even comes close." Consider that it takes weeks to months to get it done, that poor woman isn't going to take years out of her life to perfect the necessary techniques just to sate your desire for exactly matching results. The Egyptians were developing a pre dynastic civilisation for centuries before the upper and lower kingdoms united - that's a lot of time to perfect techniques through successive lives and passed on knowledge. The stone masion/sculptor woman on Scientists Against Myths did a passable example in 6 months on her first try - by guessing the materials and using only the bas reliefs known as a guide to procedure.
At around 20:50, the other guy claims that archeologists suggest methods of construction based primarily on what tools they know existed, rather than because they have evidence that those specific tools were actually used for this particular construction - he called this “circular logic”. You then went on to ask whether it was unreasonable to conclude that an artifact was made by the people of the time-period and location in which it was dated/located, and you claim that the other guy said to do so was circular reasoning. I can’t tell if you intentionally misrepresented the very argument you responded to, or if you meant to respond to a different argument, but it seems strange that you would make a counter argument that was irrelevant to argument you were responding to. You also never clarified if the authors of the books you mentioned around the 20:00 mark were written by archaeologists. I’m going to keep watching, but I sure hope you actually respond to the content of the arguments and claims made rather than just spend the majority of the video dissecting flaws in the other’s arguments.
I agree with you. He is acting more like a lawyer asking questions about Ben's questions and not answering the question. Why does this guy actually tell us what is in the books? If he is going to use them as an argument, he should expose some of the contents in these books to what Ben is saying. It is troubling to me what he has said so far. At 27 minutes in does he change his lawyering ways? When this guy shows Ben's video of a core sample just tell me how it was made. If you claim it is cooper tools, then prove it. I want to watch the rest of this video, but I am not happy with the way it is going.
@@beeg693 He’s a historian and would ruin his career by confirming many old pre-internet, pre-airplane, pre-automobile theories are off and have always been followed rather than re-examined with an open mind. He went through the educational system that keeps these, mostly valid, theories alive. Obviously he’s never going to have the unbiased overview of a neutral person. I argue anyone with internet now has more information to their disposal than the archeologists spending three year traveling to a site and digging a single site. These explorers are legendary in the academic world and build the blueprint if the historical timeline that is hard to change afterwards. I argue any person with internet is better equipped to write a timeline, no historians defending theirs are needed. Do note this is only possible by complete lack of evidence. Both sides do exactly the same, make assumptions and write a timeline. In this case I think the academic system failed back in the day and never bounced back from it. Cultures that “surprisingly were smarter than hunter gatherers we thought they were” are being found all over the globe. Problem is that at first they were described as “hunter gatherers”. That’s unscientific and extremely hard to change. The first assumption “hunter gatherers” is accepted due to lack of counter evidence. Forgetting that evidence could be unavailable to begin with… This is exactly the mechanism I mean, it leads to this video and the content creator is part of that flaw that again, is being exposed weekly if not daily on a global scale. And even then the historians do not admit their mistake in their working methods and continue on exactly the same foot. They find another base of a building and again it’s “a ceremonial temple by simple living people”. To again change it all a couple of years later, basically admitting that they did indeed write fiction by the lack of evidence rather than simply stating what they do know. That mechanism is key and you can find it all over the news all the time. If you come up with a theory before that news you’ll get responses like in the movie above.
I noticed that we don't hear the conversations with the experts he asked, about anything. If asked how I would accomplish something, I would give an entirely different answer than if asked how I would accomplish that same task with a specific and limited set of tools, equipment and materials.
The Egyptians had canals, hydraulic mines, water wheels, cranes, pulleys, ratchets. They were masters of their environment. They were revered not only by allies but enemies. They traded as far as India. People from our past were just as intelligent as in modern times, so just as capable.
Agreed. For example as more is uncovered about ancient hominins, estimates of their intelligence are constantly being revised up. Unfortunately we humans are stuck in our own frame of reference.
No they did not!l They hadn't even invented the wheel when the megalithic structures were made, according to academia. They had no pulleys nor cranes. They had levers and manpower, at least so were led to believe by the so-called experts.
@methylene5 no, the ancient Egyptians had the wheel, they didn't use it for things like warfare until the Hyksos invasion, but there is significantly older evidence of the wheel in Egypt during the Old Kingdom
Some 35 odd years again I was living in York during a major restoration of York Minster. I spoke to one of the masons re-carving a gargoyle that had decayed beyond saving and asked him what tools he used in his workshop, that his predecessors who built the Minster would not have had. He said NONE. He said the tools those medieval masons used for carving shaping and finishing stone were perfect for the job and they have basically been copied ever since. No doubt if they had had mechanical cranes and cutters to handle the massive blocks of stone they would have used them but we know that they managed quite well without them. No need to invent lost technology or introduce aliens to explain how they did it.
Funny how I haven't heard of anyone attempting to recreate some of these things with simple tools to prove it possible. You don't have to build a pyramid to prove that it or other things are possible.
@@jerbear1601 you also probably also have never searched for it yourself. instead you hear it in one of these videos, and believe it without doing proper research yourself. there are plenty of examples how people have created awesome structures and art without powertools and computer aid.
@@jerbear1601 Here you are... enjoy: Mike Haduck Masonry Carving stones with ancient technology ruclips.net/video/_fIigpabcz4/видео.html Scientists Against Myths: www.youtube.com/@ScientistsAgainstMyths Making Egyptian Drill Holes: Lost Ancient High Technology ruclips.net/video/yyCc4iuMikQ/видео.html Trihedral inner corner in a granite sarcophagus ruclips.net/video/HQ2bHE7mTi4/видео.html
York Minster, partic. the Chapter House gargoyles (which Are medieval, the rest is not) is soft sandstone (that's why they wear out) and the tools to work it would be the old ones, Egyptian stone from the earliest dynasties was far harder. There are no writtern records from backthen, York is all documented.
I wanted to reply to a few below, however: Although it sounds funny, I advise everyone to start watching TikTok/Instagram stories/videos of modern Indian/Arab quarrymen (the algorithm will start showing you more). You will be surprised what we, the modern civilised people of 21st century, are able to do with hammers, wedges and hacksaws. There’s a guy who only posts himself splitting what we call “monoliths”. By hand. With a hammer. In a TikTok video…
Ben and others of his ilk appeal to this deep-rooted desire that many of us have to uncover something wondrous beyond what we perceive to be perpetual walls of illusion constructed before us. They’re really good at appealing to this emotion. You’re very skilled at matter of factly reminding us to simply just use our brains. Nice work.
Peru Isaiah amazing place but Egypt has so much more but to each his own agree to disagree why do you feel like Peru is more interesting than Egypt? Is it because we’ve been here in about Egypt so long now and Peru is somewhat new?
This guy is picking on one of the few people who's videos on this subject suck. This guy doesn't bring up any of the truly mysterious things found in egypt
@@caseymoore9737 like what? Say what they are, he may do a video about them. This video addresses and debunks the most popular woo woo that I keep hearing people mention about Egypt.
It's good to be skeptical, but altering historical timelines to improve the validity of that skepticism undermines the value of the argument. For example, when the author of this video says that cities only started appearing 6000 years ago is not correct. There are dozens of cities that have been positively dated to at least 10,000 years ago such as those in Turkey and India.
Cities implies more than a half dozen huts. It means tens of thousands of people living together with specialized labor rather than ten thousand farmers all huddled together.
@@nobodyspecial4702 Gobleki Tepi. dated 15,000 years ago. purposefully covered in dirt for some reason. They haven't uncovered but a small portion of it yet. It, is, as of right now, the oldest city to be uncovered in the world , and was only found a couple of years ago. It appears humans have been running around a lot longer than what our religious leaders would have us believe. When your science is tied to politics and religion, then you can't really find the truth when the gate keepers are all acting in bad faith.
I believe the author did discuss that those delineations are murky at best. What we call civilians or urban cities is very always shifting. That’s why many older settlements are not called cities today because it doesn’t help to understand them when we shove those boundaries upon them. They are sedentary but it doesn’t mean it’s was a city but rather towns, villages and other forms of cohabitation. Also what specific sites are you referencing I love to know? And I do actually mean that, and not in a sarcastic way.
@@richard127gm You have a pretty vague concept of what a city is. It's more than a couple stones put in a pattern. It involves housing for thousands, infrastructure, food supplies, etc. Neither of those sites have any of that.
I once saw a documentary about two prisoners who sawed through iron bars using only a wet piece of string and powdered soap. The soap had some kind of grit in it and it stuck to the wet string. It wasn't a fast process, but they cut through at least 2 bars.
And if the Egyptians cut stone at the incredibly slow rates achievable with copper chisels and stone pounders, one pyramid would have taken over 1,000 years. The history books claim the great pyramid was built in only 20 years.
@@andrewfrank7222 no but they also didn't have the mobilization of an entire nation and culture. If two men can cut through manufactured steel bars, with a string, an entire nation can surely move a rock lol.
At one point in this video you mentioned submitting essays for peer review, being rejected, and then refining your theory for resubmission. I was just thinking it might be interesting to hear a bit more about that. Like, perhaps you could share the story of one of your theories as it evolved to acceptance? It could be valuable for people to hear more about that process.
@@WorldofAntiquity I don't know dude. I don't think you have any original ideas or unique incites. are you going to claim that the first city showed up at 6000BCE? if so you probably wont get published....have you ever even had a paper published?
@@nicknewell23 Criticism of professional scholarship from someone who doesn't know the difference between "incite" and insight. Go figure. Then go read about the early Sumerian city-states like Ur and Uruk.
As a geodetic engineer some of the feats that they achieved is simply impossible today. I worked on high scale and low scale counstruction. I worked on town squares, factories, roads, water pipelines, sewage lines, and on bridge construction. And despite the high precision total stations and gps instruments offer you still get errors that across distances only get amplified. The nivelation of the Giza plato, the orentation to the true north that is expressed in seconds and all that stuff is truly a mystery. Even when you think that thousands of years passed since their construction. I truly understand how Romans achieved their feats of construction, and I could replicate their methods, but how the early Egyptians achieved theirs? When you take a look at the tools they had at their dissposal it is really a great mystery. There must have been a highly advanced civilization. I stake my reputation on it.
It sounds like you have been told things about the constructions that are not accurate. The pyramids may be large, but they are of lower quality than Roman constructions.
@@WorldofAntiquity What thing exactly? I was not told simply I worked on constructions that most geodetic engineers don't work. What makes pyramids of lower quality than Roman constructions?
That's a bit misleading. The most of the videos Uncharted makes are on the first dinasties. The later periods of Romans don't have much to show either. Romans also adapted to larger megaliths that were already there in the first place. They didn't make themselves.
There are a lot of us who don't buy into ancient alien theories but would simply like to see how these things might have been done. After all some of the ancient stone work is simply fantastic. The introduction to the Scientists Against Myths team was a great help. Thank you! Seeing them actually doing the experiments and accomplishing greats things was wonderful to watch! Thank you again!
The answer to the ancient alien theory to mecwas answered by asking the question “ what would the world be like if aliens have been stopping by now and then interacting with early stone and bronze age humans across the globe.?” The answer to me was just like it is now. Stories of sky people. Some worshiped as gods. Others thought of highly as bringers of knowledge and/or cargo. Also, stories of flight and magic.
Brilliant teacher not just of history and archaeology, but a master of reason and logic. He completely demolished the ‘advanced civilization theory’, but in such a diplomatic way, leaving us irrefutable leading questions that even a child could answer.
He demolishes himself! Ive been in those places and seen the stuff...sincerely, there are many things made out of stones with a perfection that is astounding ...We are been witness to a new era in history. New generations and science coming in that make history exciting again. Love to see how this guy make a fool of himself! He might very well go back hundred years where the eurocentric linear history line written by upper class barbarians originates from! 🤣😂
I only have a Bc in History, more specifically in World Comparative History Specialization, but honestly.... I would LOVE if the idea of an ancient technologically advanced civilization existed before us, who were the architects of their own undoing, and from the ashes humanity started a new, it makes for a great story. Would love to read a novel about this, but this is what all it remains, a fantasy... I was really into this theory during my middle-school years, and not gonna lie, it had a great part in me going to study History at the Uni. What we see in these videos and what we read in these kind of books are just attempts at explaining something that the writer cannot understand... "If I don`t understand how it was done, than the ancient, less intelligent people couldn't understand it either..." I think this is the base of this kind of thinking... I do think though that no matter how ridiculous an idea might be, experts should investigate it... because the biggest letdown for me was at the Uni, when I learned that History is not really scientific, it is very, very based on personal emotions. Well, mostly when it comes to more recent history, national pride comes in the way of rational thinking. That's why I believe that one should not research their own nations history, for it will come with a biased view... people think that it is easy to be objective in these cases, but oh boy.... this is especially a problem with neighboring countries, each claiming something different about a common event...
I have certain sympathies for your comment as I have a similar background (MA in History/Latin/English). I have a different take on this issue, however, and maybe we can find some common ground. Like you, I've stumbled on authors like Graham Hancock early on and was sucked right into it (even though I was more attracted to people like Robert Schoch rather than the Ancient Aliens people). I learned so many fascinating things and was kind of angry that "the mainstream" didn't care about them or didn't even consider them a mystery. Think about a young kid with a relatively unconditioned mind, learning about Puma Punku or the scoop marks on the unfinished obelisk for the first time. The same with the core drill marks and other things which are so interesting, but never appeared in all those "Ancient Egypt for children" books I had devoured as a child and which barely figure in the academic literature either. I went on to study archeology, but was disappointed that I had to learn the differences between 200 kinds of hand axes, but nothing about the "good" topics such as Atlantis or the Serapeum. I therefore quit after one semester and studied the subjects mentioned above. I stuck to my views, but learned pretty early on that you won't get anywhere with them and that they are best kept for oneself. I know that Uncharted X is making money off this, but for me personally, I could never bear the scorn from "serious" people dismissing me. My dad is very impatient with these views, for instance, and he is this kind of bearded academic with rows of bookshelves around him. At the same time, I received recognition from those same "mainstream historians" I had learned to hate and had several jobs as a research assistant where I got insights into the inner workings of a university department. During the colloquiums (the guest-talks where academics get together) I observed exactly what you describe in your comment. People get highly definsive about their own ideas and can act incredibly childish when their core beliefs are challenged. I decided pretty quickly that I didn't want to stay for a phd as I couldn't stand the hierarchies and general "nastiness" which often accompanied academic discussions. My boss at this point had tremendous knowledge, but could lose his temper pretty quickly and had trouble letting other people finish their sentences. Now, the point is that it's precisely these memories which get triggered when I watch Mr. Miano's videos. Don't get me wrong, I have respect for him and his achievements and it is necessary to offer counter-narratives to the huge amount of BS offered by the "alternative" camp. But the recent outfall between him and Sweatman made me just made my stomach turn. I don't know who is right and who isn't as I haven't done any reading on the topic. I'm not enitrely convinced, however, that Miano is doing more here than lashing out at some perceived threat to his own achievements and worldview. What makes you so sure that the possibility of a lost civilisation is bogus even though you admit that the humanities are highly ideological in nature? I won't run around in the streets trying to convince people of the "lost ancient technology" theory, but I haven't seen anything yet which could change my mind. Just tons of saltiness. Again, no offense. The Sweatman-Miano-controversity is important for science to progress, but I don't feel like participating in this stuff anymore. Cheers
Why would they assume ancient people were less intelligent? Perhaps they assume that because they consciously or unconsciously absorbed the beliefs of the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. If the “master race” was technologically behind civilizations in the Middle East, Northern Africa, Southern Europe, India and China, seems like this advanced ancient civ theory or aliens is a convenient way to explain why this would be the case.
I think what they are trying to achieve is to get you to think of how the narrative of loin cloth clad bitch hair pulling grunting imbecils roaming the Earth untill a few thousand yrs ago is false. In the 70s school books had pictures or cave Men dragging Women by the hair. Accademia and arrogance, thats what you get !
@@muellertobias1441 The problem with people like uncharted x is that they make money by spreading pseudo-science. Once you really look into the topics they are talking about, you see how much data they ignore, because it debunks their narrative, which is really disingenuous. Like talking about the incredible and impossible core 7, without mentioning researchers actually replicated it using dynastic Egyptian tools. Or like talking about the "machine precision" of the Serapeum sarcophagi, without mentioning the corners have been measured and they are not even close to machine precision. Or that the romans made more complex sarcophagi, in porphyry, without advanced tools (sarcophagi of Constantina and Hellena, now at the Vatican). Or talking about the impossibility of moving them inside the Serapeum without mentioning Mariette found winches and traces of rollers inside or that he actually lowered one sarcophagus into it's final crypt, using his workers. Sadly, these guys are con men looking for money...
@@MrAchile13 i dont know if its fair to call them con men. Im sure some are. But i think its a little more complicated and a lot more human than that. The way i see it, someone got really excited about an idea, and started sharing it. They got a lot of attention for their ideas and they got views and likes and people wanted to talk to them. And that made them feel good! They feel listened to and they feel like theyre making a difference. And so they got more into it. . Then people start calling them out and trying to tell them theyre wrong. So you see like a persecution complex where they say "ohh archeologists are trying to tear me down i must be doing something right! Theyre scared im gonna break the status quo!" Now, every time you say im wrong, i KNOW im right. Thats the red flag ontop of the pyramid theyve been building. . they are at a point where changing their ideas or admitting they might be wrong means they lose everything theyve worked for. The years they spent doing this are gone, theyll lose their followers. They probably ruined some relationships or quit some other career to pursue this. heck theyve probably surrounded themselves with friends who all hold the same beliefs. What happens to them? Are their friends still going to respect them? . Its easy for people like us to change our mind and be like "ok that was silly i got carried away.". But When youve built a career on this stuff, its become a part of your identity. Letting it go is unthinkable. So they find a way to dismiss anything that isnt inline with their view.
What I find incredible is how The Egyptians build such amazing buildings using wood and bronze tools, according to PhD certified mainstream Historians.
@@thefly5568 So let me get this straight, you believe it’s MORE plausible that they DIDN’T use the tools we find surrounding the sites/in the provinces, despite them being dated to the same period AND despite modern craftsmen proving it’s possible? Ridiculous.
@@SomeoneFarted So where is it proven they were able to build those buildings with the tools found at the sites? I seen where they tried to build a small pyramid and saw a stone and drill a hole, all fell short of the needed outcome required to do what was built. Just because you see some tools and some buildings you think the tools were used to build these buildings. You do realize stone can't be dated. So how do you know the buildings were even built at the same time the tools were around? You talk like you know these things are for a fact now thats ridiculous.
The most impressive stone work in my opinion is generally some of the oldest called megalithic. The scale and effort to make such structures permanent to truly stand the test of time. We build skyscrapers today but they only come with about a 100year warranty.
Funny how big stones would be only thing to survive over tens, hundreds of thousands or millions of years. So to find real old civilisations before natural disasters hit you should look for stones. Unfortunately these will be reused over time. Unless they are so big nobody can move them. Maybe we should look for really big stones. Completely valid logic. Historians complaining we don’t name specific years, technology and civilisations is completely besides the point.
That is on purpose. “Any idiot can build a bridge. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.” The entire field of engineering is to identify what it actually takes to meet certain build/design requirements, and then figure out how to do that without spending more resources than necessary.
The romans moved stones like that, and carved perfect pillars out of hard stone. They had better tools, iron and primitive steel, but that only means carving took less time. No high technology needed. The alabaster crater (1st century BC) in the Napoli archeological museum shows what incredible detail can be done. The double curved handles alone would have Unchartedx claiming high tech
@@celsus7979 Logic starts playing a part there. How many cultures do things that are extremely inefficient for many generations? People don’t. Because it’s extremely inefficient. Surely you’ll get your incidental local projects but inefficient tooling doesn’t become a well respected way of working because it’s inefficient. That’s why “it just takes a whole lot longer” is a stretch by default when discussion normal working techniques. There’s a reason we only started building high when it became efficient to do so. Before that you only had the local, incidental high buildings. There’s a reason commercial flights only became mainstream when it became safe and efficient. Reason being it was safe and efficient. Before that it was local an on a small scale. You can go on and on and on. Expecting something inefficient to become mainstream so you can argue your case is bias to the extreme. Not based on logic but based on forcing an outcome that’s preferred.
Modern saws still use abrasives!!! Like diamond saws! 🤦♀️ Saws still use friction to cut too. The only thing this alt history guy is showing is that building fundamentals have always been the same. Literally. The difference today (and only in the last century) is our tools move faster with better precision. He's not even showing perfectly cut stones, he's showing how a cut looks when using manual tools! Omg. How do people listen to this junk? He's not even mentioning how long it took to build these structures. It took medieval builders centuries to complete Notre Dame. These bronze and copper age structures are basic block builds. Surely if they had power tools they could have built them more intricately in years, not decades or more. Last year I went on a private tour of the Detroit Train station (Michigan Central Station) it was originally built beginning 1910 and opened late 1913. It closed in 1988 and Ford Motor Company bought it in 2018. They have been refurbishing and stabilizing it ever since and it will soon open to the public and move in to offices this year. 5 years it took on a structure that was already built with all of the modern tools and engineering imaginable. Sorry I'm absolutely ranting because we give such little credit to the people of ancient civilizations. They weren't a different species, humans had the same brain power that we do today so ofc they were able to accomplish some amazing things. Imagine what they could of accomplished if they had focused less on conquering their neighbors. Imagine what we could still accomplish if we did too.
Your approach to this topic is very much appreciated. As someone who previously was impressed by many of the beliefs as uncharted x, it's made all the difference to have somebody like you making in-depth analyzes of his videos as well as providing sources of your own in abundance. You may not remember me, but I commented on one of your Instagram shorts about which pyramid were built in what order with something like "the smaller ones were built after the Egyptians attempted to recreate the Great pyramids that they inherited" and you replied to me multiple times. Admittedly I did not completely believe what I had said, but a part of me was curious how it could be disproven and through watching multiple of your videos as well as other channels like sacred geometry I have definitely gotten a much greater understanding. It always fascinated me to imagine an ancient civilization that somehow fell and did not leave a trace except for megaliths, but in fact I think it is even more mind blowing and interesting to give credit to these ancient cultures creating such incredible works all around the world. I plan to follow all of the major discoveries and excavations, it excites me to think about what else we will be able to discover and learn about our own past as a species in the near future. Thank you again for a very humbling and educating experience on the topic.
Having just watched the first and half of the second video yesterday, coming back to finish watching them today and finding you've combined them and added updated material was certainly a bonus! I doubt he'll ever truly respond to criticisms, but your work, and that of your peers, is nonetheless invaluable.
UnchartedX does point out some valid questions that needs adequate explanation. That the large pyramids in Ancient Egypt were supposedly built as tombs within 2-3 generations! Can you imagine the Great Pyramid built with manual labour alone. Even with machines of today and today's quarries working flat out, can't do it within the timeline that egyptologists say it was done by. How about black granite statues - and diorite stone bowls and vases? Turned on some lathe? More likely. But what was the cutting surface? Diamond tipped? Lehner's attempt at showing how a drill core was done, was/is inadequate. And he couldn't reproduce the spiral groove present. He couldn't even break it off, without cheating.
