#389 - Nuclear Physicist Goes Public with NEW Evidence on Lost Ancient Tech | Max Zamilov

Watch every episode ad-free & uncensored on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjones Dr. Max Zamilov is a scientist, physicist, entrepreneur, author, & founder of Maximus Energy Corporation. His latest research, just published in Nature magazine, is the first official Metrological study of predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels. SPONSORS https://irestore.com/dannyjones - Use code DANNYJONES for huge savings on the iRestore Elite. https://amentara.com/go/dj - Use code DJ22 for 22% off your first order. https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/DANNY - Use code DANNY & get $50 in lineups when you play your first $5 lineup! https://fastgrowingtrees.com - Use code DANNY for 20% off. https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP - Use code DJP for 20% off EPISODE LINKS Maxs' paper in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s40494-025-02196-7 @MaximusEnergy https://maximus.energy FOLLOW DANNY JONES https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones https://twitter.com/jonesdanny OUTLINE 00:00 - Max's published research on Egyptian vases 01:52 - "No such thing as precise ancient Egyptian vases" 04:34 - Dating ancient vases 09:46 - Perfect symmetry = modern made 13:26 - eBay vases 17:59 - What ancient vases were used for 23:09 - Why all granite vases are probably fakes 33:17 - Lack of surface damage on "ancient" vases 40:00 - Lost ancient technology 45:51 - The data that disproved Max's vase theory 01:01:42 - Miniature precise vases 01:04:54 - How Egyptian vases were made with ancient tools 01:11:31 - Bow drilling in ancient Egypt 01:16:42 - Petrie core 7 01:22:53 - Ancient people were ingenius 01:29:06 - Kailasa Temple in India 01:31:25 - Barabar caves 01:36:18 - Function of the pyramids 01:39:29 - How the scientific community functions 01:48:42 - Cold fusion 01:58:37 - 11 missing nuclear scientists 02:02:38 - New era of UAP research 02:09:02 - Uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons 02:18:06 - Nuclear elements found on Mars 02:24:18 - Human history on Earth is older than we thought 02:32:22 - Why humans believe in God 02:37:45 - Who are the aliens? 02:42:23 - Max's next research project Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  New and exclusive holiday decor just launched online at The Home Depot. Check out the viral Grand Duchess collection with smart holiday lights you can control from your phone. Easily customize the twinkle across trees, wreaths, and garlands to match your holiday vibe. Create stunning light effects, then switch it up with the tap of your fingers. Even the man in red will be impressed. Shop the holiday decor you want, online only, at homedepot.com.

• 0:28Speaker 01

  The best part of waking up? A full cup of Folgers coffee and music on full blast.

• 0:56Speaker 01

  Shop Folgers K-Cup Pods and more at your nearest retailer.

• 1:07Danny Jones?

  Welcome back, Max.

• 1:08Speaker 03

  Well, thank you, Danny. Thank you for having me again.

• 1:11Danny Jones?

  Of my pleasure. I just finished reading your paper published in Nature, all about the vases.

• 1:18Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:21Danny Jones?

  Amazing.

• 1:21Speaker 03

  I'm amazed you read it, because I didn't really expect anybody to read it. Because, you know, when you write a scientific paper, you think, you know, just two or three nerds, you know, would read it and that's it. But that paper, I think, has like 4,000 downloads by now.

• 1:38Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 1:39Speaker 03

  Yeah, and it's trending like really high, and I was surprised to see how many, you know, people are interested in the topic. Because, you know, by definition, scientific papers are supposed to be boring.

• 1:49Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:50Speaker 03

  But, you know, I guess when the topic is so fascinating as ancient Egyptian vases, it's anything but boring. And that's honestly what, you know, kept me through it, because it's, you know, it's a lot of... You know, doing research is one thing, you're writing it up as a paper is quite different, because the amount of requirements that go in is a lot. And one thing you gotta do, you gotta put it in the context of the, you know, broader research on the topic. Because, you know, when you publish a paper... It needs to fit, you know, within the existing, you know, knowledge on the subject. And if it doesn't, you cannot, you know, get it published, which means you have to research all of the references and literature, you know, see what other, you know, researchers

• 2:33Speaker 03

  and scientists, uh, explored, you know, about this topic and, you know, tie it all in and see how your research fits, how it, you know, adds additional knowledge or, or returns established, uh, notions and whatnot. And, uh, of course, as you recall, the biggest outcome of the paper was that, you know, there are no, there is no such thing as precise ancient Egyptian vases.

• 2:57Danny Jones?

  There's no such thing as precise ancient Egyptian vases.

• 3:00Speaker 03

  Yes, they're all, um, handmade. So the outcome of my research, you know, which was like a hundred and eighty degrees flip in my, uh, thinking, you know, in my understanding, that, uh, all of this, you know, fascinating ancient Egyptian vase is a handmade. And this is a very high quality, uh, you know, manual work, but it's not like machined work. And that's, I guess, where, uh, you know, the rift developed between myself and, uh, let's say, you know, Ben and Matt to some extent, because they are, uh, you know, the, I can, I cannot speak of now because it hasn't been a while, you know, since we talked, but you know, last time we talked, they, they still, you know, believe that some of those

• 3:44Speaker 03

  vases were, you know, precise and genuine, whereas all of my research pointed, you know, to the opposite. And I can, uh, tell you more about it in, in just a second, but that's, um, I guess what happens sometimes in scientific exploration. So you, you start, you know, with one idea and as data comes in, you're forced to, to change your opinion on it. And that's, you know, the very definition of open mindedness. You've got to be able to change your opinion when facts demand it. And when I started, you know, this vase project, I was entirely sold, uh, on the idea that they were, you know, genuine, you know, precise, you know, quote unquote, precise ancient Egyptian vases that were machined, you know, with space-like precision.