@@harveykongtin3665 just one point there are no black granite in Egypt but there is granodiorite , i had worked 3 years cutting granite and lot of artifacts in Egypt cannot be made by hands , weight is another point there are so many immense statues and granite blocks with weight up to 1000 tons and transportation were never really addressed the boat on Nile river were so small and flimsy they will never be able to carry these huge load
@@harveykongtin3665 "Even with machines of today and today's quarries working flat out, can't do it within the timeline that egyptologists say it was done by"..... Seriously? We could build a Pyramid 50 times the size and put a Starbucks on the top in a fraction of the time if someone put the money into such a project. For a little context actually let us look at Hoover dam. It took 2 years to build in the early 1930's and weighs nearly one million tonnes more than Khufu's pyramid.
@@jcie1210mk3 a stupid comparison. Pouring concrete is a completely different thing than moving stones hundreds of miles weighing tens or even hundreds of tons.
Iron was exceedingly rare in the New Dynastic Period. In fact the famous iron dagger found in King Tut's tomb is believed to have been sourced from the iron derived from a very rare iron based meteorite found in the desert. Even so, iron tools from antiquity has a Mohs hardness of 4.5.
Iron being rare in dynastic Egypt does not make it so in other cultures where iron smelting occurred prior to it being introduced into Egypt proper. In so much as the Egyptians traded far and wide with others then it becomes possible at least some iron might have made its way into Egypt during the New Kingdom period. Yes it would be expensive and probably rare = but such tools would invariably exist somewhere. Yet one can still work stone absent iron tools. Gneiss stone tools were ubiquitous being cheaper to procure than smelted metals which require mining the ore and procuring the means to refine it. The unfinished obelisk as an example reflects the stereotypical "pockmarked" appearance one would expect of something being hammered into shape. As another example. Several years back in the sandstone quarry of Gebel el-Silsila a partially completed criosphinx was unearthed. It also reflects a pocked surface indicating it was being hammered into shape prior to its abandonment. So bronze tools can work some softer stones. They can in some cases also bore through harder stones when used with abrasives. One can however shape even hard stone using stone tools such as flint etc. shaped to need. As your final example. At Aswan quarry (granite) hundreds of dolerite pounders were discovered. Some even had the names of the craftsmen they belonged to painted on them. So it appears they used them to hammer through the bedrock - along with fire - until they became rounded = after which they were discarded. Flint on the other hand can be shaped to need and also can chip away at hard stones. Such stone tools were ubiquitous in ancient Egypt.
Bruh. Rare means rare. If they didn’t have much, and was reserved for kings, the common stone mason may have had a tough time getting his hands on metal
I would presume that most of the heavy work with stone was done by fracturing, it's still done today as far as I know. Mohs hardness is it's resistance to scratching by another material, useful in polishing and abrasion work.
@@venusriseThat's like saying, "the average software engineer working for Amazon would have trouble getting hands on a datacenter meant to handle traffic for billions." Obviously if you're commissioning people to do something and tools are needed to do that thing, then you provide them. Kings didn't tell soldiers to source their own swords, they commissioned someone else to make them and handed them out. Same logic can apply with tools. Also I'd like to suggest if you haven't seen any, to watch videos of people demonstrating how one can cut granite with bronze tools using sand as a medium. It takes a bunch of time, sure, but it's very much possible for an authoritarian ruler who was perceived as divine.
@@nikett11 cool story, but we have no evidence of those tools…. And nobody modern man has made a full hollowed out granite box with your method. So it’s 100% speculation. But be my guest, prove us wrong. Cut six sides of a granite box, make a lid, and hollow out the box with your method. That would be a great RUclips video
I think we have all marvelled at the stonework found in such places as the Vatican and the works of Michelangelo; where marble has been carved and polished into the most complex of designs and shapes all long before the advent of power tools. These people were building structures that would not reach completion until long after their death. Time and the desire for perfection in the pursuit of religious goals had a whole other dimension in the lives of those pursing those goals. Our fast-moving less superstitious cultures, where a five-year-plan is considered ambitious, simply cannot grasp the mind-set and dedication of previous generations.
It simply can't be equated to Michelango and marble. He used IRON chisels and tools, not brass. I have tried to see what happens with a brass chisel. I couldn't even get penetration on concrete, and only scratched a granite boulder, and the chisel was ruined and bent in just a few strikes. If this guy actually researched, he would find the grooved cuts in the stone have a circular cut pattern, and where they end before exiting stone show a circular blade was used. This guy making this video series is doing nothing but trying to capitalize on the success of others doing research and videos, as he has all these opinions, but yet when asked if he actually visited and investigated, he hasn't.
@@joetotale6354 Now that science has determined there actually was a global flood, has anyone considered that hard materials like iron rust away and turn to dust? I am a retired tradesman. My used tools do not get put in an environment that would survive something like a flood. When I was done using them, I took them with me. I didn't leave them at the job site, hence why we don't find tools at those sites. I doesn't take much logic to see that they absolutely could not cut granite with copper, or even brass, and the process of pushing sand with copper to achieve a cut would have taken so much time they would have been cutting stone for hundreds if not thousands of years to get that quantity. Whatever they had, or used, has been lost to time. We use water jets to cut items today. Maybe they harnesses hydraulic pressure. Who knows. One thing I see, copper chisels just don't get there.
The challenge that Egyptians did not have the ability to cut or polish stones to shine without power tools makes me shake my head. The workers had years of apprenticeship and masters of stones even in ancient egypt. High technology? Maybe high level of workmanship.
The lunatics do not understand things like skill, ingenuity or hard work. THEY can't figure it out, therefore NOBODY can. Therefore: Tesla Crop Circle Magic Suppressed Reverse Engineered Alien Technology Caught On Tape!
Well this is a pleasant surprise. I've already seen the whole series but I'm rewatching for the new materials and I am fine with rewatching the original content too! Thank you Professor.
good to know i'm not the only one wondering about the loose use of "advanced" and "technology" unchartedx throws around. He is an excellent videographer, but after a bit ya just have to put it on mute, because the ideas Ben is sold into just assails one's rationality. Its also very condescending of the people that lived at those times and always being referred to as primitive.
@@freda5344 so you are saying "civilization " is only 3-4 k old the Earth is only 6k old and NO ancient advanced cultures existed BEFORE this time and the Great Sphinx is only 3-4 old? and your so-called Hezuss rode a 🐱🐉? 🤣😅
I tell my students just because they can figure out how people in the past did something, doesn't mean people in the past couldn't have. Lack of imagination on our part doesn't mean lack of skill on theirs. As you've mentioned, primitive tools + people + time can result in amazing work. We can't assume that the impatience of our society is the same for ancient societies - if you live in a society where the creation of a stone vase takes 3 to 6 months, you're not going to expect it to be done in a week; you'll have realistic expectations for what your society is capable of. 25 years ago I had much more patience when downloading 1 mb than I do now because technology has improved
But it's Ben who claims that the bronze age lasted longer, and that the egyptian civilization is much older than the lineage of the dynasties we're aware of. He's the one buying time for human craft. It's the historians who claim this has happened in a much shorter timespan who are having to explain a lot more.
In Napster days on dial up, I used to set 3 songs to download, and hope that at least one would be finished by time I returned from school 8 hours later.
ok, I made it almost 90 minutes and I'm giving up. Kudos to you for responding to all of this. It's the polishing that is making me strain my eyeballs with all of the rolling. Also, so much of what he assumes is debunked every day on YT via any wood/metal crafter. I recommend Pask Makes. Even as his workshop has expanded and now he has a metal shop, he still shows how to create the project via hand tools. And then shows both versions. Yes one took a lot longer but even he says he can't always tell which one was done by hand and which one was done by machine. About a year ago I heard a quote that went something like this: "Contributing anything the ancients did to aliens is just insulting your ancestors and assuming they're stupid. What would you say to someone a 1,000 years from now who assumes you could not possibly build a tower that tall without aliens to help? You're not stupid, and neither were they." Not a direct quote, but the basic idea. Stop assuming people from Ancient Egypt and other such time periods were idiots.
About the whole _"polishing to a mirror-like finish advanced tool"_ -debacle; made me think of the huge glass and/or metal mirrors that were ordered to be manufactured to be housed and used in the biggest ground based optical telescopes of the previous century and how they found out that the polished finish required couldn't be achieved using mechanical polishing machines and had to be done by hand because it needed a randomness to it. Only later a machine was invented with a gear system with a built in mechanism to make the polish head move randomly across the surface the way a craftsman would, by hand. It sets the whole _"these surfaces are so smooth, it has to have been achieved by a machine''_ argument on its head. (edit: unless, of course, this _'advanced civilization'_ had also invented a machine to copy the perfection of manual craftsmanship? Maybe there we find the crux of the whole thing; that we, nowadays need machines for everything, that guys like him can't imagine anyone ever having had the ingenuity to create beautiful stuff without their aid? Makes you wonder who exactly it is, thinking of these people as _"dressed in rags and ignorant)"_
The channel SGD Sacred Geometry Decoded has videos where he polishes granite by hand with a rock, sand and water to get that 'impossible' egyptian shine. Good experimental proof
Boris has to be trolling.....random inaccuracies in large optical lenses for ground based telescopes are NEVER preferred. Controlled variations in precise locations MAY be beneficial is specific scenarios but simulating random inaccuracies is a joke. Which ground based telescope was this Boris? Hale Telescope, located in California Keck Observatory, located in Hawaii Subaru Telescope, located in Hawaii Magellan Observatory, located in Chile Gran Telescopio Canarias, located in the Canary Islands? Come on Boris back up your claim with facts or you are no better than the charlatan that runs this channel.
I think that both you and people like Ben are important to the big picture. We need Ben for teaching us to open our mind to all possibilities, and we need you for teaching us how real science and research is done. I do think the most important part of all this is finding the TRUTH. I believe the answer is probably somewhere in between. It’s safe to say more information will come out once more discoveries are found, leaving room for a better understanding of ancient Egypt. I believe it is probable that the ancient Egyptians had better equipment than we give them credit for. Maybe not power equipment, but certainly sophisticated ways to utilize leverage and moving and cutting stone. It’s obvious these people were highly educated in mathematics, physics, and had a good understanding of the cosmos. These people were incredible architects and made some of the most beautiful art work in human history. I hope one day we have the full picture to understand this culture. Thanks for your contributions!
I’m more interested in how these ancient structures and artifacts were created rather than why other theories are incorrect. If it is known by academics how the ancients created these structures and artifacts then please present that evidence. If that’s not practical or possible, that presents a new problem. Claiming others are wrong requires proof that those making such claims are right, if their criticisms are to be taken seriously.
there is at least some of that in here. But for more focus on the actual techniques take a look at the channels “scientists against myths” and “sgd sacred geometry decoded”
Claiming others are wrong is part of the scientific method. Ben presents his ideas as facts, while he relies on lack evidence(no tools) as the evidence for ancient technology. This doesn't mean we must present an alternative. I'm just saying it's ok for both academia and Ben to be wrong, if you can prove both of them wrong.
@@patricktolosa6457 It seems to me that a lot, If not nearly all, of ancient history arguments and theories are just that…..theories. Actual validated and certified evidence seems to be rather rare, but that is to be expected considering the time frames being analyzed.Interpreting the existing evidence is equally challenging.
Larry, if you want to know how the "ancient structures" were created, videos and photos of the Stonehenge boulders being erected by cranes in 1957 - with an earlier installation in 1914 - are available. Links to those videos and photos are under my video titled: Timeline Lies: Megaliths Included in that video are photos showing the construction of the great pyramid: To understand the photo, pause the video to assess the size of the boulders in comparison with the men, then assess the upper levels of the pyramid based on the angle of the stacked boulders. If you need to understand what you're seeing, look at other photos that show the size of the boulders in the great pyramids. If you're attached to the programming that the "ancient" Egyptian mummies were wrapped in cotton that lasted for thousands of years, you might pause to reconsider that - and if you think the "ancient" Egyptian sarcophagi were carved from wood that also lasted for thousands of years, you should probably pause to question that as well. If you want the truth, the evidence shows where those thousands of mummified bodies came from. The evidence also shows who profited from this colossal deception - if you continue with your research, the true timeline for the "megaliths" and the true timeline for our human history is clearly documented - including the true timeline for the eruption of Vesuvius, the true timeline for the broken and subducted tectonic plates, the true timeline for the ice sheets across Greenland and Antarctica, the true timeline for our continents, oceans, mountains, the true timeline for our Earth's expansion and so on - it's all documented. The timeline lies that we were programmed to believe are intentional deception. Since the old literature tells us about the advanced technologies, and since the conspicuous evidence corroborates the existence of the advanced technologies - throughout our very short human history - we know advanced technologies were being used here on Earth - and we know the true timeline which was HUNDREDS of years ago and NOT thousands of years ago. Anyone who wants to believe in "thousands of years ago" is free to do so - those who want the true timeline for our Earth's origins, our Earth's expansion, our Earth's cataclysms, the true timeline for our Earth's continents, oceans, mountains, our Earth's ice sheets, etc., can find all of this clearly documented in thousands of independent sources, written in dozens of languages from all across our Earth - this includes when and how the giants and giant "prehistoric" creatures suddenly appeared and why they rapidly disappeared from our Earth - all of this is documented by our ancestors in old records, in old literature, etc., but if you cling to the programming and indoctrination from the idiotic "experts", you will never know the truth - you'll just be living your life with the mind of a schizophrenic child - totally detached from the reality of our world.
@@WhirledPublishing "Documented" present reproducable tests/evidence that we can observe or be quiet. Some dudes saying, "I think the flood happened and a god made everything" or "aliens did it" does not count. Saying you don't believe that cotton would hold up tells us nothing. Show me some tests that you conducted or a study that you can cite showing that the mummies were buried in something else.
I can only shake my head... I MARVEL at what the ancients managed to do from just the evidence we have, I mean they were probably much more sophisticated in doing their specific thing that they did daily for generations than I dared to imagine. Isn't this enough? Why invent some boring sci fi lore (rhetorical question)? Thank you I learned so much from this 3.5 hours long ride!
Great video! The point you made about civilizations constantly pushing their chronologies back to look older makes complete sense. I never thought about that and just assumed that they were using different calendar or numbering system. Very interesting.
Sometimes they pushed chronologies back but sometimes these kings lists ( eg sumeria) were not really talking about earthly rulers but mythological rulers whose reign was symbolic of something altogether different. This should be taken into account also. The epic of Gilgamesh is another good example as is it's later updated version the enuma elish.
I didn't watch the whole video yet, so I don't know if this topic is mentioned in it somewhere or not, but temples in India have similarly amazing masonry and they're known to have been built only several centuries ago. Stonemasons of the past were just a lot more capable than most people might assume. They kept their methods closely guarded though, loose lips could result in high quality masonry becoming cheap. You can get the general idea if you read about Hiram Abiff: "Hiram Abiff is the central character of an allegory presented to all candidates during the third degree in Freemasonry. Hiram is presented as the chief architect of King Solomon's Temple. He is murdered inside this Temple by three ruffians, after they failed to obtain from him the Master Masons' secrets."
There are alot of arguments made that make sense when looked at as a whole, just because you don't have the answers doesn't mean you can't notice something out of place
Sure, absolutely, but there is also a lot that looks weird/out of place to a layperson that has a perfectly reasonable explanation to people who have studied the field. For example, I'm a doctor and there is a lot that seems weird or wrong about medicine or physiology that makes perfect sense to me, but I'm also aware that in the past doctors thought the womb roamed around the body sending women mad.. We do get stuff wrong, but we also get a lot right - modern mortality rates are a testament to that. We just need to keep improving our knowledge and we need to discard old ideas as new evidence comes to light. Just keep an open mind towards there being a reasonable 'conventional' explanation in the same way you keep an open mind towards new ideas/interpretations, and if you are skeptical of mainstream research, apply the same skepticism towards the people you agree with. Happy knowledge-seeking :)
@@r-pupz7032 this is how you science. Imho medical doctors did more to defeat the recent wave of antillectualism than any other group And no offense..i hooe someday psychology becomes one..and your field becomes less an industry. And that a doctor using expert systems and ai assistants become the norm. I am..was..a programmer. And i could have written a medical expert system with probably 90s tech that would have radically helped you improve your diagnostics. Doctors should be high level thinkers not pr reps for a medical care enterprise.
@@cdreid9999 two decades later dude, I really hope you get back to programming. You could change the world for the better. You should find writing that program easier than ever with our advancements and it shouldn't take you longer than a year to catch up if you've got solid basis in the basics. Collect your Nobel prize, I wish I could!
This is the first video I've ever watched from you, and upon reading the comment section, I just want to extend my sympathy for the endless deluge of comments stating the same flavor of "You are just dogmatic in your belief and pedantic. Everything you and other scholars do to defend the mainstream narrative is an attempt to hold onto your authority and power." It seems a large portion of people want you to both thoroughly explain why something can work, and also would prefer you be more succinct... It's the height of irony that so many accusing you and other archaeologists of being dogmatic in your beliefs and theories are themselves exactly that. Apparently if you just disagree with the "mainstream narrative", you couldn't possibly be ignoring evidence and explanations while simply believing an alternate theory without seeking evidence to the contrary. As for the authority that comes from being an archaeologist, I doubt the vast majority of people familiar with Ancient Aliens or other similar entertainment have ever even heard of contemporary archaeologists and experts such as Matthew Adams, Stan Hendrickx, Joris van Weterling, Yann Tristant, or even the more famous David O'Connor. I rarely even hear names such as Quibell, Reisner, or Emery mentioned on alternate history RUclips channels. The people I mentioned are just a few well-published archaeologists dealing with Ancient Egypt and Kerma! Does being an archaeologist really command so much respect that you've never heard of the vast majority of them? What authority and prestige do they command as long as they keep up a "mainstream narrative" of history going? Honestly, can a well-published archaeologist just show up to any prestigious event, announce themselves, and enter by the gravity of their name alone!? What even constitutes a "mainstream narrative"? What status quo is being upheld when you can _easily_ being studying Ancient Egypt by starting with some of Petrie's works and notice that in his book _The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties Part I_ he almost immediately begins by calling out Auguste Mariette and Émile Amélineau for their shoddy work at Abydos. Petrie literally describes Abydos as having been "ransacked" by Mariette. Successive works by other archaeologists are typically not that on-the-nose in their criticisms, but Reisner and Emery both named previous and fellow contemporary archaeologists as wrong in some ways and simply disagreed with their interpretations at other times. Emery believed that the mastabas he uncovered in Saqqara were the actual royal tombs of the First Dynasty kings of Egypt, an interpretation that was argued about for several _decades_ afterwards. Even today, you can easily go to the Academia website and download papers from the likes of Stan Hendrickx who will bluntly state that Ellen Morris, one of his peers, displayed "uncritical acceptance of human sacrifice" just one year after she had published her own paper on human sacrifice at Abydos. That seems tame compared to what is typical in media and common parlance, but that is an incredibly rude way to refer to the work of another scholar. Writing a paper takes a lot of research (as you can usually tell by the number of references) and having someone call the work that you spent months researching "uncritical" is like being jabbed with a needle. And that was just one contemporary example! Recht in his book _Human Sacrifice_ referenced Hikade and Roy's work with a footnote calling their interpretation of subsidiary graves in Abydos "cumbersome". Tristant frequently disagrees with previous interpretations of mastaba construction and Ancient Egyptian burial practices in the first dynasty thanks to his work at Abu Rawash. Hendrickx (again) writing in Shaw's 2021 release of _The Oxford Handbook of Egyptology_, outright dismisses two ideas presented by Morenz in the _very next chapter_ and actually says that Kemp's (a famous archaeologist) ideas of kingship and state formation had to be "dealt with once again". As if he has to again perform the now annoying task of killing off a theory that, up until very recently, was widely accepted before the recent findings at Hierakonpolis. Even David O'Connor, another archaeologist of fame due to his work at Abydos beginning in the 70s, has had his interpretations discredited or theories disagreed with by scholars in his own field both in the past and present. If you were interested specifically in engineering work and construction, you could look at Angela la Loggia's (2012) dissertation and subsequent paper on the matter where she both dismantles and confirms theories about the construction of massive mud brick tombs and other constructions built over a mile from the Nile. Scholars _do_ ask questions like, "How did Ancient Egyptians create the millions of mud bricks necessary to construct the enormous tombs of the First Dynasty?" and, "The tombs were plastered with hundreds/thousands of feet of mud over a mile from the Nile. How much Nile alluvium and water would that have taken and how was it transported 5000 years ago?" Typically, the person attempting to answer that question won't leap to the fantastical as an explanation just because it seems like an enormous amount of work, especially for people living in a world where agriculture and domestication were still being perfected. Just because the hundreds of thousands of mud bricks were typically uniform in size and shape and managed to hold their shape for thousands of years (without being fired) doesn't mean that they had to be specially crafted by higher technologies. Just because the water used to make mud plaster had to be hauled by sled for 2 kilometers doesn't mean that the back-breaking work was handled by a vehicle we have no record of in the archaeological record. The mastabas of the First Dynasty as well as the enormous funerary enclosures found at Abydos could also be said to have created with precision (niched walls measured so well as to have the pattern repeat "perfectly" around the buildings) and would have absolutely taken years to construct. Saqqaran mastabas after the reign of Hor-aha were cut into the limestone to form rectangular and even more complex burial chambers using stone and copper tools which have been found buried within and surrounding the mastabas. Ritual and religion have obviously always been strong motivators for humanity which is why sites like Gobekli Tepe exist from a time in which we have no evidence of actual cities existing at all. I'll be sure to qualify the previous statement with a "yet", as perhaps we could find evidence of a city existing at a point even further in the past which archaeologists would absolutely accept assuming the evidence was clear. If evidence of higher technologies was being kept secret, *_why would the results of said technologies such as delicately crafted stone wares and other artifacts be put on display instead of being hidden away in a store room like that found in Indiana Jones!?_* Are they taunting everyone by putting these works on display, or are they just blinded by their dogmatic thinking to the point where no evidence one way or another could convince them that the crafted works had to be completed using something we have no record of? Why are so many people somehow arguing that both of these contradictory situations are true simultaneously!? Truth be told, I began reading into Ancient Egypt years after I had enjoyed shows like Ancient Aliens and visited forums like that of Graham Hancock. I do understand the aversion to authoritative sources so many have nowadays and the feeling that surely the scholars that study Egypt likely have a hierarchy rife with corruption and greased palms the likes of which can be seen throughout many industries and historic settings. I myself didn't pour through the books and journal articles written by archaeologists and other experts because it felt like a waste of time that I didn't have, and surely the work was just the same barely-changing portrayals recited again and again to dupe the unknowing useful idiots working for a larger hierarchy of archaeologists. However, the archaeologists of today aren't the same as the "archaeologists" in 1880 that, due to their station or wealth of a benefactor, gained control over a historic site and used underpaid digging teams to quickly unearth anything that looked valuable so they could send it to a wealthy private collector in order to expand their pocket books while also enjoying the prestige that came with being known as an archaeologist at a time where they were fawned over like swashbuckling treasure hunters. Instead, true archaeologists such as Petrie and Reisner would change the field thanks to their tireless pursuit of _truly_ thorough scientific discovery. Nowadays, and I do hate to say this, archaeology is a typically very boring profession the involves months of preparation, surveying, and meticulous excavation that usually uncovers essentially nothing or note, or some pottery sherds that hopefully contain some sort of inscription or unusual shape. That sort of work, especially in Egypt, only occurs during the winter months to avoid the blazing heat and mosquitos, and takes years to fully categorize and then write the dry and jargon-filled academic articles that almost no one besides other scholars in the field read. This is one of the chief reasons it seems the "status-quo" never changes to an outside observer: Archaeology is so slow that new information is also slow to be debated and accepted. This isn't to say lead archaeologists or Egyptologists can't be unreasonably stubborn or unwilling to accept certain ideas at times, but this is typically not the norm and leaders in academic fields are typically older and retire within a decade or two which allows a new director with different proclivities to be promoted. (Have to split this into 2 parts, the next will be a reply to my own comment).
(Continued) In today's world, almost no one cares about any sole archaeologist, because the field is now very specialized and people can spend a lifetime working in just one region or one period of time. What prestige or authority do the likes of Matthew Adams or David O'Connor command outside of a narrow band of academia? What narrative needs to be upheld else they lose their power over the common plebeian? Don't get me wrong, there are people who will take the smallest amount of power and utilize it to its fullest extent to a sadly absurd degree (looking at you moderators of various internet forums), but temper your expectations of corruption here. Moderating an internet forum is easy and doesn't require years of study to be taken seriously enough to be given the position. Archaeology is time-consuming, difficult, downright boring to most, and commands very little respect or power in the modern world - even less so since shows like Ancient Aliens and alternate history RUclips became popular. Most archaeologists with their own RUclips channels have an audience just a fraction the size of the previously mentioned media! As for accusations of an actual conspiracy of cover-ups, in what way are the consistently disagreeing scholars working in the field of archaeology simply too dogmatic to entertain ideas outside of a mainstream narrative, where massive disruption of what is already accepted is _exactly_ an occurrence that would make someone famous in the field? It's not as if you can make the argument that an industry surrounding the academic field of archaeology exists that has a vested interest in covering things up to make money like I've seen employed as an argument against governments or companies working in multi-billion dollar industries. On the contrary, a production such as Ancient Aliens absolutely does have a profit-motivated reason to sensationalize and overstate things in order to keep an audience of those suspicious of possible corruption in well-established fields coming back to view more episodes. These two accusations I've seen constantly levied are examples of incongruent and incomplete thinking. If you truly care about the subject, pick a time frame within Ancient Egypt and dive into it. Unlike some fields, many academic papers about archaeology are usually readily available online for free! A great many books, especially older works, are also available online on archive websites or thanks to a college uploading it as a PDF that can be accessed. Have questions you want answers to already in mind, and start trolling through various papers to see what others have already asked and attempted to answer using the evidence they know of. It's certainly time consuming, but if you really care so much that you spend countless hours perusing forums and RUclips looking for information on the subject, you can likely spare some of that time reading instead. As for those who just won't accept any answer other than a complete reconstruction of Ancient Egyptian works such as the granite coffins found in the Serapeum of Saqqara, I'm afraid you're going to have to pay a team quite a lot of money to do so. There are many stone-working companies today that can absolutely reconstruct the coffins with modern-day tools for tens of thousands of dollars if you want to confirm that we can do it with today's technology! As for utilizing the tools Ancient Egyptians would have used to do the reconstruction, it's an unfortunate truth that very few people have the expertise necessary and time to spend in order to utilize replicas of ancient tools to reconstruct monumental architecture. It has been absolutely proven that you can shape granite and other hard stones with the tools we know existed within specific periods of Ancient Egypt, but the actual work and time that would be required for a full reconstruction demands both a large amount of money, and a very large amount of time from experts in copper tool use that are certainly rarities today. It's certainly possible to do, but no one has bothered to undertake this task as mountains of evidence that the stone could be worked with various ancient tools already exists. Smaller works such as stone vases _have_ been reproduced using ancient tools if that is what would convince you. As for claims of inhuman precision: Many people have already visited Egypt with digital angle-finders and have found again and again that the angles and surfaces are certainly not near-perfect in their precision. They're certainly impressive, but not even close to perfect. As for those who don't like the video because of what apparently sounds like condescension... Not only are you tone policing, but surely you must also be tone-deaf to think an academic with an accent is equivalent to a condescending tone. If you don't enjoy the sound of his voice that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't discredit what he's saying. Apologies for the long comment and thank you for the video mate, I just wanted to comment to let you know that I, at least, appreciated the video. Hopefully I could convince someone to rethink their instinctual distrust for all things perceived as crystalized hierarchies with no room for growth and filled to the brim with corruption, a position I myself have come to understand isn't always applicable. Subversion and distrust of any and all institutions seems to be more normal today that in the past, but making that the uncritically presupposed feeling for any institution goes too far. Seven years ago I would have likely rejected this video outright due to my own biases developed due mostly to some unsavory knowledge and experiences with the publishing industry surrounding biological sciences that I once blindly trusted. I'm glad I gave various fields in academia another chance, just with a better understanding of possible conflicts of interest.
They won't read this and think about it. But in the time it would take to do so they will read a dozen posts on social media claiming that zahi hawass is the grand puppet master who keeps all egyptologists in lock step when it comes to suppressing the real truth about the past. There will always be willing buyers among those committed to believing that they just traded their family milk cow for a sliver of wood from the one true cross. Facts and logic to the contrary will only confuse and anger them.
The stoneworking methods and techniques that are such a mystery to us were as normal to the ancients as modern construction is to us. They probably even had old geezers watching and saying "That ain't the way WE used to do it!"
55:20 these cuts are exactly how it looks when you cut stone or masonry with a chop saw, one plunging cut down and the piece always breaks at the bottom. The cut cant be continued at the same angle with the piece missing because the the saw blade leaves the groove, its annoying but when you try you will damage the saw blade, ive done it lots. If you want to cut the bottom part it needs to be started at a new angle or flip the piece over and a second tricky cut from the bottom broken side. Most our cuts were hidden so we would start with an angled cut so the broken nub at the bottom wouldnt actually stick out and get in the way. The charicteristics of the nub are dependant on how large of a piece was cut off and how well the piece was supported and cutting a piece in half is easier than shaving a slice off, theres no way that cut was made with a drap saw AND the broken marks at bottom be quarry marks, that means they quarried it square than shaved the outside off with a drag saw.... no way, the blade would have to be pulled to one side and that increases friction dramatically, small pieces would break off, no groove for sand or blade, it bends the blade and the edges of the block wouldnt be so square and it would destroy copper blades even faster. Ive cut lots of masonry and granite for paver patios and boulder landscape walls. Masonry is like cutting butter compared to granite boulders, we cut as little granite as possible because it took so long and it destroyed our diamond impregnated saw blades. And that's one of the best cuts I've seen, better than I can do with a chop saw, that was a seriously stable tool with a seriously stable blade, I cant believe it was hammered copper swinging about in a bed of sand......
@@Eyes_OpenIt depends how much the saw gets moved back and forth during the cut, a small piece can be one easy cut but if the part is too big for the round saw blade it can moved back and forth, up and down. Me doing this by hand with a Stihl chop saw would make varrying radius on a big piece, if the saw was in a fixture it would be straighter and cleaner. Look up a video of an Amish circular saw mill, they take multiple passes on one big cut and adjust the cut depth, they are cutting soft wood long boards, not granite in block shape but many times they dont even do full passes in the center leaveing differeing marks on the edges. I dont see how a huge circular saw adjusted back and forth, up and down couldnt leave any mark a pendulum saw could, they're both curved cutting surfaces. Ive run a bandsaw mill not a circular mill but you can hear and feel if the machine is cutting fast or struggling so you adjust cut depth and feed rate on the fly leaving changing cut marks on big pieces and hydraulic controls let you feel everything and make fine adjustments but the blade stays on a perfect cutting plane but many of our large hydraulic human controlled machines arent as robotic as you think. AND EVERYONE have a HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
If they needed perfectly flat pieces and they had a regular cut process good enough, that nub at the bottom could be a flaw, the piece was allowed to fall away before cut all the way. That could be why it was never used, theres no good way to remove it with a saw, even we would hammer and chisel the nub away if we had to but it would never look cut, or else we would cut a new one, shaving a piece was nearly impossible, the cut looked horrible and it was bad for the blade. Or that piece was just left over scrap removed from a larger piece.
There are no mysteries to them and that's what's cool about it because we know how they were made and power tools were not used nor alien intervention.
I’m so glad that this remarkable channel exists. It’s great to watch and listen to the pro- and contra-arguments. And you always stay respectful, you never ridicule the opposite side. Often, you just ask a critical question and leave it up to the viewer to find the possible answer. You never press your views or conclusions onto the listener/viewer. I like how you analyze all the arguments and it’s fascinating to hear what a real Pro in this field thinks. I think in general, with no fundamental knowledge we (the laymen) often jump to unrealistic conclusions. And your videos are a great way of showing how important it is to take into account all the evidence, analysis and logic. Your videos are a real mind-opener. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. Keep up the excellent work and stay healthy!👍🏻😎 Best regards, Steven R.
@@WorldofAntiquity No more funding for you! In a world of cancel culture gone troppo your efforts to "debunk" the ancient civilisation theories (that all civilisation started only 6000 years ago and before that we were only cavemen/ hunter gatherers). This video is worth a finger clap but haven't offered any actual answers. I am critical of your claims about carbon dating, I read the papers you cited and they are vague at best, taking mortar samples from the buildings around the pyramid (no surprise that khufu's mortuary temple was built at the time Khufu was thought to be alive) or implying that they did (the other paper doesn't state where their samples came from in the pyramid). There are literally dozens of scientists that have been ejected from academia over their discoveries of the younger dryas impacts that have been found in North America. Personally I prefer Randall Carlson's work on the Younger Dryas Impact theory combined with Antonio Zemora. You took all this effort but have only provided data that complies with your own personal view. Considering the dating of gobekli tepe extending the age of civilisation out to the age of the younger dryas impacts I doubt your efforts and give them a 3/10.
I watched a large house being lifted to add a lower level. This required digging a whole new footing for the foundation. I sloke with the foreman and asked how they were going to get equipment under the house, what with all the asaffolding. "We're not." he said. The next day, they had a crew of 20 guys with picks and shovels. The footing trench was finished by that afternoon. I would have deemed that to be impossible.
Y'know, your post made me examine this whole Pyramid question from a different angle and this is what I came up with: The theories dealing with the building techniques of the Egyptians were seldom questioned up until 50 years ago or so, sure, there have always been doubters or those prone to flights of fancy but nothing like today and I've always wondered why. Now, though, between your post and several others I've read, I'm getting the impression that the further we get away from a culture brought up on hard work and perseverance the more likely it is that people will view the building of the Pyramid as impossible, something that only some kind of technology or aliens could achieve. Clearly, a good deal of this attitude comes from the fact that so few people, especially men, know what hard work is or what it can accomplish. I've always told people and I hope this doesn't sound racist but I've always said that if you give me a crew of young guys from Mexico there's nothing we can't do. This is not an exaggeration, I've worked alongside and supervised Mexican laborers and they put everyone to shame. Back a few years ago (30 years ago?) I answered an ad in the paper calling for laborers to work down in L.A. for $14.00 an hour, good pay in those days. When I got there the place was packed, there must have been 300 guys there: white, black, brown and a scattering of other guys, all ready to work (relatively). It was back-breaking work, pouring long concrete pads alongside the R.R. tracks at the Union-Pacific train-yard. The pads were for those huge machines that straddle the tracks and load and unload containers off the flat-cars. Anyway, at lunch-time the foreman came and talked to us and asked how we were doing and if anyone had had enough and slowly, reluctantly a few guys left (maybe 20 guys). The next morning there were a lot of guys absent, nearly half of those who'd shown up originally. Same thing all over again: we lost a few at lunch and then, the next day, more guys didn't show up. By the third day we had our crew, through the simple process of elimination and you know what, I was the ONLY white guy left, me and 30 Mexican kids (Well, they weren't ALL kids.) and let me tell you, we could have built a fuckin' Pyramid! You could have told us you needed it done by Friday and we'd of gotter done...but you were buying the beer. I said all that to say this: If you've been coddled all your life, spent your time cooped up in a house because your parents were too afraid you'd get kidnapped to let you outside, if you've never had a callus or swung a sledge hammer or dug a ditch you'll never understand how something like a Pyramid get's built. I mean, I get it, I totally get what a daunting thing it can be to climb out of a truck and break ground on a project that's so big you can't possibly see the end of it, it just seems like such an impossible idea, that within the next couple months your sweat will be translated into a house or a 7-11 or a whole housing tract, it seems inconceivable. Then it's framed, then you're throwing up drywall, then slapping on the final coat of paint (if you should be so unlucky...I HATE painting!) and then you load up and move on to the next job. EVERYTHING seems difficult or impossible if you've never done it before but once you have, NOTHING is impossible. The block and stone-masons in this room know, the farmers and landscapers know, the steel-workers and roofers know, they all know how the Pyramids were built, it's the tech-guys and the store clerks and the guys who work from home and don't have to roll out of bed until 9:00 that think aliens must have done it.
@@chriskelly6574 Amen and you know another thing? There's only one reliable cure for a hangover: Go to work no matter how bad you're feeling and by noon-time you're fine...or at least, it worked for me. (Oh and don't get me going on politicians, greedy, shiftless bastards.)
I remember watching a Dane documenting the creation of a time accurate remaked Viking boat while growing up and I absolutely loved that the people that came before me were so knowledgeable and I remember being very thirsty for learning even more of their stories ❤
Love your video. Today we have some problems which are accelerated in the internet. - People like a spectacular explanation more than a boring, realistic one. - In the Internet, people think they can assess something, other people spent years with, better by only looking at a fraction of it for a fraction of the time. - People falsify arguments, no one ever made, to make their argument look better. - Scientific, evidence based methods are then seen as cover ups for the real happening. - People just listen to what supports all those behaviours. Uncharted is one example what comes out of this.
umm bens videos are the spectacular explanation. the real explanation is boring. the egyptians did lots of labour and spent lots of time working with stone, not very exciting is it? why not invent some ancient power tools to spice things up like ben has
@@redmoose1447 Yeah and they build the great pyramid in about 27 years with this labor... every couple of minutes one stoneblock weighing tons was placed with magnificient precision ^^ suuuuuuure
I have waited 50 years for this video! Literally. It started with Chariots of the Gods in the early 70s. I thought I was smart when I decided that humans were capable of this work, it didn't have to be aliens. I have been enjoying watching Ben's videos for a year or two, while constantly wondering what the actual truth is about these objects. Thanks for ruining my entertainment! Just kidding, thank you for telling the facts about all this folderol and hoopla!
@@joetotale6354 Thank you! Youre right. He explained how he looks at it, that’s all. Ben from Uncharted is just giving his opinion and he never says he’s an expert. 3 hours and this dude didn’t answer any of my questions.
6:10 That view of his is pretty much based on the timeline "mainstream" Egyptology has given; most of these "precision cut" artifacts are found in old kingdom sites (and are "dated" to be older), and the later works seem to have been made using worse technology. So thats why he says they must be significantly older; because it would sort of make more sense for them to be older rather than having been made right before the more crude stuff. (This can be seen on sites in different countries as well; in Peru for example, the lower parts of Inca constructions are often more precise and megalithic.) He actually is wondering the same thing as you in at least one of his videos: It doesn't make sense for the technology to get worse over time, though thats exactly what seems to have happened based on the datings given by official sources. To my understanding, he doesn't claim to know something is X years old.
In 2000 years when they look back at architecture, they're going to look at Cathedrals and say it's absolutly impossible that those predated current buildings by centuries, considering how vastly superior they are in terms of scale, beauty and technical achievments. And yet...
Hi, I worked at a granite shop making counter tops…all my time just cutting and polishing edges which takes FOREVER this shit is extremely hard to work..can’t imagine not having high powered tools and machines
@@joshuawall253 Can you please tell us how it would be worked by hand? Splitting wedges I get, drill holes, use plug and hammer to create cracks. What about the rest? Finishing?
I am an experienced stonemason with experience carving a vast array of stone types in the UK, and North America. What the ancients have constructed, is utterly astonishing. I would love to go back in time and witness the skills they used.
@@sweetsourpork111 Granite and Marble are not even comparable in terms of hardness.
@@jeffmccloud905 The original commenter is a stone Mason and he os amazing by the carved granite in Egypt, the reply said to look at the marble statue of David see what a human and chisels can do, and I am saying that comparing doing work by hand on marble and on granite is not something you can really compare because granite is much much harder then marble.
@@jeffmccloud905 I just told you what I'm saying. I can be more specific. Marble ranks as a 3 on the Mohs scale of harness, granite is a 7. So when the original commenter is marveling at granite carvings in Egypt, and the reply is well just look at what people did with David it's not a real comparison as the material to make David is half the hardness of the material the original commenter is marveling over.
Is that clear enough for you?
@@jeffmccloud905 have you ever wondered why Michelangelo always use Marble in his stonework? , he could use granite wouldn't he?
Jeff
You don’t need to be a freaking stone mason to know stuff. The weekend backpacker rock collector or anyone taken a geology course knows granite is harder then marble.
The POINT is that ARCHEOLOGISTS say that the ancients carved granite using COPPER or bronze as they didn’t have steel back then. Ya there were awesome carvings in marble even back in Greece I believe, but like for hard rock you need harder tools for quality work.
It’s like using a cheap drill bit. Ya you may get a hole or two before ya break it rededecking a semi trailer for instance. But more expensive drill bits last longer and is cheaper long run and you have less down time. Like the inside of the pyramid has a granite tomb that’s pretty much perfectly square and level and they did that with crude bronze tools. It’s just like it’s extremely unlikely the quality of job done could be done with crude tools not meant for the job.
But then again maybe they did have steel and were being lied to. Why does egypts museum have a display of boomerangs found in a tomb and why was cocaine found in a tomb? Maybe they grew and made cocaine there and made boomerangs but it’s unlikely.
1:16:26 “I have done it dry, I have done it wet, and wet is much better” Couldn’t agree more
I said the same thing 🤣
Alternative theory: all the sand in Egypt is actually just the left over stone material from grinding 24/7 for thousands of years. Lol
It would probably have taken about that much time and effort.
Yeah, that'd be about right too.
As they say "Grind like an Egiptian".
@@markokrsmanovic2562 who says thatXD
@@hristoborisov3713 the Egyptians.
Try explaining any of this to anyone that believes this stuff, but isn't intellectually honest with themselves let alone anything else. They will not listen. No matter what you say, they always try to think of some little thing, and then act like that thing not only disproves everything you just said but also proves they were right all along.
I once had a 50 post thread just trying to explain that the H blocks at Puma Punku are not identical and do not possess perfect angles, and I could not do it. No matter how hard I tried, no one would accept that the actual real blocks at Puma Punku do not possess the attributes credited to them: it was impossible for them to believe that the blocks are not perfect, because that is how they have been described to them and to believe otherwise is to realise the people that described the H Blocks as perfect were lying to them.
That is the crux, in my view, the people spreading the information don't care if they lie or who they lie to. The people believing the lies do care however, they really do not want to be the person that was lied to. I was that person, but I just accepted I was duped, and moved on. I really see no shame in it, these theories are intriguing, it's now wonder people believe in them. There's just too much dishonesty and that is where we all have to draw the line. When you find out that someone is lying to you, you can't ignore it and you have to act accordingly.
It is easier to deceive someone, than to show someone they have been deceived. Don't be that person.
You're right, for some people it's a waste of time.
There's a certain mentality a minority of people have where they get pleasure from thinking they're in this tiny club who know something other people don't, they enjoy the martyr complex fantasy that the mainstream is against them.
They don't even care about reality or evidence, that's not the point, it's about being in 'the club'.
You’ve personally inspected the stones at Pumapunku? Try explaining any rational thought to anyone that believes the elitist bullshit narrative of mainstream academia, but isn’t intellectually honest with themselves let alone anything else. They are too conceited to listen. No matter what you say they always try to quote some asshole from some no name college that no one has ever heard of and then act like they are the end all be all authority on the matter without considering that these morons they so dearly love have a vested interest in protecting their precious narratives which is de facto protecting their precious degrees and concealing their insecurities.
Well, if you have a person which hears 3 hours "Ben has no arguments" and STILL thinks Ben HAS arguments, YOU should run.
Id love to see someone replicate a massive granite coffin with bronze and copper tools. Honestly, not being facetious, just want to see it done.
Haven’t you seen sculptures of perfectly accurate people in granite and marble?! Just think bruh
Experimental Archaeology is always really cool, almost without exception.
@@Griffin-rl5hy it is impossible to shape granite with copper. Why is that hard to understand?
@@javiersoto5223 Because they don't understand the concept of using Silica sand as an cutting medium. Sand is quite high on the Mohs scale.
@@javiersoto5223 Bronze, though...
You gotta remember there were alloys of copper long before tin-bronze was discovered too. Arsenic-bronze is the one that most readily comes to mind.
There is an Iranian joke I think you might find funny, an Italian and a Iranian are walking by the coliseum and Italian guy finds a piece of wire on the ground. He showed it to the Iranian guy and says “ you see this wire? This shows Romans had telephone lines 2000 years ago!” The Iranian looks at it for a minute and then replies: you won’t find any lines in ancient Iran, we used mobile phones! Lol
Priceless.
😂🤣💨 beautiful
Great! I like it!
😅😅 there's an Armenian jokes like that too lol
Terrible, but funny 😆
Well, spouting off about how it's impossible to move large objects is a great way to avoid people asking you to help them move furniture.
your patience is astounding, the original video is so frustrating but the way you approach it openly is the best way to address this type of thinking. kudos for trying to make everyone smarter
Within woodworking mass produced items use large tools, individual woodworkers use an array of power tools. That's the camp I'm in. Then there are people who build only using hand tools. It is a completely different skill. Finally there are folks who build with only antique hand tools. Just saying you are a woodworker does not mean that you would have expertise or be able to weigh in across all these practices.
A very good point
Very well put. As they say, you need the right tool for the job. And the term woodworking is almost as vague as the term sea creature. What kind of wood? What size is the project? Is it a building on land? Is it a ship at sea? Is it indoors like a table, or outdoors like a pagoda? Does it need to be strong like a spear, or flexible? Does it need to be hard wearing or carry heavy loads like a bridge?
Unless I'm mistaken I think the term is very broad indeed.
And even our recent past show differences, my grandfather would do things completely differently to how I would (I having been a cabinetmaker), just in 60-70 years there's a big change. Even consider someone in agricultural areas compared to cities, they also do things differently.
I find the whole notion of high tech ancients offensive, doubly so that he is Australian.
The polishing arguments ruin my brain. We literally use sand to this day. If we want a finer polish, we use ever smaller sands and start mixing it with liquids.
Every time I see these ancient high tech or alien claims, I can tell it's made by people who have never worked with hand tools in their lives.
I have polished a rough river stone into a perfect oval pearl as a gift to a loved one. I did it with hand sanding with Diatom earth and oil mixture for the fine polish. The rough sanding was done via pulverized rock. I wanted to do it all by hand as a show of love. Took me about 20 hours of sanding by hand. Yes, you need massive forearms for this, but guess what, that's entirely possible to have.
The secret ingredient is not high technology, but patience, blood, sweat and tears.
Nowadays, the sand is usually glued to a piece of paper.
Actually, the polished surface won't last, any geologist will confirm that. The feldspar in the granite degrades, especially when exposed to the elements. Yet the Egyptian rose granite has retained its polish for thousands of years. Sorry if that further ruins your brain.
@darksidegryphon5393 Yes, and it's graded. A modern convenience.
@methylene5 and yet there are 2000 year old polished statues and building etc.
Being in construction myself, one needs to realize that even with power tools, for cutting metal and/or stone and masonry, the cutting blades or drill bits are either hardened or with saws, are coated with abrasive materials....
Hi Mitchell. On the Giza plateau there are off cut stones and partial cuts.. What do you suppose cut these stones leaving a kerf of ~4mm and a ~13 ft diameter ? The images indicate single point action vs grinding. I would love to see the machine and blade(?) that cut that stone.
Hi Barry pendulum? So you wouldn't meet that large blade but about a foot pass penetration
@@ivokolarik8290 Hello Ivo, I think a pendulum would not make such even toolmarks. I'm thinking a disk with single points such as a modern circular saw with tungsten carbide, just scaled up to 13' and with diamond or some other stone for the cutting tips. Where are those tools.
@@tbohtwentyone 'humans' learnt that pissing on things can be useful ('acids') long before the discovery of fire(what chemistry can do - it can undo). Gravity and it's effects are apparent to everybody, they don't need equations(gravity fed acid.) Also - friction cutting doesn't need stone or metal...
@@giupiete6536 There is no evidence of acids used to cut stone in Egypt. The Inca may have used it to finish the joints and faci g block for their walls. They were big into mining and there found use for the acids that resulted in their refining processes.
I had to sand/polish a stone with sand paper and leather to a mirror-esque shine before in, like, 5th grade woodworking class. Not really that unbelievable if a bunch of 12 year olds can do it
I used to supervise construction projects, snd I can tell you from personal experience that the amount of labor required to do work depends a lot on culture. Working in Italy, I observed that some work was done in a manner that in the US wouldn't have been done the same way. For example in the US, most cities have large street sweeping machines. In the city I lived in, street sweeping was done by hand with straw brooms. Not because they lacked access to street sweeping machines, but because the focus is providing jobs. Using a machine would only employ one or two people, but sweeping by hand employs dozens, and requires no skill. If efficiency is not your priority, if you have plenty of labor, technology is not required, just persistence.
This is exactly what is happening in service sector in the developing country I live in. Humans are cheaper and easier to replace than tools when they wear out or become unsatisfactory. Moreover, you can move a worker to do another job without modifications to the "machinery".
And back then, they didn't have nearly as complex machines, so they had lots of people working on it.
Great point Shawn... wasn’t missed on me, thanks!
The guy made an argument about sanding and polishing the granite, and how long it would take for it to be done manually, so they just had to have used power tools. Imagine how many labourers they could commission to do this simple task, and just how many hours they spent doing it daily, does he think they had labour laws dictating how many hours they could work for, or how hazardous the environment could be? They probably spent most of their day doing this, labour was replaceable too, so they could overwork people all they wanted, no need for power tools, just expendable labour.
That doesn't account for the precision.
One of the main red flags people should keep an eye out for when watching videos of different theories in any science is “we’re told”. You’re not being told anything. There’s a leading edge of current theories and explanations, sure, but that’s not the same as dogma. Please understand this.
"We're told"...... = followed by nothing. Academia quantifies its claims via evidence and sourcing. "Alternative" on the other hand is mostly unsubstantiated "innuendo" and allusion. It is all _"I think......I feel......I believe......."_ - or "we" as you say = but little else. 🤔
These people are just pathologically anti authoritarian and disagreeable.
maybe within the profession, but lay people are in fact expected to believe what experts tell them on faith (because only experts are competent to interpret the data).
To paraphrase Professor Dave (hey, that rhymes): History isn't dogma. You're just stupid.
In the last year more evidence has come to light about Gobekle Tepe. The official report late this year (2022) from the people working the site indicates that they have now found domestic structures in proximity to the ritual structures. Separate as expected, but right next to them. I have watched the academic community's evaluation of the site evolve continually as new evidence was uncovered; they are hardly 'sticking to the conventional paradigm' here. Work at other nearby sites has produced evidence of a wide-spread culture in the region inconsistent with a hunter-gatherer model in terms of territory and population, and professionals commenting on the site are starting to seriously consider that they practiced agriculture. Naturally they are reluctant to commit to this position in the absence of concrete evidence, but they are open to the idea and are simply waiting for data to confirm it before committing. That's called 'science,' not a conspiracy or cover-up.
I do believe that the history of humanity is more complex than we can currently demonstrate, but I haven't seen evidence of cultures in deep antiquity producing anything that they could not have created with the tools we KNOW they had. Experimental archeology has demonstrated techniques for producing many of the features attributed to high-technology using only the sorts of tools we know people of these periods possessed. You can find videos here on You Tube documenting those efforts. Is civilization by some definition older than previously suspected? The evidence seems to indicate that it may well be. Is it possible that even older civilizations will be discovered? Sure, why not? Will they use 'advanced technology?' In terms of our understanding of the tools of their era it's possible. Not all societies progress in technology at the same rate. Some societies inevitably developed tools and techniques before others. In this instance stone-age tools and techniques, not machinery.
"Work at other nearby sites has produced evidence of a wide-spread culture in the region inconsistent with a hunter-gatherer model in terms of territory and population"
Not true.
@@vids595 Yeah, I think 'evidence' of population currently can be left up to how one would interpret the uses of settlements found at GT. Unless there is new evidence that I've not seen yet.
Being open to data is 1 thing. Instantly parroting the standard propaganda, that criticizes the most obvious issues that are contrary to the propaganda is called bias NOT Science.
@@vids595 That is true, though.
This video literally changed my life. I used to be heavily invested in all of these alt. history narratives pushed by the likes of UnchartedX, Ham Grandcock, Christopher Dunn, etc. etc. etc. Just being exposed to a fraction of the nuance these charlatans were INTENTIONALLY leaving out was enough to make me feel deeply embarrassed for not looking into these claims on my own.
nah, not your fault, be glad you know better now...and always factcheck with real knowledgable people, not amateurs.
@@wout123100 Well I was assured by the people with all the books to sell and clicks to bait that these scholarly professionals couldn't be trusted because were all just a part of some big spooky academic conspiracy to do basic fact-checking and ruin everyone's fun.... I mean "hide the truth".
Look at it this way, you turned around and wanted to learn more. That's learning, doesn't matter if you start on the wrong path
Foolish is refusing to learn. Wize is admitting a fault, and learn from it.
Congratulations!
"the writing is never polished"
yes. like on modern gravestones, where the letters are sometimes left rough, so that their different texture stands out against the polished stone. I guess our society must not have the advanced technology needed to polish the letters on all of our graves.
Its almost like a workman found the object prepared to a higher precision and scrawled something less advanced on it. Good example with grave stones
@@lostpony4885 You clearly didn't understand what Bow-tied is saying here. The lack of finish is on purpose.
The irony 🤣
They are left rough on modern gravestones, because the relatives of deceased didn't think it necessary to pay shit a lot of money for polished engraved letters or they didn't have the money. For example rich people tend to play extra for piece of art grave stones with polished mirror like surfaces and silver/gold engraved letters or some kind of extravagant sculpture grave stone.
And as far as I know the Egyptian Pharaohs where the rich one and I guess they required the finest work from the most skilled sculptors.
This guy seems surprisingly surprised that the peoples of the stone age knew a hell of a lot about working with stone.
Almost like we forgot a lot of it having moved on to metals
@@lostpony4885
Metal-working is much harder, yet we make jet engines with super alloys and parts tolerances so tight, it'd make a German blush.
@@manictiger Jet we still don't move heavy rocks like they did or build using polygonal masonry. Could it be that it's harder then it looks?
@@MrAwesomeBikerDude
We don't have any reason to. Engineering is usually about keeping costs down, while still complying with code (so it's not so cheaply made that it kills the occupants).
Ancient people were amazing, but if we can machine hardened cannons to send shells 30 miles with almost perfect precision, then we can probably get that kind of perfection out of stone, too.
@@manictiger Did we made the cannons using hammers? No we used machines to get that level of accuracy.
"Most scholars DREAM of upsetting the status quo!"
For real! The reason most studies and papers are revisions of recontextualizations of specific niche elements of single topics isn't because modern scholarship is cowardly and hidebound, it's because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This isn't the Wild West anymore, a single psychologist can't just claim that there's a secret shared unconscious all people are hooked into that feeds them ideas and be made a household name. (Thanks a lot, Jung.)
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," is unscientific drivel. They require the same amount of evidence. Ironic you got that wrong because you probably fancy yourself as a scientist.
@@GroberWeisenstein Bit deep, wasn’t that?
@@GroberWeisenstein u sayin i might die cos of dis?
@@GroberWeisenstein hard to say, how can one know?
@@GroberWeisenstein I can count how many limbs I’ve lost on the fingers of one hand. Actually no I can’t.
I love the way the imperfect rocks that have been left behind at quarries are proof they had high tech and not low tech that resulted in a lot of failures left behind in quarries...
Well their reasoning is that it was so easy and fast to cut stones, if you weren't careful you would over cut or stray from the cut line easily. It makes a lot of sense.
@@SamBorgmanyeah, whats next, aliens builded the pyramid?
@@SamBorgman It actually makes no fkn sense at all. Aliens that had the tech to get here could not invent a guard that prevents overcutting? Gimme a fkn break!
i don't get it. is that sarcasm for the idea or sarcasm against it? lol. thanks. @@marksadplier9451
@@SamBorgmanthat's exactly how it works. Power tools make it easier to get perfect things quicker but also easier to screw things up faster.
There's been a similar case here in Brazil lately, where an ancient Amazon basin civilization has been unearthed. And they apparently had an "ancient high technology" known as agri-forest (which is apparently the reason why, when the forest re-grew after their mass-death by European diseases, so many useful plants remain). But the mainstream media did a shit job of reporting the findings, and now many people treat it like they just found the Amazon's Atlantis.
It's been really hard to tell people who are ignorant of the actual finds about the discovery, without sounding crazy in the process.
Yes I saw that. Amazing to me it wasn't like front page news all over earth.
My understanding is that there's absolutely no way , scientifically speaking, that so many useful trees plants bushes, grow in the way they do. The only explanation is they were cultivated. Interesting. Very interesting
They dug all their waste into the ground, and eventually it became fertile soil (called terra preta), a process that was probably accidental at first. It's clever, but not exactly what most people understand as "high technology". It does seem as if early European descriptions of large populations all along the Amazon were correct, after being dismissed for centuries. Tragically it seems that European diseases killed the vast majority of these people before Europeans even penetrated their territory, so when they did, the rain forest had already taken over their settlements, so it was assumed those early descriptions were travellers' tales..
@Paul Holloway Terra Preta isn't the result of just burying their waste into the ground. We still do that today. It appears to have come from leaving smouldering embers there for an extended period of time kept lit/smouldering burning away, or so it's believed nobody is 100% sure. There are efforts by brazilian companies trying to recreate it at the moment.
Estou por fora, qual o nome?
@@martincooper8289 biochar aka activated carbon.
There is a difference between approaching something with an open mind and approaching something with an empty mind. We are to hear arguments and fairly evaluate them... not let other people photocopy their ideas onto us without evaluating them using the best available experience, research, logic, and evidence.
Truth is there are too many missing pieces of information. Mainstream history is doing the same thing alternative history does, it believes in the most logical explanation according to the evidence(except mainstream is getting paid to do research right).
My point is there is no evidence to prove almost anything about the pyramids which is really sad. ( dont tell me a piece of wood and a few scrapes of charcoal can be evidence for the date of construction of the pyramids, because thats what mainstream history says if im not wrong)
Well said
I agree ☺️
The thing I found most disappointing about academia is how close-minded it generally is. It seems to be more about arriving at pre-determined results based on the scholar's viewpoint, and the politics within the discipline, than anything else.
Reminds me of a saying I don't remember the source of but was along the lines f "The ring of an empty mind rings loudest."
10:06 11:24 14:18 27:44 2:41:32 For those who are interested in the topic of polygonal masonry. A number of methods for obtaining the polygonal masonry are proposed. The basis of the proposed methods is the use of clay/gypsum replicas, reduced clay models of stone blocks and a 3D-pantograph, as well as a topography translator. The results are presented in the article: “Fabrication methods of the polygonal masonry of large tightly fitted stone blocks with curved surface interfaces in megalithic structures of Peru”. I do not provide a direct link, because RUclips does not allow a comment with this link. Search by the article title.
7
Wow primitive Palaeolithic people could do all that but its crazy to assume they had iron tools
@@wrathmachine7609 Cairo museum
Cairo museum has ancient Egyptian iron cog bits, also Arsenical copper (bronze) tools are as hard as mild steel.
@@wrathmachine7609 no evidence of iron tools in the excavations. An inconvenient fact.
. I read somewhere that it was incredible to believe that so many pyramids were made across the ancient world. Someone opined, "Yet beavers across the world make intricate dams and have never met each other"
🤭 Yup. Of course it helps when they are = all beavers...... Thus all humans are endowed with the same capacity for "pattern recognition" - it being the basis of much of our knowledge. We see things in the world around us and are able to "make connections" which help us to learn.
So a "pyramid" is nothing more than stacking blocks one atop another in a tapering fashion. It has the added benefit of being a stable structure. Finally it can be viewed as "a man made mountain" which is important considering ancient man ascribed greatness to such things.
Moral of the story: give a child with no understanding of geometry blocks to play with. After a time using trial & error and the aforementioned pattern recognition they will eventually create pyramidal shapes. So the only thing "strange" about seeing pyramidal structures built around the planet by otherwise disparate cultures = is that some feel it is supposedly strange.
Beavers are really social creatures that will know the other individuals in their local area.
@FreedaPeeple-in2mn Yep. I've often thought the ancient architects of the pyramids would be equally staggered and baffled by modern skyscrapers. Maybe they'd think aliens must've made them.
oh dear lord... the ancient aliens were the beavers the entire time
When he speaks about grinding It really grind my gears... as former glass grinder I would say that sometimes you just need to polish (or even smooth-grind) some specific things by hand. It is ussualy painful and painfully time consuming, but it is necessary in cases machine are just uncapable achieve the desired "perfection" 🙂
whos machines yours well if yours cant and theirs can whos more tech savy the ancients or you
I absolutely do not have a clue whats your point, obviously I do not speek yours clan tongue :-D
But I have a feeling that you telling that Im idiot that my machine cannot do something… and I telling you, something just need its time and cannot be done in a hurry - for example (!!) some fine poloshing of glass needs to be done slow or it gets ruptured, cracked, or you may harm by heat its subsurface layer and it gets then much easily broken… or if you need to do some smooth grinding in order to be able to UV-glued two pieces it is best to do it slowly by hand ontop of sheet of glass…
So I suppose each and all materials has something similar no mater if it is stone, metal or wood...
@@MaXxProsTe so an ancient who carved a perfect artifact out of a material harder then the tools he has a impossible feat hand rubbed the whole thing out ?or was there a civilization before that had the tools and know how. the experts said the panda did not exist there are black bears brown bears and white bears these no such thing as a black and white bear that eats only bamboo all bears are carnivore's . they were wrong maybe the tools to do such feats once existed with a civilization prior to the Egyptian's .
@@jamessimkowiak1194 you have obviously totally wrong rudimentaries...and that terrible language do not helps me either.
Im sorry, but seems you do not know a thing about anything.
The tools softer than processed material..? How do you suppose the diamonds get shaped (or got shaped in early days)? By even harder diamonds? No - by "softer" tools. That can by applied to anything... rocks get carved by water (and grains in it).
When I sculpt with stone there always comes that point where I put down the tools and finish it by hand. It sucks, but the results always feel great. That and I can take small sculptures to the porch, sit on my grandparents old swing bench, and polish until the fireflies come out.
On what I would consider evidence of ancient high technology: ball bearings would do it for me. We take them for granted these days, but ball bearings are *very* hard to make, because of the materials required and the difficulty inherent in machining spheres small, smooth, and consistent enough. Even today, there are nations out there that cannot make them in any real volume and rely almost entirely on imported bearings to keep their economies rolling smoothly.
Rolling smoothly 😊👌
epic pun!
@@TheLizardKing752 I like how he was able to include the pun... while still keeping his bearings.
If I tried that it would probably... spin out of control. (case in point) ;)
The Pentavarite must not be exposed
Came across this a while ago. Fast forward to 1:20 for ball bearings ruclips.net/video/w4vc4TsM5Us/видео.html
Artists and artisans become obsessed and will stop at nothing to make their vision manifest. Limitations and handicaps are met with dedication, ingenuity, and a helluva lot of elbow grease.
Seemingly superhuman reserves of patience, tenacity and focus can be summoned to serve the final product.
I’m guessing X has never experienced this for himself. His ignorant dismissals insult not only ancient people, but all of human creativity.
Thank you for making this wonderful video.
This is such an excellent point I am right this very moment making some sweat pants for myself and while I could finish the waistband on the sewing machine in about 2 minutes it wouldn't be as tidy or as strong as if I do it by hand. Consequently I'm stitching my waistband by hand because I have a vision of how I want it to look and that vision is better obtained by hand stitching. What is the point of my resorting to "primitive" sewing techniques other than a dedication to preservation of my vision, lol.
Especially when they don’t have the internet and tv to waste their time on half the day
Dude you get it. I love sewing garments by hand with a needle and thread and am quite good at it now. I've been practicing little by little pretty much my whole life. I go through long periods where I don't sew much as I work full time and sewing by hand is obviously, time consuming, but I do a little every year. My skills have grown slowly over the years and while I can now produce garments that are beautifully made with stitches that are both fine and uniform I am always looking for better methods, and practicing new techniques. I have sewn many a thing over the course of several days that I could easily throw together in a few hours if I used a sewing machine but that's boring and not at all fun so despite the harder work of sewing by hand I stick to it.
I used to believe that all the ancient mysteries were the result of 'patience, tenacity, and focus' (and it certainly still may be), but all of that takes TIME, and TIME contradicts history. If you find a way to build the pyramids in *20 years* with nothing other than pounding stones, copper tools, and elbow grease, please share. The key being time. If time was not a factor, I'd agree that the Pyramids are egyptian, but in 20 years? Have you ever visited the pyramids and actually absorbed how truly massive they are? Hell, I'd even go as far as challenging you to make a single granite vase in those 20 years with the same tolerance and geometric accuracy of the ancient artifacts. I believed for the longest time that they were simply "clever solutions" to old problems, but many of the tolerances on these ancient pots are truly more perfect than what we can reproduce today on actual CNC machines. Im not saying they used CNCs, but im simply using that as a comparison of quality. They are actually *perfect* which is not something most people can appreciate unless they've tried to make something truly perfect.
@@Creator-of-None You don’t “agree that the Pyramids are egyptian” ?? Sir, I think your journey into “ancient mysteries “, and UnchartedX and possibly Graham Hancock, have led you astray, and I want you to come back.
Those pyramids were built IN EGYPT, by the people who lived there at the time, i.e., EGYPTIANS.
Yes, apparently it took about 20 yrs (for 20k people) to build one pyramid, but they practiced this method of construction for 1,000 yrs or more. The early ones were crude, over TIME they hit their stride and built some really fine ones, and then I believe they half-assed a few more crappy ones before they gave it up for good and moved on to Victorian Bungalows. I could be wrong but the point is they had plenty of TIME.
I hate to break it to you but nothing is PERFECT. Not the Hubble Telescope lens, not Michelangelo’s David, and not Ancient Egyptian stone vessels. Personally, Salma Hayek seems perfect to me, but I’m sure if I examined her very closely and took accurate measurements I would find some tiny flaw.
To say those vessels are perfect is simply repeating someone else’s hyperbole.
By the way, a RUclips channel called ‘Scientists Against Myths’ has videos demonstrating the very real possibility of recreating complex stone vessels using primitive tools, and these are exemplary of the point I was trying to make in my original post.
Lastly, Alexander, it’s very easy and also very cowardly to criticize and deny the centuries of accumulated data earned through real work by actual scientists, without ever daring to make a positive claim or offer a theory of your own to be addressed and scrutinized. This is why UnchartedX invents a mystery and then vaguely alludes to an even bigger mystery, without ever making a specific claim. It’s cowardly and lazy. I would respect someone more if they had the balls to make their claim and own it. If you think it’s Aliens, say it’s Aliens! Tell us what they ate, what kind of hat they wore- why they flew across space just to make perfect shit out of stone and bury it with those Pharaoh guys.
Just don’t be like that, Alexander. Consider Occam’s Razor, avoid the Argument from Incredulity… and recognize that History, Archaeology, even Reality itself is wondrous and fascinating enough without manufacturing unfounded “mysteries “ that only insult and cheapen it.
Come back to us Alexander !
It’s telling that Ben never responded to this, considering it’s a thorough detailed and length debunking that easily makes its case. It’s also telling that he deletes any mention to this video on his RUclips channel. Well done on such a thorough effort - I learned a lot!
To respond would require knowledge of the subject far beyond anything he feigns to have........ It would also further open him to additional exposure of said lack of understanding.
Thus Ben like all monetizers of the "alternative" schtick off no meaningful engagement. Their game is all assumptive "innuendo" to leave the viewer filling in their own blanks based upon their own ignorance and fantasy-based assumptions. There is no compelling argument for that - nor defense really. They are purveyors of rhetoric and sophistry.
Ben has been running around and creating a lot of new content. Why waist time replying to century old academic arguments? All of Ben's work has been countering these arguements, you want a reply video??? he already has a full channel of them. And the whole monetization and scamming accusation is the most pathetic, Ben's work and many others is FREE. How much do Universities charge to dogmatically protest Clovis First!! Or that The Great Pyramids were made before a wheel barrow??? You mainstream academic hardliners are the egotistical dogmatic lunatics who think native people are savages who know nothing of history, you would support priests for burning people who say the earth is round.
@@RockKnocker17 ginning up new rationalizations for what are fundamentally = the same arguments - is not "new content". It is simple "obfuscation".
If you want an analogy: _"Intelligent Design"_ That is where the Creatards "fluff up" their Creationist worldview via junk science claims to try to make it appear as scientifically plausible. Remove that "filler" and you are left with the same old argument......
Moral of the story: adding "new details" to what is fundamentally a flawed argument does not make it new.......
@@varyolla435ginning up contents? That's great. He is making content so good that is changing the antiquities markets.... do you understand that? One video is scientifically measuring a perfectly flat box burried in Egypt, then fragments of the largest statue I've ever seen, the next video are aerospace experts measuring jars with their lab equipment. You act like he daily vlogging his life for views, all the work many people have done on this topic and his content IS changing the world, you call it "ginning up." It's your ego that cant handle the reality here.
No, you've got me completely wrong. I'm not an academic, and i used to heavily believe in the high tech belief system. I've been studying this since the 90s... you know what i did? I kept digging. Ben is behind, he chooses to ignore a bunch of research that goes WAY beyond what he documents.
There's a weath of information that goes back into the 1800's, and once you start to look deeper into this, It's easy to debunk Bens' work. He's holding onto a lot of easily disproved stuff and chooses to ignore it. We don't need some high technology bullshit, we just need to think about how people 6000 years ago did things... and many people are going down that path now, and it's FAR MORE INTERESTING then coming up with hair brained theories talking about ancient computers and cnc machines that make absolutely no sense... (trying to supplant todays technology into civilisation 6000 years ago is insane and lazy)
ask yourself this... if high technology existed... why is nothing duplicated exactly the same... wouldn't they use such 'high technology' over and over... ? Yet all those vases.. are different... the boxes in the seapeum range dramatically in quality... Do yourself a favour and look beyond Ben's bullshit. Ben DOES NOT counter these arguments, sufficiently at all, and for you to say so only illustrates you're unaware of the depth and breadth of this subject level...
Instead of countering arguments ... he simply calls any opposition 'logical falacies' and is silent for a LOT of content that completely blows his 'research' out of the water. He also actively censors anyone who dare bring this stuff up in any of his communities.. i've seen it first hand.... the truth is out there... but you need to be brave enough to challenge your preconcieved ideas and bias's. I did, can you?
BTW that 'flat box' you talk about isn't as flat as he makes out, is has inperfections, and t's surrounded by others boxes that can be dated to the same period that arn't "precise' at all. All this can be easily looked up and many people have covered it far more comprehensively then Ben... and he chooses to ignore that these videos exist, because it completely dismantles his work as lazy, and exposes him as a creator that won't admit the truth, because he would have to declare that his work needs a complete revision... alas, he chooses not too. Have fun on your research journey! @@RockKnocker17
2:37:54 - A large Greek (Corinthian-style) column in Alexandria is briefly shown in the clip. In the U-X video, he implies that it too is a product of his lost civilization. Interesting that the Egyptians only stole palm-leaf and lotus-topped columns from the Atlanteans, and were nice enough to leave all the Corinthian columns for the Ptolemaic Greeks to repurpose.
Egyptian columns were papyrus reeds.
Just playing devil's advocate here so don't come at me lol. But let's just say for a moment that he's right, and that ancient cultures appropriated stone artifacts from an antediluvian civilization. We could further assume that this ancient civilization wasn't entirely homogenous, and that its various cities would each have their own unique art, architecture, and linguistics. And also their own climate and ecosystem. So if you were a Greek person appropriating the artifacts you found in your own backyard, you would perhaps expect that the Egyptian thousands of miles away might find something completely different, but that the influence of that found object would be equally profound on the development of his own culture.
@@Jack-ny7kn Any mega, worldwide flood, that is believed to have destroyed all evidence of a previous high tech civilization, would have damaged beyond recognition any construction consisting primarily of lime stone. Post flood, no beautiful pyramids.
@@russellmillar7132 I think given all the flood myths we have to accept a deluge on some level. How much land was inundated, how fast the water was flowing, and for how long are all unanswered questions. Even theologians who take their holy books at face value disagree on the exact meaning of the text, in terms of the totality of the deluge. It was likely different for different areas. Coastal areas almost certainly would have taken the worst beating, but areas inland like the pyramids might have sustained less damage. I don't think there's anything physically prohibitive with the idea that some stone ruins could have survived a civilization ending cataclysm. Particularly since this scenario also presupposes the survival of people.
@@Jack-ny7kn Hey Jack, thanks for taking the time to respond. I think a reasonable person knows that floods are, and likely always have been, part of life on Earth. After the last cycle of warming (Bolling-Allerod) into the fairly rapid cooling period (Younger Dryas) after the end of the ice age, catastrophic regional floods were very common compared to today. Sea levels rose, then receded again with the cooling in the YD, over a period of decades, during about 15,000 and 11,500 ybp.
The circumstances around such mega floods as caused the channeling scab lands in Washington State and the draining of Lake Bonneville, resulted from breaking ice dams that released amounts of water equivalent to half of Lake Michigan all at once. Any people who witnessed these events and survived, would doubtless have a story about a flood that, from their limited perspective, covered the whole world.
The flood story I heard as a child, from the Bible, it seems, is the same flood myth, with some differences, as the previous stories from Sumerian, Akkadian, and other ancient Mesopotamian cultures. So that's really just one flood myth retold in succeeding ages by successive cultures. To my knowledge there was never a time, during the time that humans have walked this Earth, that the entire globe was covered (above all the mountain ranges) with water. This would have resulted in a mass-extinction that would likely have meant the near total destruction of all species of plant and animal. In my opinion, if this happened a mere12-6000 years ago (depending on who's dating we would accept) there is no way the planet could have, in this geologically short period of time, recreated life with all the diversity we have today, especially human life.
I think flood myths, although they may be inspired by actual events, serve a function in giving cultures identity. The fact that not all ancient cultures, or even a majority, have flood myths should ring a bell or light a bulb that if not all cultures recorded this supposed global event, then the flood myths are more likely stories about how floods affected their own people (or people in their ancient past) and a relatively few of them were spared.
1. I'm a fabricator and sculptor and I have used hand tools as well as as high tech equipment and while current technologies could produce many of these artifacts I have found that will-power is the most important factor in making. If you wanted to make a diorite sarcophagus with copper tools that bend and break with every 5-10 blows (or less) you would do it anyway. While it seems to us to be too difficult to achieve, humans are great problem solvers. There is evidence that stone carvers would have dozens of copper chisels ready for them and those tools that were "busted up" were reworked and reused. As a maker: I buy this possibility.
2. The whole "power in academia" is an invention necessary to create a straw man. Create the bad guy and point at them when your ideas (without evidence) veer into fantasy. For example: "The pyramids were constructed in space where gravity couldn't be a building obstacle, and anyone saying I'm wrong is saying that because they are gatekeepers of an academic status quo."
Anyway...
yes, but what can move a 70 ton block 300 ft in the air to be the roof of the "kings chamber"? we don't have shit on them.
Well said.
@@danseng3747 I hope that you understand there is no aspect of ancient building that we could not do today.
@@vids595 So give me an example, please. Something built today that could match the ingenious interlocking polygonal 2 ton blocks with no regular sides and using no mortar? Do you seriously think we could match any of that shit? Don't yo think someone would have done so? Where?
@@vids595 We don't have machines that can move 700 ton blocks! Let alone the roof of the "kings chamber". Get a clue. And an engineer.
Summary of his argument: “I don’t have the skills to carve these stones, therefor nobody does.”
If that is what you took from this.......... 🤦♂🤷♂
@@varyolla435 well that’s basically what he (Uncharted X) says at every turn.
@@GalileosTelescope Fair enough. I tend to focus on the "structure" behind the argument rather than what is being said per se. The "alternative" schtick all falls to the same assumptive argumentation and relying upon conjecture to support what are really conjecture-based claims. I guess I have become jaded in that I have listened to that twaddle for decades now. The names and faces change = but the arguments do not. So listening to them is to me is like listening to Charlie Brown's teacher - _wa wa wa......wa wa....._
5,000 years ago, somewhere in Egypt …
Apprentice mason: “Shouldn’t we write down how we do this?”
Master mason : “No. If others want to know they can come and learn from us. Plus, in a few thousand years it will drive people nuts trying to figure out how we did it. We will become immortal through our work.”
--
An UnchartedX came up in my feed after watching a lot quality Egyptology videos. His breathless astonishment, constant hyperbole and argument by insinuation were unconvincing.
The Egyptians actually did paint/write down quite a lot about their construction techniques. Google it. We have contemporary paintings of how material was moved, what kind of tools they used, and how carving and masonry was done. They were happy to tell us what they did, and none of what was written down or painted involved magic or lasers.. which they probably would've mentioned at some point, had they seen or used something like that
@@CommonContentArchive Different building styles. Sandstone is different than granite. "A tale of two industries"
@@BigMan-oz8re You don't know what you're talking about
@@CommonContentArchive yes I do. go built a replica of Giza if it’s so easy
@@BigMan-oz8re Gibberish. Grow up
I lived in Cairo for several years and marveled at how they accomplished what they did. Cutting stones did not surprise me. What did was the precise hieroglyphs and amazing statues.
I lived in Heliopolis in '90/'91. Awesome country and people :) I've forgotten most of the Arabic I learned :( I'm like you, was amazed at the precision they achieved. Even after all these years its still very impressive.
The merit of power tools in the modern production process isn't 'perfection' but rather enabling production at scale of relatively standardized products in a relatively short timeframe. A corollary of this is that the use of modern tools and production processes allow those products that fail to meet standards to be rejected at relatively lower cost. As a result, boxes with imperfections or 'unfinished' boxes would simply have been rejected and should not have been there at the site. That is a fundamental unanswered question in any such 'ancient supercivilization experienced a calamity' hypothesis. Granite countertops, for example, are almost ubiquituous today because of the use of modern power tools in quarrying, production and finishing processes (as well as in transport and incorporation into the construction of our buildings). If these tools and processes existed then, why is the evidence so scanty? Why were granite boxes not a more commonly used funerary accompaniment?
By the way, Doc, love the painstaking dissection of the numerous flaws in the arguments presented.
Wow.. How about you actually watch some of this stuff and you will quickly realise your uninformed questions make no sense at all. You obviously have no idea about the observations and facts put forward by the countless people actually researching this topic.
If you can sit through 3 and half hours of this dribble surely you can find the time to watch a bit of what Ben and the countless others have to say on the topics
@@kody9508 And what did you bring to the table here? Some insults.
Ben's argument is simple. The current narrative regarding the origin of so many of these items makes no sense whatsoever. Historians and archaeologists constantly fail to provide answers which stand up to the scrutiny of engineering experts.
“Why do so many civilizations have flood myths???”
Have you ever lived next to a river?
Think of the most rain you've ever seen. NOW, imagine even more. WOW MIND BLOWN.
@@julieblair7472impossible, the human mind could not conceive of such an idea. You are clearly an Atlantian.
Should see Australia in the flooding seasons when the rivers grow so large, so rapidly that entire summer homes go under water before the residents even know they have to evacuate. Pictures of dudes sitting on their roofs waiting for help are everywhere.
As someone who's studied engineering for a very, very long time (I've wanted to be an engineer since I was six years old), the fact that you can move just about anything (that's strong enough to not break under its own weight) with enough manpower and time and some simple machines is extremely basic, like pre-Engineering 101. That's like primary school stuff. I definitely already understood that by the time I was 10 because I was already planning how to make use of it. I've always been a "I don't like having to do this, how can I make something to make it easier for myself?" kind of person. "Give me a long enough lever, and I can move the whole world," as the saying goes.
Also, while we know the pyramids were built by skilled artisans and not slaves, civilizations all over the world *did* use slave labor to build megaprojects, up to and including gulags and modern concentration camps. You can make progress a lot faster if you just don't care about the safety or rights of your workers, which is how a lot of societies got things built far faster than we'd be able to manage in modern day. Not to mention that they usually wouldn't have had to file for permits or the like. If the god-king of your society says "make this for me", you're not going to have to say "your wish is our command, your holy-highness, but first we need to fill out and submit paperwork and then wait 6 to 8 weeks for the government bureaucracy to review and stamp our files and send them back"
And on the subject of polishing, UnchartedX should check out Dorodango, which is the traditional Japanese art of polishing balls of dirt. If humans can manage to polish regular old dirt to a high gloss finish with little more than their hands and a cloth, I'm sure we can manage to polish granite, which is much easier to do.
As you noted the pyramids were not built by slaves. As an aside. While slavery certainly existed for centuries in various cultures = slavery as a general rule is inefficient and economically not very tenable. As you say you either must compel them to work - which wastes resources - and/or you lose manpower which necessitates replacement.
With that said people need to understand the ancient Egyptians employed = _"the corvee."_ So during the Old and Middle Kingdom periods Egypt used the corvee which required able-bodied Egyptians to work part of each year on public works. The State in turn supported them during that time via food and housing - and if required medical care.
Ancient Egypt much as today had a tax system in place - theirs being a commodity-based economy rather than using specie as today. Egyptologists have archeological examples of ancient tax records while it also appears the State maintained "State farms" which supplied foodstuffs to public works.
The use of slave labor/military captives is seen in the archeological record at the New Kingdom period. Having expelled the Hyksos conquerors who overran northern Egypt after the collapse of the Middle Kingdom and taken their lands Egypt was at its' height geographically and militarily. This is when the iconographic record depicts military captives.
An example of your "expendable workforce" is seen here. Akhenaten as an example built his new capital of Amarna. Egyptologists found the graves of the workforce who built it. They represented young people who appear to have been underfed and worked to death to be dumped in mass graves. Those who built the pyramids conversely were well fed and treated well as one would expect people in the employ of the State or corvee workers. Enjoy your day.
Ive never been sucked into any of the alternative history theories, but I did used to really love watching ancient aliens, and still find the idea of ancient alien theories to be really intriguing and entertaining.
What I really like about your approach is that you respect their opinion and calmly and gently explain your side.
It's much more persuasive than having some snide, sarcastic ass ripping them apart to make the point.
Never been sucked in..but watched more than one episode and then called it entertaining hhmmm ? Seen some episodes myself but came to the conclusion it’s bs ..it was irritating more than entertaining.. “each to their own” I suppose
The Old Testament aliens are real. They built Egypt. Bone smugglers
@@Jbo2000 bone smugglers indeed.
@@Jbo2000 Bone Smugglers--great band name!
I can never seem to get enough of that show either. I mean I really get a kick out of it! weather It is David Childress constantly counting his fingers or the ongoing question of our times, "Will Giorgio ever get a haircut? The thing that ticks me off about the show is that every now and then they drag out something totally stupid, like pointing to renaissance era paintings that have artistic depictions of the sun and moon and saying "See! look! UFOS! I mean if you have Earth shattering evidence, why pull out something like that? It makes them look pretty silly to me. Even more so than constantly counting your fingers or keeping your hair in a mess. I really think they make interesting points every now and then. Then they go and jump off of the deep end and lose me.
I want to add on to your point at 1:04:54 that even today when you're cutting tile for your floor at home you will typically use an abrasion saw and lots of water to accomplish it. Abrasion is STILL a favorite method of cutting stone for a lot of purposes
Yes, with a blade rotating about 5000 rpm. Also cutting a tile which is 10mm thick.
And the water is to cool the blade. So I’m not sure what your point is.
@@marconeill9510 speed is irrelevant. Abrasion works whether you do it quickly or not.
@@jamisojo not true. You can make a paper disc that will cut a 2x4 if you spin it fast enough. Try doing that slowly.
@@jamisojo Tube drill holes in Egypt show striation marks that cut at a depth per rotation which exceed the use of a simple copper tube drill with an abrasive being done by hand. No one argues that you can cut stone with copper and an abrasive, but the signature left on the rock doesn't match the use of a copper tool with an abrasive done by hand.
@@marconeill9510 let's see that! upload video proof when?
I am astonished for two reasons:
1. The amount of downvotes, despite the video being so thoroguh, polite and fact driven.
2. That people really think all this stuff needs advanced technique. I mean seriously, stone masonry is around for thousands of years, it's amazing from the perspective of work that wents into it but not from the perspective of technology.
Thanks for the video, I am glad people still react to these videos (and misinformation). This is really important work.
I'm astonished for only one reason.
Someone could write such a sycophantic comment and also be the prominent replier to negative comments.
To admit they can see the down votes (data only available to the content owner) is truly astonishing.
I'm going to send this to Ben to see if he can work out how this could be so.
Ben will probably tell me they downloaded a programme specifically designed to view down votes on RUclips channels and nothing is suspicious.
@@johnadams1147 Why do you send something to Ben, when you already know the answer? But how should it be suspicious? Who doesn't use a browser applications to see downvotes o_O?
1, its hard to see something you believe in disproven. you rather dont wanna know.
The people who downvote this are small children inhabiting the bodies of adults, who throw tantrums when you contradict the fantasies they believe in because those fantasies make their brains do a happy.
They don't care how thorough or fact-driven you are, because they didn't arrive at their points of view by any thorough, fact-driven analysis. So you can't change their minds that way either.
My downvote came from the douchey tone that that the narrator took. It was just too much for me to handle
I still think it's absolutely fascinating that that one guy demonstrated that he could move a tonnes heavy slab of stone over long distances, just by using a couple of pebbles and understanding of physics ❤
I roll my eyes anytime someone says "mainstream academics". No one with a degree in classics, or archeology is mainstream.
Wow some of these comments were written by ppl who were actually angry. They read more like somebody insulted their religion rather than simply someone disagreeing about history. There's a very cultish vibe to a lot of them. It's fascinating.
As someone who has studied both sides, I have to say this video was very well done and was quite eye opening. Well done sir
It shouldn't be. I'm a tool maker. I make things every day that rival anything ever found in egypt for technical expertise and precision. 2 things. You cannot shape granite with copper or bronze. It is too soft. The crude hieroglyphs scratched into everything attributed to the early and old kingdoms prove that, unequivocally. Those scratchings are all they could do to the stone with copper. And the tolerances and symmetry they were able to achieve are impossible to do with the naked eye.
Telling the difference between what was found by dynastic egyptians and what was made by the dynastic egyptians is very easy. Is it mindblowing? Not made by egyptians.
@@wpriddy See, and this is what always pulls me back and helps me keep an open mind. All i know, is I don't know.
@@wpriddy You can cut granite with copper saws and sand. Has been replicated countless of times.
@@LesterBrunt Not actually the copper, it's the abrasive sand slurry that does the cutting.
@@russellmillar7132 I think it is the combo, just sand won’t do much either 😁
Just gets to me how these confirmation bias fancy chasers "think". Really would be akin to someone who lives in a English village saying Aliens or an ancient advanced intelligence must have made the local church steeple because it is the tallest building in the village by far and nobody has made a higher one since. Many aspects of how even that church was made may not be precisely known, but that does not mean it was not made by people in the Middle Ages. Nobody having repeated it since in the village is meaningless. Oftentimes we can only guess what methods they may have used...and even if we can't guess a particular way, it still does not mean it was impossible for them. Simply might have been a way they could have still within the confines of Bronze age technology.
36:15 -- If I may be allowed to steelman for a second, I would like to point out that the actions of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the late 1970s provide a plausible scenario for how a society may purge itself of people whose role is knowing things.
But on the other hand, we have to believe that this happened simultaneously, everywhere this ancient "high technology" society existed.
I think one thing that we/they should have in mind is that "never", "improved", "more advanced" technology don't necessarily means "better results". If you want to make something, anything, you have plenty of options of how to go about it. Sure, depending on the tools and methods you chose the final quality may vary, but you can also aim for the same final quality electing different sets of tools and methods.
For stone work current technology means primarily faster work as opposed to better work.
You will not do a better work with modern tools just because you have modern tools, it depends on your skills with those tools. But independent of your skills the modern tools will make you finish the work faster, that's the biggest difference that seems missed when they rise these questions.
A single small piece in a year of work may see too slow, but those societies had a lot of people doing this work.
A friend of mine is a classically trained stone mason, through him I know that "the ancients" were perfectly capable of precise stone work because the techniques are still being tought today, it´s just that, as you said, modern tools help immensely and make the work a lot easier and faster
And they didn't sit on there butts all day watching TV or behind a desk. They worked from dawn to dusk.
@@reneechavira9304 But would be nice if they had MP3 players and a pair of headphones to work while hearing podcasts.
Great point.
The art is as good as the artisan.
That is evident today let alone millennia ago.
@@AllHailDiskordia your friend has cut and shaped granite with copper?
Idea for a future video (next time you're traveling in Europe 😄) : Go to a Gothic cathedral. Get footage of the columns, arches, flying buttresses, statuary, etc., then narrate it with lots of commentary about how "advanced" and "precise" it is, then say things like "academic historians claim this was built in _the Dark Ages_ with primitive hand-tools!". Then make the case that the medieval Christians "must" have appropriated the structure from a much more ancient civilization with advanced machine tools and computer-controlled CNC machines. 😂
What are you talking about, you absolute plonker?
Are you hypothetically 'talking' to the Uncharted X guy because this isn't his video?
That's something Ben would say, not this guy...
@@synisterfish No, I was suggesting that our genial host make a parody video. I don't know if he can do an Australian accent or not, but if he can, that would be a bonus. 😂
@@kevincrady2831 😀😎
YES, YES PLEASE!!!!!
I feel like the work hours talked about to achieve this are not so outrageous considering thousands of men worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for their whole lives. 12 guys working around the clock everyday in shifts to carve out a sarcophagus would probably amount to 6000 hours of work in a few weeks.
In the Scenario I’ve given, it would take them a little over a month to carve out that sarcophagus.
Not so outrageous that it’s impossible to do without high technology.
As I recall the ancient evidence relating to the work crews of the Valley of the Kings used to work a set schedule as you say. They would work for 10 days in a row - then have a few days off. In their "off time" the clearly had the time to scribble down many things about their daily lives such as Egyptologists now have access to. Some also spent their spare time working on tombs for themselves near the valley - some with interior design almost as nice as those for the royalty.
So obviously it was not as terrible as far as conditions as LAHT tries to claim. While labor intensives the workers probably had a standard of living above that of the average Egyptian working in the fields.
p.s. - your sarcophagus reference is probably correct. LAHT devotees always seem to forget the Egyptians or whomever had the benefit of cumulative knowledge and were part of a structured operation.
An example of the latter would be partially completed tombs in the Valley of the Kings. You can see where someone laid out grids on the walls to achieve scale ----> someone came behind them to draw the designs ----> a "supervisor" came behind them to make corrections = before a likely master craftsman then painted the final picture.
Moral: these things were not the result of some rando working alone in a mud brick hut. They had specialized work crews doing specific tasks based upon knowledge as alluded to which was developed and improved upon over generations.
It always amuses me that these Atlantis-hunters can’t understand why the Bronze Age or Iron Age doesn’t have an exact starting date. KV 26 in the Valley of the Kings included an iron knife, which should not have existed when that tomb was sealed in antiquity.
It is entirely possible that the reason we don’t find iron chisels from earlier is just because such expensive and rare tools would not have been just abandoned. A bent or broken iron chisel would have been reforged, so as not to waste such a precious commodity as iron.
It is far more likely that rare iron tools existed hundreds of years before the widespread adoption of iron working than that there was an ancient culture that vanished entirely or that aliens with lasers cut the stone.
With a few rare, possible exceptions, all of the iron objects from ancient Egypt were of meteoric origin. The dagger found with Tut's horde is a well-known example.
But you're right about the value of iron, it was worth far more than gold in those times and would never have been discarded
After the Africans were attacked and almost annihilated by Alexander the great, the European could not penetrste the deep forest so they settled in Egypt and enjoyed playing the God game. The Africans were were rounded up later when the European came looking for the source of the Nile, by the cape route down down south, looking for the source of the Nile( where the water of the Mile comes from) Also looking for the Caves of the pharaoh's of the old kingdom.
But they found that the African lives in thatch roofed mad houses and nothing to show of their old wisdom.
All this year's you could not understand that the truth was hidden in the spoken word even when all the books are distorted, at the right time the truth is in plain sight waiting for the appointed time.
@@janewamaitha970 I've heard the story you're trying to tell before. It lacks any sort of citation and forgets that there are multiple dynasties' worth of evidence that discount it.
@@janewamaitha970 Alexander never went to war against Africans. He didn't even see the south of Egypt.
If you suggest that iron tools existed before the widespread adoption of iron working, would we not also expect some mention of them or how they were forged?
👍
Thanks for linking.
Also the Scientists Against Myths team has released a new video on Serapeum on their Russian language channel. The English version is coming.
They measure another coffer and show the imprecision as well as imperfect hand work.
They also address another LAHT claim that they couldn’t be made by modern machines, and yes they actually claim that. It would require to be made in many pieces and fastened together.
Along with other claims Chris Dunn has a letter, a letter from a precision surface plate manufacturer who makes tabletop instruments, but a not a letter from a granite monument manufacturer.
It’s sad that the Scientists Against Myths actually had to ask for a quote to make a granite box.
I have subscribed to both of your channels I think you would make a great team in “setting the records straight” with the AHT Nonsense. I’m just a layman and thanks to you both I get to know the facts not the non fiction .. you are my heroes the dynamic duo!! Real talk 👌
@@rossnolan7283 "Likewise just ONE vase of comparable quality ,wall thiness, symmetry, etc would prove the crude rock and stick method was how it was done - so far nothing even comes close."
Consider that it takes weeks to months to get it done, that poor woman isn't going to take years out of her life to perfect the necessary techniques just to sate your desire for exactly matching results.
The Egyptians were developing a pre dynastic civilisation for centuries before the upper and lower kingdoms united - that's a lot of time to perfect techniques through successive lives and passed on knowledge.
The stone masion/sculptor woman on Scientists Against Myths did a passable example in 6 months on her first try - by guessing the materials and using only the bas reliefs known as a guide to procedure.
At around 20:50, the other guy claims that archeologists suggest methods of construction based primarily on what tools they know existed, rather than because they have evidence that those specific tools were actually used for this particular construction - he called this “circular logic”. You then went on to ask whether it was unreasonable to conclude that an artifact was made by the people of the time-period and location in which it was dated/located, and you claim that the other guy said to do so was circular reasoning. I can’t tell if you intentionally misrepresented the very argument you responded to, or if you meant to respond to a different argument, but it seems strange that you would make a counter argument that was irrelevant to argument you were responding to.
You also never clarified if the authors of the books you mentioned around the 20:00 mark were written by archaeologists.
I’m going to keep watching, but I sure hope you actually respond to the content of the arguments and claims made rather than just spend the majority of the video dissecting flaws in the other’s arguments.
Well said.
I agree with you. He is acting more like a lawyer asking questions about Ben's questions and not answering the question. Why does this guy actually tell us what is in the books? If he is going to use them as an argument, he should expose some of the contents in these books to what Ben is saying. It is troubling to me what he has said so far. At 27 minutes in does he change his lawyering ways? When this guy shows Ben's video of a core sample just tell me how it was made. If you claim it is cooper tools, then prove it. I want to watch the rest of this video, but I am not happy with the way it is going.
Yeah exactly. Dude is responding to arguments like a debate bro
@@troyray7136 he's a huge Vaush fanboi
@@beeg693 He’s a historian and would ruin his career by confirming many old pre-internet, pre-airplane, pre-automobile theories are off and have always been followed rather than re-examined with an open mind.
He went through the educational system that keeps these, mostly valid, theories alive.
Obviously he’s never going to have the unbiased overview of a neutral person.
I argue anyone with internet now has more information to their disposal than the archeologists spending three year traveling to a site and digging a single site. These explorers are legendary in the academic world and build the blueprint if the historical timeline that is hard to change afterwards. I argue any person with internet is better equipped to write a timeline, no historians defending theirs are needed.
Do note this is only possible by complete lack of evidence. Both sides do exactly the same, make assumptions and write a timeline. In this case I think the academic system failed back in the day and never bounced back from it.
Cultures that “surprisingly were smarter than hunter gatherers we thought they were” are being found all over the globe. Problem is that at first they were described as “hunter gatherers”. That’s unscientific and extremely hard to change. The first assumption “hunter gatherers” is accepted due to lack of counter evidence. Forgetting that evidence could be unavailable to begin with… This is exactly the mechanism I mean, it leads to this video and the content creator is part of that flaw that again, is being exposed weekly if not daily on a global scale.
And even then the historians do not admit their mistake in their working methods and continue on exactly the same foot.
They find another base of a building and again it’s “a ceremonial temple by simple living people”.
To again change it all a couple of years later, basically admitting that they did indeed write fiction by the lack of evidence rather than simply stating what they do know.
That mechanism is key and you can find it all over the news all the time.
If you come up with a theory before that news you’ll get responses like in the movie above.
I noticed that we don't hear the conversations with the experts he asked, about anything. If asked how I would accomplish something, I would give an entirely different answer than if asked how I would accomplish that same task with a specific and limited set of tools, equipment and materials.
Thousands of inferior tools preserved yet zero Superior tools Preserved for us to find.
Great point!
in addition to the point, If they had superior tools, why the hell did they bother continuing to make inferior tools?
The Egyptians had canals, hydraulic mines, water wheels, cranes, pulleys, ratchets. They were masters of their environment. They were revered not only by allies but enemies. They traded as far as India. People from our past were just as intelligent as in modern times, so just as capable.
Humanity peaked in the Bronze Age.
Agreed. For example as more is uncovered about ancient hominins, estimates of their intelligence are constantly being revised up. Unfortunately we humans are stuck in our own frame of reference.
No they did not!l They hadn't even invented the wheel when the megalithic structures were made, according to academia. They had no pulleys nor cranes. They had levers and manpower, at least so were led to believe by the so-called experts.
@@methylene5 they did. A lot of ancient civilizations did, all the way back to 9,000 BC
@methylene5 no, the ancient Egyptians had the wheel, they didn't use it for things like warfare until the Hyksos invasion, but there is significantly older evidence of the wheel in Egypt during the Old Kingdom
Some 35 odd years again I was living in York during a major restoration of York Minster. I spoke to one of the masons re-carving a gargoyle that had decayed beyond saving and asked him what tools he used in his workshop, that his predecessors who built the Minster would not have had. He said NONE. He said the tools those medieval masons used for carving shaping and finishing stone were perfect for the job and they have basically been copied ever since. No doubt if they had had mechanical cranes and cutters to handle the massive blocks of stone they would have used them but we know that they managed quite well without them. No need to invent lost technology or introduce aliens to explain how they did it.
Funny how I haven't heard of anyone attempting to recreate some of these things with simple tools to prove it possible. You don't have to build a pyramid to prove that it or other things are possible.
@@jerbear1601 you also probably also have never searched for it yourself. instead you hear it in one of these videos, and believe it without doing proper research yourself.
there are plenty of examples how people have created awesome structures and art without powertools and computer aid.
@@LowKickMT Again, I haven't seen this done. Have you?
@@jerbear1601 Here you are... enjoy:
Mike Haduck Masonry
Carving stones with ancient technology
ruclips.net/video/_fIigpabcz4/видео.html
Scientists Against Myths:
www.youtube.com/@ScientistsAgainstMyths
Making Egyptian Drill Holes: Lost Ancient High Technology
ruclips.net/video/yyCc4iuMikQ/видео.html
Trihedral inner corner in a granite sarcophagus
ruclips.net/video/HQ2bHE7mTi4/видео.html
York Minster, partic. the Chapter House gargoyles (which Are medieval, the rest is not) is soft sandstone (that's why they wear out) and the tools to work it would be the old ones, Egyptian stone from the earliest dynasties was far harder. There are no writtern records from backthen, York is all documented.
I would so love to have a time machine in order to see the beauty of the ancient times buildings.
Even just a window into the past. Seeing and hearing how people 4000 years ago lived what they did would be fascinating.
You’d probably kill everybody there with microbes that they have no immunity to. But maybe bring a plastic bubble to hang out in?
@Justin Morales one of the reasons I'd be happy with a window. Just say no to contamination.
@@JustinMoralesTheComposer That’s okay, we can bring vaccines back with us and get them started on ‘em early. (;
I wanted to reply to a few below, however:
Although it sounds funny, I advise everyone to start watching TikTok/Instagram stories/videos of modern Indian/Arab quarrymen (the algorithm will start showing you more). You will be surprised what we, the modern civilised people of 21st century, are able to do with hammers, wedges and hacksaws. There’s a guy who only posts himself splitting what we call “monoliths”. By hand. With a hammer. In a TikTok video…
3 hours? Better than Lord of the Rings.
REALITY ruclips.net/video/O9ZRXC95qMs/видео.html
Ben and others of his ilk appeal to this deep-rooted desire that many of us have to uncover something wondrous beyond what we perceive to be perpetual walls of illusion constructed before us. They’re really good at appealing to this emotion. You’re very skilled at matter of factly reminding us to simply just use our brains. Nice work.
in my opinion the massive megaliths in Peru are much more mysterious than Egypt's, if you made a video on Peru that would be amazing
Second this! Please also look into the veraccoche
Peru Isaiah amazing place but Egypt has so much more but to each his own agree to disagree why do you feel like Peru is more interesting than Egypt? Is it because we’ve been here in about Egypt so long now and Peru is somewhat new?
This guy is picking on one of the few people who's videos on this subject suck. This guy doesn't bring up any of the truly mysterious things found in egypt
@@caseymoore9737 like what? Say what they are, he may do a video about them. This video addresses and debunks the most popular woo woo that I keep hearing people mention about Egypt.
@@casualviewing1096 aaand nothing. What a surprise :)
It's good to be skeptical, but altering historical timelines to improve the validity of that skepticism undermines the value of the argument. For example, when the author of this video says that cities only started appearing 6000 years ago is not correct. There are dozens of cities that have been positively dated to at least 10,000 years ago such as those in Turkey and India.
Cities implies more than a half dozen huts. It means tens of thousands of people living together with specialized labor rather than ten thousand farmers all huddled together.
@@nobodyspecial4702 Gobleki Tepi. dated 15,000 years ago. purposefully covered in dirt for some reason. They haven't uncovered but a small portion of it yet. It, is, as of right now, the oldest city to be uncovered in the world , and was only found a couple of years ago. It appears humans have been running around a lot longer than what our religious leaders would have us believe. When your science is tied to politics and religion, then you can't really find the truth when the gate keepers are all acting in bad faith.
I believe the author did discuss that those delineations are murky at best. What we call civilians or urban cities is very always shifting. That’s why many older settlements are not called cities today because it doesn’t help to understand them when we shove those boundaries upon them. They are sedentary but it doesn’t mean it’s was a city but rather towns, villages and other forms of cohabitation. Also what specific sites are you referencing I love to know? And I do actually mean that, and not in a sarcastic way.
@@nobodyspecial4702 Gobekli Tepe. Karahan Tepe. Do some research.
@@richard127gm You have a pretty vague concept of what a city is. It's more than a couple stones put in a pattern. It involves housing for thousands, infrastructure, food supplies, etc. Neither of those sites have any of that.
I once saw a documentary about two prisoners who sawed through iron bars using only a wet piece of string and powdered soap. The soap had some kind of grit in it and it stuck to the wet string. It wasn't a fast process, but they cut through at least 2 bars.
Were the prisoners making hundred ton blocks precisely cut.... 1 million times over.... In the matter of 20-30 years?? LMAO
And if the Egyptians cut stone at the incredibly slow rates achievable with copper chisels and stone pounders, one pyramid would have taken over 1,000 years. The history books claim the great pyramid was built in only 20 years.
@@LBCAndrew show your work. Give us the math on that. You're pulling numbers out of thin air.
@@LBCAndrew approximately 20 years, not exactly 20 years.
@@andrewfrank7222 no but they also didn't have the mobilization of an entire nation and culture. If two men can cut through manufactured steel bars, with a string, an entire nation can surely move a rock lol.
I really didn't need your rebuttal to know that this was ridiculous. But my gosh, it was fun to watch.
At one point in this video you mentioned submitting essays for peer review, being rejected, and then refining your theory for resubmission. I was just thinking it might be interesting to hear a bit more about that. Like, perhaps you could share the story of one of your theories as it evolved to acceptance? It could be valuable for people to hear more about that process.
Ah, not a bad idea!
Then do an animated version along the lines of Schoolhouse Rock's "How a Bill Becomes a Law." :) Maybe call it Rock House School.
@@kevincrady2831 lmao underrated comment
@@WorldofAntiquity I don't know dude. I don't think you have any original ideas or unique incites. are you going to claim that the first city showed up at 6000BCE? if so you probably wont get published....have you ever even had a paper published?
@@nicknewell23 Criticism of professional scholarship from someone who doesn't know the difference between "incite" and insight. Go figure. Then go read about the early Sumerian city-states like Ur and Uruk.
As a geodetic engineer some of the feats that they achieved is simply impossible today. I worked on high scale and low scale counstruction. I worked on town squares, factories, roads, water pipelines, sewage lines, and on bridge construction. And despite the high precision total stations and gps instruments offer you still get errors that across distances only get amplified. The nivelation of the Giza plato, the orentation to the true north that is expressed in seconds and all that stuff is truly a mystery. Even when you think that thousands of years passed since their construction. I truly understand how Romans achieved their feats of construction, and I could replicate their methods, but how the early Egyptians achieved theirs? When you take a look at the tools they had at their dissposal it is really a great mystery. There must have been a highly advanced civilization. I stake my reputation on it.
It sounds like you have been told things about the constructions that are not accurate. The pyramids may be large, but they are of lower quality than Roman constructions.
@@WorldofAntiquity What thing exactly? I was not told simply I worked on constructions that most geodetic engineers don't work.
What makes pyramids of lower quality than Roman constructions?
@@WarriorOfModernDeath They are less accurate, more haphazard, less efficient. They have inferior arched ceilings.
That's a bit misleading. The most of the videos Uncharted makes are on the first dinasties. The later periods of Romans don't have much to show either. Romans also adapted to larger megaliths that were already there in the first place. They didn't make themselves.
@@WarriorOfModernDeath Wow. Just wow.
There are a lot of us who don't buy into ancient alien theories but would simply like to see how these things might have been done. After all some of the ancient stone work is simply fantastic. The introduction to the Scientists Against Myths team was a great help. Thank you! Seeing them actually doing the experiments and accomplishing greats things was wonderful to watch! Thank you again!
Where did you get the alien idea from? Ben's actually says that he doesn't believe in the alien idea.
@@graemetho9805 You are right. I stand corrected. He believes in the lost Atlantean high technology idea.
Yea to me it's simply what I term playing the "what if" game. It's just entertainment.
Humans have been around mkre than 100k years. We only know about 10% of history
The answer to the ancient alien theory to mecwas answered by asking the question “ what would the world be like if aliens have been stopping by now and then interacting with early stone and bronze age humans across the globe.?” The answer to me was just like it is now. Stories of sky people. Some worshiped as gods. Others thought of highly as bringers of knowledge and/or cargo. Also, stories of flight and magic.
Brilliant teacher not just of history and archaeology, but a master of reason and logic. He completely demolished the ‘advanced civilization theory’, but in such a diplomatic way, leaving us irrefutable leading questions that even a child could answer.
How would you know? You don't even seem to understand basic punctuation. lol
He demolishes himself! Ive been in those places and seen the stuff...sincerely, there are many things made out of stones with a perfection that is astounding ...We are been witness to a new era in history. New generations and science coming in that make history exciting again. Love to see how this guy make a fool of himself! He might very well go back hundred years where the eurocentric linear history line written by upper class barbarians originates from! 🤣😂
Epistemology is sadly under appreciated these days.
@@armandosimon9780
may the ghost of Edward Said be with you.
@@armandosimon9780 another brainwashed gen z kid here.
I only have a Bc in History, more specifically in World Comparative History Specialization, but honestly.... I would LOVE if the idea of an ancient technologically advanced civilization existed before us, who were the architects of their own undoing, and from the ashes humanity started a new, it makes for a great story. Would love to read a novel about this, but this is what all it remains, a fantasy...
I was really into this theory during my middle-school years, and not gonna lie, it had a great part in me going to study History at the Uni. What we see in these videos and what we read in these kind of books are just attempts at explaining something that the writer cannot understand... "If I don`t understand how it was done, than the ancient, less intelligent people couldn't understand it either..." I think this is the base of this kind of thinking...
I do think though that no matter how ridiculous an idea might be, experts should investigate it... because the biggest letdown for me was at the Uni, when I learned that History is not really scientific, it is very, very based on personal emotions. Well, mostly when it comes to more recent history, national pride comes in the way of rational thinking. That's why I believe that one should not research their own nations history, for it will come with a biased view... people think that it is easy to be objective in these cases, but oh boy.... this is especially a problem with neighboring countries, each claiming something different about a common event...
I have certain sympathies for your comment as I have a similar background (MA in History/Latin/English). I have a different take on this issue, however, and maybe we can find some common ground.
Like you, I've stumbled on authors like Graham Hancock early on and was sucked right into it (even though I was more attracted to people like Robert Schoch rather than the Ancient Aliens people). I learned so many fascinating things and was kind of angry that "the mainstream" didn't care about them or didn't even consider them a mystery. Think about a young kid with a relatively unconditioned mind, learning about Puma Punku or the scoop marks on the unfinished obelisk for the first time. The same with the core drill marks and other things which are so interesting, but never appeared in all those "Ancient Egypt for children" books I had devoured as a child and which barely figure in the academic literature either. I went on to study archeology, but was disappointed that I had to learn the differences between 200 kinds of hand axes, but nothing about the "good" topics such as Atlantis or the Serapeum. I therefore quit after one semester and studied the subjects mentioned above.
I stuck to my views, but learned pretty early on that you won't get anywhere with them and that they are best kept for oneself. I know that Uncharted X is making money off this, but for me personally, I could never bear the scorn from "serious" people dismissing me. My dad is very impatient with these views, for instance, and he is this kind of bearded academic with rows of bookshelves around him. At the same time, I received recognition from those same "mainstream historians" I had learned to hate and had several jobs as a research assistant where I got insights into the inner workings of a university department. During the colloquiums (the guest-talks where academics get together) I observed exactly what you describe in your comment. People get highly definsive about their own ideas and can act incredibly childish when their core beliefs are challenged. I decided pretty quickly that I didn't want to stay for a phd as I couldn't stand the hierarchies and general "nastiness" which often accompanied academic discussions. My boss at this point had tremendous knowledge, but could lose his temper pretty quickly and had trouble letting other people finish their sentences.
Now, the point is that it's precisely these memories which get triggered when I watch Mr. Miano's videos. Don't get me wrong, I have respect for him and his achievements and it is necessary to offer counter-narratives to the huge amount of BS offered by the "alternative" camp. But the recent outfall between him and Sweatman made me just made my stomach turn. I don't know who is right and who isn't as I haven't done any reading on the topic. I'm not enitrely convinced, however, that Miano is doing more here than lashing out at some perceived threat to his own achievements and worldview. What makes you so sure that the possibility of a lost civilisation is bogus even though you admit that the humanities are highly ideological in nature? I won't run around in the streets trying to convince people of the "lost ancient technology" theory, but I haven't seen anything yet which could change my mind. Just tons of saltiness. Again, no offense. The Sweatman-Miano-controversity is important for science to progress, but I don't feel like participating in this stuff anymore. Cheers
Why would they assume ancient people were less intelligent? Perhaps they assume that because they consciously or unconsciously absorbed the beliefs of the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. If the “master race” was technologically behind civilizations in the Middle East, Northern Africa, Southern Europe, India and China, seems like this advanced ancient civ theory or aliens is a convenient way to explain why this would be the case.
I think what they are trying to achieve is to get you to think of how the narrative of loin cloth clad bitch hair pulling grunting imbecils roaming the Earth untill a few thousand yrs ago is false. In the 70s school books had pictures or cave Men dragging Women by the hair. Accademia and arrogance, thats what you get !
@@muellertobias1441 The problem with people like uncharted x is that they make money by spreading pseudo-science. Once you really look into the topics they are talking about, you see how much data they ignore, because it debunks their narrative, which is really disingenuous.
Like talking about the incredible and impossible core 7, without mentioning researchers actually replicated it using dynastic Egyptian tools.
Or like talking about the "machine precision" of the Serapeum sarcophagi, without mentioning the corners have been measured and they are not even close to machine precision. Or that the romans made more complex sarcophagi, in porphyry, without advanced tools (sarcophagi of Constantina and Hellena, now at the Vatican).
Or talking about the impossibility of moving them inside the Serapeum without mentioning Mariette found winches and traces of rollers inside or that he actually lowered one sarcophagus into it's final crypt, using his workers.
Sadly, these guys are con men looking for money...
@@MrAchile13 i dont know if its fair to call them con men. Im sure some are. But i think its a little more complicated and a lot more human than that.
The way i see it, someone got really excited about an idea, and started sharing it. They got a lot of attention for their ideas and they got views and likes and people wanted to talk to them. And that made them feel good! They feel listened to and they feel like theyre making a difference. And so they got more into it.
.
Then people start calling them out and trying to tell them theyre wrong. So you see like a persecution complex where they say
"ohh archeologists are trying to tear me down i must be doing something right! Theyre scared im gonna break the status quo!"
Now, every time you say im wrong, i KNOW im right. Thats the red flag ontop of the pyramid theyve been building.
.
they are at a point where changing their ideas or admitting they might be wrong means they lose everything theyve worked for. The years they spent doing this are gone, theyll lose their followers. They probably ruined some relationships or quit some other career to pursue this. heck theyve probably surrounded themselves with friends who all hold the same beliefs. What happens to them? Are their friends still going to respect them?
.
Its easy for people like us to change our mind and be like "ok that was silly i got carried away.". But When youve built a career on this stuff, its become a part of your identity. Letting it go is unthinkable.
So they find a way to dismiss anything that isnt inline with their view.
What I find incredible is how The Egyptians build such amazing buildings using wood and bronze tools, according to PhD certified mainstream Historians.
People have worked granite with stone and bronze tools in our day and age, and even uploaded it to RUclips, so it is definitely possible.
@@renanfelipedossantos5913 Possible yes, probable they built these thing that way no.
@@thefly5568 So let me get this straight, you believe it’s MORE plausible that they DIDN’T use the tools we find surrounding the sites/in the provinces, despite them being dated to the same period AND despite modern craftsmen proving it’s possible? Ridiculous.
@@SomeoneFarted So where is it proven they were able to build those buildings with the tools found at the sites? I seen where they tried to build a small pyramid and saw a stone and drill a hole, all fell short of the needed outcome required to do what was built. Just because you see some tools and some buildings you think the tools were used to build these buildings. You do realize stone can't be dated. So how do you know the buildings were even built at the same time the tools were around? You talk like you know these things are for a fact now thats ridiculous.
They DIDN'T
The most impressive stone work in my opinion is generally some of the oldest called megalithic. The scale and effort to make such structures permanent to truly stand the test of time. We build skyscrapers today but they only come with about a 100year warranty.
Funny how big stones would be only thing to survive over tens, hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
So to find real old civilisations before natural disasters hit you should look for stones. Unfortunately these will be reused over time. Unless they are so big nobody can move them.
Maybe we should look for really big stones.
Completely valid logic. Historians complaining we don’t name specific years, technology and civilisations is completely besides the point.
It's funny to see someone with your name comment on a video like this
That is on purpose. “Any idiot can build a bridge. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.” The entire field of engineering is to identify what it actually takes to meet certain build/design requirements, and then figure out how to do that without spending more resources than necessary.
The romans moved stones like that, and carved perfect pillars out of hard stone. They had better tools, iron and primitive steel, but that only means carving took less time.
No high technology needed.
The alabaster crater (1st century BC) in the Napoli archeological museum shows what incredible detail can be done. The double curved handles alone would have Unchartedx claiming high tech
@@celsus7979 Logic starts playing a part there. How many cultures do things that are extremely inefficient for many generations? People don’t. Because it’s extremely inefficient.
Surely you’ll get your incidental local projects but inefficient tooling doesn’t become a well respected way of working because it’s inefficient.
That’s why “it just takes a whole lot longer” is a stretch by default when discussion normal working techniques.
There’s a reason we only started building high when it became efficient to do so. Before that you only had the local, incidental high buildings.
There’s a reason commercial flights only became mainstream when it became safe and efficient. Reason being it was safe and efficient. Before that it was local an on a small scale.
You can go on and on and on. Expecting something inefficient to become mainstream so you can argue your case is bias to the extreme. Not based on logic but based on forcing an outcome that’s preferred.
Modern saws still use abrasives!!! Like diamond saws! 🤦♀️ Saws still use friction to cut too. The only thing this alt history guy is showing is that building fundamentals have always been the same. Literally. The difference today (and only in the last century) is our tools move faster with better precision. He's not even showing perfectly cut stones, he's showing how a cut looks when using manual tools! Omg. How do people listen to this junk? He's not even mentioning how long it took to build these structures. It took medieval builders centuries to complete Notre Dame. These bronze and copper age structures are basic block builds. Surely if they had power tools they could have built them more intricately in years, not decades or more.
Last year I went on a private tour of the Detroit Train station (Michigan Central Station) it was originally built beginning 1910 and opened late 1913. It closed in 1988 and Ford Motor Company bought it in 2018. They have been refurbishing and stabilizing it ever since and it will soon open to the public and move in to offices this year. 5 years it took on a structure that was already built with all of the modern tools and engineering imaginable.
Sorry I'm absolutely ranting because we give such little credit to the people of ancient civilizations. They weren't a different species, humans had the same brain power that we do today so ofc they were able to accomplish some amazing things. Imagine what they could of accomplished if they had focused less on conquering their neighbors. Imagine what we could still accomplish if we did too.
So you're admitting they needed diamond blades to cut the granite?
Your approach to this topic is very much appreciated. As someone who previously was impressed by many of the beliefs as uncharted x, it's made all the difference to have somebody like you making in-depth analyzes of his videos as well as providing sources of your own in abundance.
You may not remember me, but I commented on one of your Instagram shorts about which pyramid were built in what order with something like "the smaller ones were built after the Egyptians attempted to recreate the Great pyramids that they inherited" and you replied to me multiple times. Admittedly I did not completely believe what I had said, but a part of me was curious how it could be disproven and through watching multiple of your videos as well as other channels like sacred geometry I have definitely gotten a much greater understanding.
It always fascinated me to imagine an ancient civilization that somehow fell and did not leave a trace except for megaliths, but in fact I think it is even more mind blowing and interesting to give credit to these ancient cultures creating such incredible works all around the world.
I plan to follow all of the major discoveries and excavations, it excites me to think about what else we will be able to discover and learn about our own past as a species in the near future.
Thank you again for a very humbling and educating experience on the topic.
Thank you. I am happy to hear you are finding my videos informative!
@@WorldofAntiquity ruclips.net/video/wXUVe8PSoPw/видео.html
please tell us about this
@@WorldofAntiquity you didn´t answer to this one
@@bobwilson7684 I don't do homework, Bob. I get people linking me dozens of videos every day.
Having just watched the first and half of the second video yesterday, coming back to finish watching them today and finding you've combined them and added updated material was certainly a bonus!
I doubt he'll ever truly respond to criticisms, but your work, and that of your peers, is nonetheless invaluable.
UnchartedX does point out some valid questions that needs adequate explanation. That the large pyramids in Ancient Egypt were supposedly built as tombs within 2-3 generations! Can you imagine the Great Pyramid built with manual labour alone. Even with machines of today and today's quarries working flat out, can't do it within the timeline that egyptologists say it was done by. How about black granite statues - and diorite stone bowls and vases? Turned on some lathe? More likely. But what was the cutting surface? Diamond tipped? Lehner's attempt at showing how a drill core was done, was/is inadequate. And he couldn't reproduce the spiral groove present. He couldn't even break it off, without cheating.
@@harveykongtin3665 just one point there are no black granite in Egypt but there is granodiorite , i had worked 3 years cutting granite and lot of artifacts in Egypt cannot be made by hands , weight is another point there are so many immense statues and granite blocks with weight up to 1000 tons and transportation were never really addressed the boat on Nile river were so small and flimsy they will never be able to carry these huge load
@@harveykongtin3665 "Even with machines of today and today's quarries working flat out, can't do it within the timeline that egyptologists say it was done by"..... Seriously? We could build a Pyramid 50 times the size and put a Starbucks on the top in a fraction of the time if someone put the money into such a project. For a little context actually let us look at Hoover dam. It took 2 years to build in the early 1930's and weighs nearly one million tonnes more than Khufu's pyramid.
@@al2207 He was thinking about the Basalt statues.
@@jcie1210mk3 a stupid comparison. Pouring concrete is a completely different thing than moving stones hundreds of miles weighing tens or even hundreds of tons.
As for the fine polish on some of the sarcophagi - just look at some of the Jadeite hand-axes from the neolithic for gorgeous polishing.
Iron was exceedingly rare in the New Dynastic Period. In fact the famous iron dagger found in King Tut's tomb is believed to have been sourced from the iron derived from a very rare iron based meteorite found in the desert. Even so, iron tools from antiquity has a Mohs hardness of 4.5.
Iron being rare in dynastic Egypt does not make it so in other cultures where iron smelting occurred prior to it being introduced into Egypt proper. In so much as the Egyptians traded far and wide with others then it becomes possible at least some iron might have made its way into Egypt during the New Kingdom period. Yes it would be expensive and probably rare = but such tools would invariably exist somewhere.
Yet one can still work stone absent iron tools. Gneiss stone tools were ubiquitous being cheaper to procure than smelted metals which require mining the ore and procuring the means to refine it. The unfinished obelisk as an example reflects the stereotypical "pockmarked" appearance one would expect of something being hammered into shape. As another example. Several years back in the sandstone quarry of Gebel el-Silsila a partially completed criosphinx was unearthed. It also reflects a pocked surface indicating it was being hammered into shape prior to its abandonment.
So bronze tools can work some softer stones. They can in some cases also bore through harder stones when used with abrasives. One can however shape even hard stone using stone tools such as flint etc. shaped to need. As your final example. At Aswan quarry (granite) hundreds of dolerite pounders were discovered. Some even had the names of the craftsmen they belonged to painted on them. So it appears they used them to hammer through the bedrock - along with fire - until they became rounded = after which they were discarded. Flint on the other hand can be shaped to need and also can chip away at hard stones. Such stone tools were ubiquitous in ancient Egypt.
Bruh. Rare means rare. If they didn’t have much, and was reserved for kings, the common stone mason may have had a tough time getting his hands on metal
I would presume that most of the heavy work with stone was done by fracturing, it's still done today as far as I know. Mohs hardness is it's resistance to scratching by another material, useful in polishing and abrasion work.
@@venusriseThat's like saying, "the average software engineer working for Amazon would have trouble getting hands on a datacenter meant to handle traffic for billions." Obviously if you're commissioning people to do something and tools are needed to do that thing, then you provide them. Kings didn't tell soldiers to source their own swords, they commissioned someone else to make them and handed them out. Same logic can apply with tools. Also I'd like to suggest if you haven't seen any, to watch videos of people demonstrating how one can cut granite with bronze tools using sand as a medium. It takes a bunch of time, sure, but it's very much possible for an authoritarian ruler who was perceived as divine.
@@nikett11 cool story, but we have no evidence of those tools…. And nobody modern man has made a full hollowed out granite box with your method. So it’s 100% speculation. But be my guest, prove us wrong. Cut six sides of a granite box, make a lid, and hollow out the box with your method. That would be a great RUclips video
I think we have all marvelled at the stonework found in such places as the Vatican and the works of Michelangelo; where marble has been carved and polished into the most complex of designs and shapes all long before the advent of power tools. These people were building structures that would not reach completion until long after their death.
Time and the desire for perfection in the pursuit of religious goals had a whole other dimension in the lives of those pursing those goals. Our fast-moving less superstitious cultures, where a five-year-plan is considered ambitious, simply cannot grasp the mind-set and dedication of previous generations.
It simply can't be equated to Michelango and marble. He used IRON chisels and tools, not brass. I have tried to see what happens with a brass chisel. I couldn't even get penetration on concrete, and only scratched a granite boulder, and the chisel was ruined and bent in just a few strikes. If this guy actually researched, he would find the grooved cuts in the stone have a circular cut pattern, and where they end before exiting stone show a circular blade was used. This guy making this video series is doing nothing but trying to capitalize on the success of others doing research and videos, as he has all these opinions, but yet when asked if he actually visited and investigated, he hasn't.
Has Man’s mind changed so much in the last thousand years?
Maybe, just maybe, those Renaissance artists had IRON tools, dingus.
@@joetotale6354 Maybe it just comes down to determination and patience.
@@joetotale6354 Now that science has determined there actually was a global flood, has anyone considered that hard materials like iron rust away and turn to dust? I am a retired tradesman. My used tools do not get put in an environment that would survive something like a flood. When I was done using them, I took them with me. I didn't leave them at the job site, hence why we don't find tools at those sites. I doesn't take much logic to see that they absolutely could not cut granite with copper, or even brass, and the process of pushing sand with copper to achieve a cut would have taken so much time they would have been cutting stone for hundreds if not thousands of years to get that quantity. Whatever they had, or used, has been lost to time. We use water jets to cut items today. Maybe they harnesses hydraulic pressure. Who knows. One thing I see, copper chisels just don't get there.
The challenge that Egyptians did not have the ability to cut or polish stones to shine without power tools makes me shake my head.
The workers had years of apprenticeship and masters of stones even in ancient egypt.
High technology? Maybe high level of workmanship.
The lunatics do not understand things like skill, ingenuity or hard work. THEY can't figure it out, therefore NOBODY can. Therefore: Tesla Crop Circle Magic Suppressed Reverse Engineered Alien Technology Caught On Tape!
Well this is a pleasant surprise. I've already seen the whole series but I'm rewatching for the new materials and I am fine with rewatching the original content too! Thank you Professor.
Prof 🦆is more like it
good to know i'm not the only one wondering about the loose use of "advanced" and "technology" unchartedx throws around. He is an excellent videographer, but after a bit ya just have to put it on mute, because the ideas Ben is sold into just assails one's rationality. Its also very condescending of the people that lived at those times and always being referred to as primitive.
@@freda5344 so you are saying "civilization " is only 3-4 k old the Earth is only 6k old and NO ancient advanced cultures existed BEFORE this time and the Great Sphinx is only 3-4 old? and your so-called Hezuss rode a 🐱🐉? 🤣😅
@@BubuH-cq6km I have no idea how you read that from what I wrote. You are excused if English is not your primary language.
@@freda5344 Meth is a Bitch U should have Never hit the Glass
Thanks, as usual, for taking the time to do this important work. You are very much appreciated and needed!
I tell my students just because they can figure out how people in the past did something, doesn't mean people in the past couldn't have. Lack of imagination on our part doesn't mean lack of skill on theirs. As you've mentioned, primitive tools + people + time can result in amazing work. We can't assume that the impatience of our society is the same for ancient societies - if you live in a society where the creation of a stone vase takes 3 to 6 months, you're not going to expect it to be done in a week; you'll have realistic expectations for what your society is capable of.
25 years ago I had much more patience when downloading 1 mb than I do now because technology has improved
But it's Ben who claims that the bronze age lasted longer, and that the egyptian civilization is much older than the lineage of the dynasties we're aware of. He's the one buying time for human craft. It's the historians who claim this has happened in a much shorter timespan who are having to explain a lot more.
In Napster days on dial up, I used to set 3 songs to download, and hope that at least one would be finished by time I returned from school 8 hours later.
ok, I made it almost 90 minutes and I'm giving up. Kudos to you for responding to all of this. It's the polishing that is making me strain my eyeballs with all of the rolling.
Also, so much of what he assumes is debunked every day on YT via any wood/metal crafter. I recommend Pask Makes. Even as his workshop has expanded and now he has a metal shop, he still shows how to create the project via hand tools. And then shows both versions. Yes one took a lot longer but even he says he can't always tell which one was done by hand and which one was done by machine.
About a year ago I heard a quote that went something like this: "Contributing anything the ancients did to aliens is just insulting your ancestors and assuming they're stupid. What would you say to someone a 1,000 years from now who assumes you could not possibly build a tower that tall without aliens to help? You're not stupid, and neither were they." Not a direct quote, but the basic idea. Stop assuming people from Ancient Egypt and other such time periods were idiots.
About the whole _"polishing to a mirror-like finish advanced tool"_ -debacle; made me think of the huge glass and/or metal mirrors that were ordered to be manufactured to be housed and used in the biggest ground based optical telescopes of the previous century and how they found out that the polished finish required couldn't be achieved using mechanical polishing machines and had to be done by hand because it needed a randomness to it. Only later a machine was invented with a gear system with a built in mechanism to make the polish head move randomly across the surface the way a craftsman would, by hand. It sets the whole _"these surfaces are so smooth, it has to have been achieved by a machine''_ argument on its head. (edit: unless, of course, this _'advanced civilization'_ had also invented a machine to copy the perfection of manual craftsmanship? Maybe there we find the crux of the whole thing; that we, nowadays need machines for everything, that guys like him can't imagine anyone ever having had the ingenuity to create beautiful stuff without their aid? Makes you wonder who exactly it is, thinking of these people as _"dressed in rags and ignorant)"_
Interesting!
The channel SGD Sacred Geometry Decoded has videos where he polishes granite by hand with a rock, sand and water to get that 'impossible' egyptian shine.
Good experimental proof
Boris has to be trolling.....random inaccuracies in large optical lenses for ground based telescopes are NEVER preferred. Controlled variations in precise locations MAY be beneficial is specific scenarios but simulating random inaccuracies is a joke.
Which ground based telescope was this Boris?
Hale Telescope, located in California
Keck Observatory, located in Hawaii
Subaru Telescope, located in Hawaii
Magellan Observatory, located in Chile
Gran Telescopio Canarias, located in the Canary Islands?
Come on Boris back up your claim with facts or you are no better than the charlatan that runs this channel.
@@TangieTown81 What charlatan? UnchartedX? I agree.
@@NShomebase UncharteredX runs this channel? Amazing....theorist and Skeptic all in one! Who'da thunk it?
I think that both you and people like Ben are important to the big picture. We need Ben for teaching us to open our mind to all possibilities, and we need you for teaching us how real science and research is done. I do think the most important part of all this is finding the TRUTH. I believe the answer is probably somewhere in between. It’s safe to say more information will come out once more discoveries are found, leaving room for a better understanding of ancient Egypt. I believe it is probable that the ancient Egyptians had better equipment than we give them credit for. Maybe not power equipment, but certainly sophisticated ways to utilize leverage and moving and cutting stone. It’s obvious these people were highly educated in mathematics, physics, and had a good understanding of the cosmos. These people were incredible architects and made some of the most beautiful art work in human history. I hope one day we have the full picture to understand this culture. Thanks for your contributions!
I’m more interested in how these ancient structures and artifacts were created rather than why other theories are incorrect. If it is known by academics how the ancients created these structures and artifacts then please present that evidence. If that’s not practical or possible, that presents a new problem.
Claiming others are wrong requires proof that those making such claims are right, if their criticisms are to be taken seriously.
there is at least some of that in here. But for more focus on the actual techniques take a look at the channels “scientists against myths” and “sgd sacred geometry decoded”
Claiming others are wrong is part of the scientific method.
Ben presents his ideas as facts, while he relies on lack evidence(no tools) as the evidence for ancient technology.
This doesn't mean we must present an alternative.
I'm just saying it's ok for both academia and Ben to be wrong, if you can prove both of them wrong.
@@patricktolosa6457 It seems to me that a lot, If not nearly all, of ancient history arguments and theories are just that…..theories. Actual validated and certified evidence seems to be rather rare, but that is to be expected considering the time frames being analyzed.Interpreting the existing evidence is equally challenging.
Larry, if you want to know how the "ancient structures" were created, videos and photos of the Stonehenge boulders being erected by cranes in 1957 - with an earlier installation in 1914 - are available. Links to those videos and photos are under my video titled:
Timeline Lies: Megaliths
Included in that video are photos showing the construction of the great pyramid:
To understand the photo, pause the video to assess the size of the boulders in comparison with the men, then assess the upper levels of the pyramid based on the angle of the stacked boulders.
If you need to understand what you're seeing, look at other photos that show the size of the boulders in the great pyramids.
If you're attached to the programming that the "ancient" Egyptian mummies were wrapped in cotton that lasted for thousands of years, you might pause to reconsider that - and if you think the "ancient" Egyptian sarcophagi were carved from wood that also lasted for thousands of years, you should probably pause to question that as well.
If you want the truth, the evidence shows where those thousands of mummified bodies came from.
The evidence also shows who profited from this colossal deception - if you continue with your research, the true timeline for the "megaliths" and the true timeline for our human history is clearly documented - including the true timeline for the eruption of Vesuvius, the true timeline for the broken and subducted tectonic plates, the true timeline for the ice sheets across Greenland and Antarctica, the true timeline for our continents, oceans, mountains, the true timeline for our Earth's expansion and so on - it's all documented.
The timeline lies that we were programmed to believe are intentional deception.
Since the old literature tells us about the advanced technologies, and since the conspicuous evidence corroborates the existence of the advanced technologies - throughout our very short human history - we know advanced technologies were being used here on Earth - and we know the true timeline which was HUNDREDS of years ago and NOT thousands of years ago.
Anyone who wants to believe in "thousands of years ago" is free to do so - those who want the true timeline for our Earth's origins, our Earth's expansion, our Earth's cataclysms, the true timeline for our Earth's continents, oceans, mountains, our Earth's ice sheets, etc., can find all of this clearly documented in thousands of independent sources, written in dozens of languages from all across our Earth - this includes when and how the giants and giant "prehistoric" creatures suddenly appeared and why they rapidly disappeared from our Earth - all of this is documented by our ancestors in old records, in old literature, etc., but if you cling to the programming and indoctrination from the idiotic "experts", you will never know the truth - you'll just be living your life with the mind of a schizophrenic child - totally detached from the reality of our world.
@@WhirledPublishing "Documented" present reproducable tests/evidence that we can observe or be quiet. Some dudes saying, "I think the flood happened and a god made everything" or "aliens did it" does not count. Saying you don't believe that cotton would hold up tells us nothing. Show me some tests that you conducted or a study that you can cite showing that the mummies were buried in something else.
I can only shake my head... I MARVEL at what the ancients managed to do from just the evidence we have, I mean they were probably much more sophisticated in doing their specific thing that they did daily for generations than I dared to imagine. Isn't this enough? Why invent some boring sci fi lore (rhetorical question)?
Thank you I learned so much from this 3.5 hours long ride!
What do you think religion is?
Idiot it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for the Egyptians to build the pyramids.
@@CandidDate exactly bro
Great video! The point you made about civilizations constantly pushing their chronologies back to look older makes complete sense. I never thought about that and just assumed that they were using different calendar or numbering system. Very interesting.
Yep it’s for bragging rights and prestige. Chinese do it today.
Herodotus has entered the chat
Sometimes they pushed chronologies back but sometimes these kings lists ( eg sumeria) were not really talking about earthly rulers but mythological rulers whose reign was symbolic of something altogether different. This should be taken into account also. The epic of Gilgamesh is another good example as is it's later updated version the enuma elish.
As older shit comes up to the surface (Gobekli Tepi) you have to adjust the timeline. The deeper you dig, the older it gets.
@@danseng3747 - Not adjust the timeline, but be able to add to it :) That's how archeology works.
I didn't watch the whole video yet, so I don't know if this topic is mentioned in it somewhere or not, but temples in India have similarly amazing masonry and they're known to have been built only several centuries ago. Stonemasons of the past were just a lot more capable than most people might assume. They kept their methods closely guarded though, loose lips could result in high quality masonry becoming cheap. You can get the general idea if you read about Hiram Abiff: "Hiram Abiff is the central character of an allegory presented to all candidates during the third degree in Freemasonry. Hiram is presented as the chief architect of King Solomon's Temple. He is murdered inside this Temple by three ruffians, after they failed to obtain from him the Master Masons' secrets."
There are alot of arguments made that make sense when looked at as a whole, just because you don't have the answers doesn't mean you can't notice something out of place
Sure, absolutely, but there is also a lot that looks weird/out of place to a layperson that has a perfectly reasonable explanation to people who have studied the field.
For example, I'm a doctor and there is a lot that seems weird or wrong about medicine or physiology that makes perfect sense to me, but I'm also aware that in the past doctors thought the womb roamed around the body sending women mad.. We do get stuff wrong, but we also get a lot right - modern mortality rates are a testament to that.
We just need to keep improving our knowledge and we need to discard old ideas as new evidence comes to light.
Just keep an open mind towards there being a reasonable 'conventional' explanation in the same way you keep an open mind towards new ideas/interpretations, and if you are skeptical of mainstream research, apply the same skepticism towards the people you agree with.
Happy knowledge-seeking :)
@@r-pupz7032 this is how you science. Imho medical doctors did more to defeat the recent wave of antillectualism than any other group
And no offense..i hooe someday psychology becomes one..and your field becomes less an industry. And that a doctor using expert systems and ai assistants become the norm.
I am..was..a programmer. And i could have written a medical expert system with probably 90s tech that would have radically helped you improve your diagnostics. Doctors should be high level thinkers not pr reps for a medical care enterprise.
@@cdreid9999 two decades later dude, I really hope you get back to programming. You could change the world for the better. You should find writing that program easier than ever with our advancements and it shouldn't take you longer than a year to catch up if you've got solid basis in the basics.
Collect your Nobel prize, I wish I could!
@@cdreid9999 Psychology is a total fail lol
This is the first video I've ever watched from you, and upon reading the comment section, I just want to extend my sympathy for the endless deluge of comments stating the same flavor of "You are just dogmatic in your belief and pedantic. Everything you and other scholars do to defend the mainstream narrative is an attempt to hold onto your authority and power." It seems a large portion of people want you to both thoroughly explain why something can work, and also would prefer you be more succinct...
It's the height of irony that so many accusing you and other archaeologists of being dogmatic in your beliefs and theories are themselves exactly that. Apparently if you just disagree with the "mainstream narrative", you couldn't possibly be ignoring evidence and explanations while simply believing an alternate theory without seeking evidence to the contrary.
As for the authority that comes from being an archaeologist, I doubt the vast majority of people familiar with Ancient Aliens or other similar entertainment have ever even heard of contemporary archaeologists and experts such as Matthew Adams, Stan Hendrickx, Joris van Weterling, Yann Tristant, or even the more famous David O'Connor. I rarely even hear names such as Quibell, Reisner, or Emery mentioned on alternate history RUclips channels. The people I mentioned are just a few well-published archaeologists dealing with Ancient Egypt and Kerma! Does being an archaeologist really command so much respect that you've never heard of the vast majority of them? What authority and prestige do they command as long as they keep up a "mainstream narrative" of history going? Honestly, can a well-published archaeologist just show up to any prestigious event, announce themselves, and enter by the gravity of their name alone!?
What even constitutes a "mainstream narrative"? What status quo is being upheld when you can _easily_ being studying Ancient Egypt by starting with some of Petrie's works and notice that in his book _The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties Part I_ he almost immediately begins by calling out Auguste Mariette and Émile Amélineau for their shoddy work at Abydos. Petrie literally describes Abydos as having been "ransacked" by Mariette. Successive works by other archaeologists are typically not that on-the-nose in their criticisms, but Reisner and Emery both named previous and fellow contemporary archaeologists as wrong in some ways and simply disagreed with their interpretations at other times. Emery believed that the mastabas he uncovered in Saqqara were the actual royal tombs of the First Dynasty kings of Egypt, an interpretation that was argued about for several _decades_ afterwards. Even today, you can easily go to the Academia website and download papers from the likes of Stan Hendrickx who will bluntly state that Ellen Morris, one of his peers, displayed "uncritical acceptance of human sacrifice" just one year after she had published her own paper on human sacrifice at Abydos. That seems tame compared to what is typical in media and common parlance, but that is an incredibly rude way to refer to the work of another scholar. Writing a paper takes a lot of research (as you can usually tell by the number of references) and having someone call the work that you spent months researching "uncritical" is like being jabbed with a needle.
And that was just one contemporary example! Recht in his book _Human Sacrifice_ referenced Hikade and Roy's work with a footnote calling their interpretation of subsidiary graves in Abydos "cumbersome". Tristant frequently disagrees with previous interpretations of mastaba construction and Ancient Egyptian burial practices in the first dynasty thanks to his work at Abu Rawash. Hendrickx (again) writing in Shaw's 2021 release of _The Oxford Handbook of Egyptology_, outright dismisses two ideas presented by Morenz in the _very next chapter_ and actually says that Kemp's (a famous archaeologist) ideas of kingship and state formation had to be "dealt with once again". As if he has to again perform the now annoying task of killing off a theory that, up until very recently, was widely accepted before the recent findings at Hierakonpolis. Even David O'Connor, another archaeologist of fame due to his work at Abydos beginning in the 70s, has had his interpretations discredited or theories disagreed with by scholars in his own field both in the past and present.
If you were interested specifically in engineering work and construction, you could look at Angela la Loggia's (2012) dissertation and subsequent paper on the matter where she both dismantles and confirms theories about the construction of massive mud brick tombs and other constructions built over a mile from the Nile. Scholars _do_ ask questions like, "How did Ancient Egyptians create the millions of mud bricks necessary to construct the enormous tombs of the First Dynasty?" and, "The tombs were plastered with hundreds/thousands of feet of mud over a mile from the Nile. How much Nile alluvium and water would that have taken and how was it transported 5000 years ago?" Typically, the person attempting to answer that question won't leap to the fantastical as an explanation just because it seems like an enormous amount of work, especially for people living in a world where agriculture and domestication were still being perfected. Just because the hundreds of thousands of mud bricks were typically uniform in size and shape and managed to hold their shape for thousands of years (without being fired) doesn't mean that they had to be specially crafted by higher technologies. Just because the water used to make mud plaster had to be hauled by sled for 2 kilometers doesn't mean that the back-breaking work was handled by a vehicle we have no record of in the archaeological record. The mastabas of the First Dynasty as well as the enormous funerary enclosures found at Abydos could also be said to have created with precision (niched walls measured so well as to have the pattern repeat "perfectly" around the buildings) and would have absolutely taken years to construct. Saqqaran mastabas after the reign of Hor-aha were cut into the limestone to form rectangular and even more complex burial chambers using stone and copper tools which have been found buried within and surrounding the mastabas. Ritual and religion have obviously always been strong motivators for humanity which is why sites like Gobekli Tepe exist from a time in which we have no evidence of actual cities existing at all. I'll be sure to qualify the previous statement with a "yet", as perhaps we could find evidence of a city existing at a point even further in the past which archaeologists would absolutely accept assuming the evidence was clear.
If evidence of higher technologies was being kept secret, *_why would the results of said technologies such as delicately crafted stone wares and other artifacts be put on display instead of being hidden away in a store room like that found in Indiana Jones!?_* Are they taunting everyone by putting these works on display, or are they just blinded by their dogmatic thinking to the point where no evidence one way or another could convince them that the crafted works had to be completed using something we have no record of? Why are so many people somehow arguing that both of these contradictory situations are true simultaneously!?
Truth be told, I began reading into Ancient Egypt years after I had enjoyed shows like Ancient Aliens and visited forums like that of Graham Hancock. I do understand the aversion to authoritative sources so many have nowadays and the feeling that surely the scholars that study Egypt likely have a hierarchy rife with corruption and greased palms the likes of which can be seen throughout many industries and historic settings. I myself didn't pour through the books and journal articles written by archaeologists and other experts because it felt like a waste of time that I didn't have, and surely the work was just the same barely-changing portrayals recited again and again to dupe the unknowing useful idiots working for a larger hierarchy of archaeologists. However, the archaeologists of today aren't the same as the "archaeologists" in 1880 that, due to their station or wealth of a benefactor, gained control over a historic site and used underpaid digging teams to quickly unearth anything that looked valuable so they could send it to a wealthy private collector in order to expand their pocket books while also enjoying the prestige that came with being known as an archaeologist at a time where they were fawned over like swashbuckling treasure hunters. Instead, true archaeologists such as Petrie and Reisner would change the field thanks to their tireless pursuit of _truly_ thorough scientific discovery. Nowadays, and I do hate to say this, archaeology is a typically very boring profession the involves months of preparation, surveying, and meticulous excavation that usually uncovers essentially nothing or note, or some pottery sherds that hopefully contain some sort of inscription or unusual shape. That sort of work, especially in Egypt, only occurs during the winter months to avoid the blazing heat and mosquitos, and takes years to fully categorize and then write the dry and jargon-filled academic articles that almost no one besides other scholars in the field read. This is one of the chief reasons it seems the "status-quo" never changes to an outside observer: Archaeology is so slow that new information is also slow to be debated and accepted. This isn't to say lead archaeologists or Egyptologists can't be unreasonably stubborn or unwilling to accept certain ideas at times, but this is typically not the norm and leaders in academic fields are typically older and retire within a decade or two which allows a new director with different proclivities to be promoted. (Have to split this into 2 parts, the next will be a reply to my own comment).
(Continued)
In today's world, almost no one cares about any sole archaeologist, because the field is now very specialized and people can spend a lifetime working in just one region or one period of time. What prestige or authority do the likes of Matthew Adams or David O'Connor command outside of a narrow band of academia? What narrative needs to be upheld else they lose their power over the common plebeian? Don't get me wrong, there are people who will take the smallest amount of power and utilize it to its fullest extent to a sadly absurd degree (looking at you moderators of various internet forums), but temper your expectations of corruption here. Moderating an internet forum is easy and doesn't require years of study to be taken seriously enough to be given the position. Archaeology is time-consuming, difficult, downright boring to most, and commands very little respect or power in the modern world - even less so since shows like Ancient Aliens and alternate history RUclips became popular. Most archaeologists with their own RUclips channels have an audience just a fraction the size of the previously mentioned media!
As for accusations of an actual conspiracy of cover-ups, in what way are the consistently disagreeing scholars working in the field of archaeology simply too dogmatic to entertain ideas outside of a mainstream narrative, where massive disruption of what is already accepted is _exactly_ an occurrence that would make someone famous in the field? It's not as if you can make the argument that an industry surrounding the academic field of archaeology exists that has a vested interest in covering things up to make money like I've seen employed as an argument against governments or companies working in multi-billion dollar industries. On the contrary, a production such as Ancient Aliens absolutely does have a profit-motivated reason to sensationalize and overstate things in order to keep an audience of those suspicious of possible corruption in well-established fields coming back to view more episodes. These two accusations I've seen constantly levied are examples of incongruent and incomplete thinking.
If you truly care about the subject, pick a time frame within Ancient Egypt and dive into it. Unlike some fields, many academic papers about archaeology are usually readily available online for free! A great many books, especially older works, are also available online on archive websites or thanks to a college uploading it as a PDF that can be accessed. Have questions you want answers to already in mind, and start trolling through various papers to see what others have already asked and attempted to answer using the evidence they know of. It's certainly time consuming, but if you really care so much that you spend countless hours perusing forums and RUclips looking for information on the subject, you can likely spare some of that time reading instead.
As for those who just won't accept any answer other than a complete reconstruction of Ancient Egyptian works such as the granite coffins found in the Serapeum of Saqqara, I'm afraid you're going to have to pay a team quite a lot of money to do so. There are many stone-working companies today that can absolutely reconstruct the coffins with modern-day tools for tens of thousands of dollars if you want to confirm that we can do it with today's technology! As for utilizing the tools Ancient Egyptians would have used to do the reconstruction, it's an unfortunate truth that very few people have the expertise necessary and time to spend in order to utilize replicas of ancient tools to reconstruct monumental architecture. It has been absolutely proven that you can shape granite and other hard stones with the tools we know existed within specific periods of Ancient Egypt, but the actual work and time that would be required for a full reconstruction demands both a large amount of money, and a very large amount of time from experts in copper tool use that are certainly rarities today. It's certainly possible to do, but no one has bothered to undertake this task as mountains of evidence that the stone could be worked with various ancient tools already exists. Smaller works such as stone vases _have_ been reproduced using ancient tools if that is what would convince you. As for claims of inhuman precision: Many people have already visited Egypt with digital angle-finders and have found again and again that the angles and surfaces are certainly not near-perfect in their precision. They're certainly impressive, but not even close to perfect.
As for those who don't like the video because of what apparently sounds like condescension... Not only are you tone policing, but surely you must also be tone-deaf to think an academic with an accent is equivalent to a condescending tone. If you don't enjoy the sound of his voice that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't discredit what he's saying.
Apologies for the long comment and thank you for the video mate, I just wanted to comment to let you know that I, at least, appreciated the video. Hopefully I could convince someone to rethink their instinctual distrust for all things perceived as crystalized hierarchies with no room for growth and filled to the brim with corruption, a position I myself have come to understand isn't always applicable. Subversion and distrust of any and all institutions seems to be more normal today that in the past, but making that the uncritically presupposed feeling for any institution goes too far. Seven years ago I would have likely rejected this video outright due to my own biases developed due mostly to some unsavory knowledge and experiences with the publishing industry surrounding biological sciences that I once blindly trusted. I'm glad I gave various fields in academia another chance, just with a better understanding of possible conflicts of interest.
They won't read this and think about it. But in the time it would take to do so they will read a dozen posts on social media claiming that zahi hawass is the grand puppet master who keeps all egyptologists in lock step when it comes to suppressing the real truth about the past. There will always be willing buyers among those committed to believing that they just traded their family milk cow for a sliver of wood from the one true cross. Facts and logic to the contrary will only confuse and anger them.
The stoneworking methods and techniques that are such a mystery to us were as normal to the ancients as modern construction is to us. They probably even had old geezers watching and saying "That ain't the way WE used to do it!"
Average lifespan in Egypt at the time was about 35. Seems you would just be getting good before you die off.
@@rekindlethewick583 Well, if that was the average, then about half the population would have survived significantly past that age.
@@thegreatgazoo2334 Significantly ehhhh I think that might be stretching it.
@@rekindlethewick583 😎
It's easy to say that, but no one has ever replicated any of those artifacts with the supposed tools.
55:20 these cuts are exactly how it looks when you cut stone or masonry with a chop saw, one plunging cut down and the piece always breaks at the bottom. The cut cant be continued at the same angle with the piece missing because the the saw blade leaves the groove, its annoying but when you try you will damage the saw blade, ive done it lots. If you want to cut the bottom part it needs to be started at a new angle or flip the piece over and a second tricky cut from the bottom broken side. Most our cuts were hidden so we would start with an angled cut so the broken nub at the bottom wouldnt actually stick out and get in the way. The charicteristics of the nub are dependant on how large of a piece was cut off and how well the piece was supported and cutting a piece in half is easier than shaving a slice off, theres no way that cut was made with a drap saw AND the broken marks at bottom be quarry marks, that means they quarried it square than shaved the outside off with a drag saw.... no way, the blade would have to be pulled to one side and that increases friction dramatically, small pieces would break off, no groove for sand or blade, it bends the blade and the edges of the block wouldnt be so square and it would destroy copper blades even faster. Ive cut lots of masonry and granite for paver patios and boulder landscape walls. Masonry is like cutting butter compared to granite boulders, we cut as little granite as possible because it took so long and it destroyed our diamond impregnated saw blades. And that's one of the best cuts I've seen, better than I can do with a chop saw, that was a seriously stable tool with a seriously stable blade, I cant believe it was hammered copper swinging about in a bed of sand......
You see radii of varying arcs from a chop saw? Drag saws with abrasive will do it.
@@Eyes_OpenIt depends how much the saw gets moved back and forth during the cut, a small piece can be one easy cut but if the part is too big for the round saw blade it can moved back and forth, up and down. Me doing this by hand with a Stihl chop saw would make varrying radius on a big piece, if the saw was in a fixture it would be straighter and cleaner. Look up a video of an Amish circular saw mill, they take multiple passes on one big cut and adjust the cut depth, they are cutting soft wood long boards, not granite in block shape but many times they dont even do full passes in the center leaveing differeing marks on the edges. I dont see how a huge circular saw adjusted back and forth, up and down couldnt leave any mark a pendulum saw could, they're both curved cutting surfaces. Ive run a bandsaw mill not a circular mill but you can hear and feel if the machine is cutting fast or struggling so you adjust cut depth and feed rate on the fly leaving changing cut marks on big pieces and hydraulic controls let you feel everything and make fine adjustments but the blade stays on a perfect cutting plane but many of our large hydraulic human controlled machines arent as robotic as you think. AND EVERYONE have a HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
If they needed perfectly flat pieces and they had a regular cut process good enough, that nub at the bottom could be a flaw, the piece was allowed to fall away before cut all the way. That could be why it was never used, theres no good way to remove it with a saw, even we would hammer and chisel the nub away if we had to but it would never look cut, or else we would cut a new one, shaving a piece was nearly impossible, the cut looked horrible and it was bad for the blade. Or that piece was just left over scrap removed from a larger piece.
I work with granite too and i believe theres something missing in the way they did things back then.
The fact that these ancient artefacts exist - is what matters -and their mysteries are wonderful !
There are no mysteries to them and that's what's cool about it because we know how they were made and power tools were not used nor alien intervention.
Aber es sind Maschinen, wunderbar ist nur die unvorstellbar lange Zeitdauer, die sie eingesetzt wurden.
@@flinteastwood7179 no we don't
I’m so glad that this remarkable channel exists. It’s great to watch and listen to the pro- and contra-arguments. And you always stay respectful, you never ridicule the opposite side. Often, you just ask a critical question and leave it up to the viewer to find the possible answer. You never press your views or conclusions onto the listener/viewer.
I like how you analyze all the arguments and it’s fascinating to hear what a real Pro in this field thinks. I think in general, with no fundamental knowledge we (the laymen) often jump to unrealistic conclusions. And your videos are a great way of showing how important it is to take into account all the evidence, analysis and logic.
Your videos are a real mind-opener. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. Keep up the excellent work and stay healthy!👍🏻😎
Best regards,
Steven R.
Thanks, Steven!
@@WorldofAntiquity No more funding for you! In a world of cancel culture gone troppo your efforts to "debunk" the ancient civilisation theories (that all civilisation started only 6000 years ago and before that we were only cavemen/ hunter gatherers). This video is worth a finger clap but haven't offered any actual answers. I am critical of your claims about carbon dating, I read the papers you cited and they are vague at best, taking mortar samples from the buildings around the pyramid (no surprise that khufu's mortuary temple was built at the time Khufu was thought to be alive) or implying that they did (the other paper doesn't state where their samples came from in the pyramid). There are literally dozens of scientists that have been ejected from academia over their discoveries of the younger dryas impacts that have been found in North America. Personally I prefer Randall Carlson's work on the Younger Dryas Impact theory combined with Antonio Zemora. You took all this effort but have only provided data that complies with your own personal view. Considering the dating of gobekli tepe extending the age of civilisation out to the age of the younger dryas impacts I doubt your efforts and give them a 3/10.
@@fairhall001 notice he says nothing to you but takes his time to thank the guy who gave him praise.
I watched a large house being lifted to add a lower level. This required digging a whole new footing for the foundation. I sloke with the foreman and asked how they were going to get equipment under the house, what with all the asaffolding. "We're not." he said. The next day, they had a crew of 20 guys with picks and shovels. The footing trench was finished by that afternoon. I would have deemed that to be impossible.
I once worked with a house moving outfit. The most impressive work was done by the simplest of tools.
Y'know, your post made me examine this whole Pyramid question from a different angle and this is what I came up with: The theories dealing with the building techniques of the Egyptians were seldom questioned up until 50 years ago or so, sure, there have always been doubters or those prone to flights of fancy but nothing like today and I've always wondered why. Now, though, between your post and several others I've read, I'm getting the impression that the further we get away from a culture brought up on hard work and perseverance the more likely it is that people will view the building of the Pyramid as impossible, something that only some kind of technology or aliens could achieve. Clearly, a good deal of this attitude comes from the fact that so few people, especially men, know what hard work is or what it can accomplish. I've always told people and I hope this doesn't sound racist but I've always said that if you give me a crew of young guys from Mexico there's nothing we can't do. This is not an exaggeration, I've worked alongside and supervised Mexican laborers and they put everyone to shame. Back a few years ago (30 years ago?) I answered an ad in the paper calling for laborers to work down in L.A. for $14.00 an hour, good pay in those days. When I got there the place was packed, there must have been 300 guys there: white, black, brown and a scattering of other guys, all ready to work (relatively). It was back-breaking work, pouring long concrete pads alongside the R.R. tracks at the Union-Pacific train-yard. The pads were for those huge machines that straddle the tracks and load and unload containers off the flat-cars. Anyway, at lunch-time the foreman came and talked to us and asked how we were doing and if anyone had had enough and slowly, reluctantly a few guys left (maybe 20 guys). The next morning there were a lot of guys absent, nearly half of those who'd shown up originally. Same thing all over again: we lost a few at lunch and then, the next day, more guys didn't show up. By the third day we had our crew, through the simple process of elimination and you know what, I was the ONLY white guy left, me and 30 Mexican kids (Well, they weren't ALL kids.) and let me tell you, we could have built a fuckin' Pyramid! You could have told us you needed it done by Friday and we'd of gotter done...but you were buying the beer.
I said all that to say this: If you've been coddled all your life, spent your time cooped up in a house because your parents were too afraid you'd get kidnapped to let you outside, if you've never had a callus or swung a sledge hammer or dug a ditch you'll never understand how something like a Pyramid get's built. I mean, I get it, I totally get what a daunting thing it can be to climb out of a truck and break ground on a project that's so big you can't possibly see the end of it, it just seems like such an impossible idea, that within the next couple months your sweat will be translated into a house or a 7-11 or a whole housing tract, it seems inconceivable. Then it's framed, then you're throwing up drywall, then slapping on the final coat of paint (if you should be so unlucky...I HATE painting!) and then you load up and move on to the next job. EVERYTHING seems difficult or impossible if you've never done it before but once you have, NOTHING is impossible.
The block and stone-masons in this room know, the farmers and landscapers know, the steel-workers and roofers know, they all know how the Pyramids were built, it's the tech-guys and the store clerks and the guys who work from home and don't have to roll out of bed until 9:00 that think aliens must have done it.
@@waynemyers2469 The secrets of the ancients: Get up early and get'er done.Lolygagging is for baby deer and politicians.
@@chriskelly6574 Amen and you know another thing? There's only one reliable cure for a hangover: Go to work no matter how bad you're feeling and by noon-time you're fine...or at least, it worked for me. (Oh and don't get me going on politicians, greedy, shiftless bastards.)
As turns out, with enough people and time, you don't need "advanced" tech.
I remember watching a Dane documenting the creation of a time accurate remaked Viking boat while growing up and I absolutely loved that the people that came before me were so knowledgeable and I remember being very thirsty for learning even more of their stories ❤
I am willing to rewatch this. Awesome that there is new content and in full. Had no complaints either way. You are awesome!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@pmvdmeulen 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Love your video. Today we have some problems which are accelerated in the internet.
- People like a spectacular explanation more than a boring, realistic one.
- In the Internet, people think they can assess something, other people spent years with, better by only looking at a fraction of it for a fraction of the time.
- People falsify arguments, no one ever made, to make their argument look better.
- Scientific, evidence based methods are then seen as cover ups for the real happening.
- People just listen to what supports all those behaviours.
Uncharted is one example what comes out of this.
Indeed. It’s easier to sell tickets for the ghost train than the speak your weight machine.
umm bens videos are the spectacular explanation. the real explanation is boring. the egyptians did lots of labour and spent lots of time working with stone, not very exciting is it? why not invent some ancient power tools to spice things up like ben has
I would like to add, a lot of these people were asleep during these history lessons in high-school and or college.
@@redmoose1447 Yeah and they build the great pyramid in about 27 years with this labor... every couple of minutes one stoneblock weighing tons was placed with magnificient precision ^^ suuuuuuure
@@arturmuller5598your math sucks it would be about every 6-7 mins, and you can move many blocks into place at once with a labour force of 30k people.
I have waited 50 years for this video! Literally. It started with Chariots of the Gods in the early 70s. I thought I was smart when I decided that humans were capable of this work, it didn't have to be aliens.
I have been enjoying watching Ben's videos for a year or two, while constantly wondering what the actual truth is about these objects.
Thanks for ruining my entertainment! Just kidding, thank you for telling the facts about all this folderol and hoopla!
He answered nothing. He has no f*cking idea either how the Dynastic Egyptians made these artefacts.
@@joetotale6354 Thank you! Youre right. He explained how he looks at it, that’s all.
Ben from Uncharted is just giving his opinion and he never says he’s an expert.
3 hours and this dude didn’t answer any of my questions.
@@Andy-1234 It’s a hack job carried out by a pompous scientist who won’t admit his mistakes.
you still can wait for better explanations
ruclips.net/video/9ArJz15P3mg/видео.html
@@bobwilson7684 thanks for sharing. Amazing
6:10 That view of his is pretty much based on the timeline "mainstream" Egyptology has given; most of these "precision cut" artifacts are found in old kingdom sites (and are "dated" to be older), and the later works seem to have been made using worse technology. So thats why he says they must be significantly older; because it would sort of make more sense for them to be older rather than having been made right before the more crude stuff. (This can be seen on sites in different countries as well; in Peru for example, the lower parts of Inca constructions are often more precise and megalithic.)
He actually is wondering the same thing as you in at least one of his videos: It doesn't make sense for the technology to get worse over time, though thats exactly what seems to have happened based on the datings given by official sources.
To my understanding, he doesn't claim to know something is X years old.
Why don't we make Anglo Saxon swords like we used to.
In 2000 years when they look back at architecture, they're going to look at Cathedrals and say it's absolutly impossible that those predated current buildings by centuries, considering how vastly superior they are in terms of scale, beauty and technical achievments. And yet...
@@yallia6197nope. Most current skyscrapers easily rival and surpass cathedrals. You're grasping at straws
@@AntonSmyth-od6rc because we don't need them, ergo there isn't an industry and attached knowledge. It's not a mystery.
Hi, I worked at a granite shop making counter tops…all my time just cutting and polishing edges which takes FOREVER this shit is extremely hard to work..can’t imagine not having high powered tools and machines
Solid granite or the hybrid stone + resin stuff?
@@2degucitas solid granite…marble too…Which is way easier to work on
@@joshuawall253 Can you please tell us how it would be worked by hand? Splitting wedges I get, drill holes, use plug and hammer to create cracks. What about the rest? Finishing?