• 4:27Speaker 03

  And I was really excited to, you know, characterize them and, you know, prove the point scientifically. But once I started, you know, researching the point, I wasn't finding, you know, any, any evidence of that. And in fact, in all, all of the data points, kind of was checking. Up higher and higher to tell me that, you know, the genuine museum pieces are handmade. Whereas, you know, some pieces from the private collections aren't genuine. And that's unfortunately is a sticking point. If you own, you know, one of these, of course, you don't want, you know, the authenticity of your object, you know, challenged or questioned.

• 5:04Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 5:04Speaker 03

  But that's kind of what I've ended up, you know, doing in the end, because this is, you know, where the data points to.

• 5:11Danny Jones?

  So the basis of this paper, this research that you did was you took a bunch of vases from the museum, the Petri Museum?

• 5:16Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 5:17Danny Jones?

  You took a bunch of vases from private collections, so people who have bought them off the antiquities markets?

• 5:21Speaker 03

  Mm-hmm.

• 5:21Danny Jones?

  And then what was the other subset of vases?

• 5:24Speaker 03

  Vases I bought on internet.

• 5:26Danny Jones?

  Basically, that is purchased on the internet?

• 5:28Speaker 03

  Basically, I went crazy on eBay and I bought a bunch of stone vases.

• 5:33Danny Jones?

  And the issue is, there's no way to actually prove, I put a timestamp on when these were made because they're stone. There's no way to do carbon dating.

• 5:42Speaker 03

  Exactly. So that's, I guess, the principal issue with stone is it's not easily dateable.

• 5:47Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 5:48Speaker 03

  And there are some experimental techniques, like thermo luminescence. So if you have a granite surface that's been, let's say, aged, you know, just naturally. And then you take a sample of it, put it in an oven and let it like relax under heat, it will emit some light. And you can measure the amount of that light and you can say, well, based on the amount of light, you know, this surface is so many years old. Because what happens is, you know, granite has quartz in it and quartz tends to accumulate radiation damage. So natural background radiation strikes quartz and you've got these electrons that

• 6:29Speaker 03

  are captured in it. And then when you heat it, it gives off, you know, those accumulated electrons as light. Yeah, I'm over simplifying it, but that's in a nutshell what it is. And then if you, you know, machine the surface, you take off that, you know, surface layer and then you have this virgin material that hasn't accumulated, you know, this environmental radiation. And then you take a sample of it, it will give off a lot less light. So that's how in principle you can date, you know, granite or other in a similar.

• 6:58Danny Jones?

  Oh, interesting.

• 6:59Speaker 03

  Quartz, reach stones, but I haven't found a lab that was, you know, willing to do it.

• 7:04Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 7:05Speaker 03

  Uh, in, in fact, uh, back then, when I was, you know, still working with Matt Bell, we reached out to a lab that looked like they, they could do it, but they said they, they do it only on, on ceramics. So for ceramics, it's actually an established technique because you find a piece of pottery and it's the same thermoluminescence applied to pottery can tell you when that pottery was baked. And that's like a routine procedure that's done a lot, you know, for archaeologists, you know, whoever to where, you know, you send your sample to the lab and they'll be able to tell you the age of that ceramic.

• 7:34Danny Jones?

  So the more, so when it comes to granite, the more glow you get out of the quartz, the older it typically is.

• 7:40Speaker 03

  Yes, yes. But, you know, I asked, you know, if they would look at the piece of granite and characterize it in the same way. And they kind of refused.

• 7:47Danny Jones?

  Who refused?

• 7:48Speaker 03

  The lab.

• 7:49Danny Jones?

  The lab.

• 7:49Speaker 03

  Yeah, because it's, it's not a common technique. And what, what happens is in science, when something is not common, you know, there is a big like learning curve and like setup and everything goes into the process. So if there was a lot of demand for it, I guess it would be worthwhile for somebody to set up an operation like this, wherever you calibrate everything, you know, go, go through the grinds of, of getting, you know, reliable data and then you can start dating, you know, those things. But nobody, you know, to my knowledge, you know, provides that service and, and my knowledge is not extensive. So, you know, maybe somebody out there, there is, but the way science goes, nothing is easy, you know? Carbon dating is hugely complex and the only reason

• 8:33Speaker 03

  it's done, because there is a lot of demand for it. And, and then it's been like perfected sufficiently to where you can, you know, get reliable information. But if you're just starting it, like my wife sometimes says, you know, Max, why wouldn't, wouldn't you, you know, do your own carbon dating and tell, look, it's the amount of learning and equipment and everything I need to put in is like, you know, years of effort. But, you know, once, once you do it, it becomes like 10 minute job.

• 8:58Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 8:58Speaker 03

  But after, you know, two years of prep.

• 9:02Danny Jones?

  Right. So how many total vases did you, did you measure for this paper?

• 9:07Speaker 03

  Boy, good question. I think it was over 60 or 80, you know, some, something of that nature. I think about 20 from Petri, about, um,

• 9:19Speaker 03

  Twenty, oh, okay, twenty vessels that were handmade in Egypt.

• 9:24Danny Jones?

  That you knew for a fact were handmade in Egypt?

• 9:27Speaker 03

  Yes, yes, they were made from, incorrect term is in Egyptian alabaster, but correct term is travertine. Okay. So travertine or calcite vessels that are handmade in Egypt, you know, to this day. But, you know, for tourists, basically. And there are two cool things about it. The tradition, the stone working, you know, stone in ways making tradition survived through millennia. And this fact actually is described in the scientific literature. I wasn't the first one, by no account, who discovered it. You know, some other, like, almost hundred years ago, archaeologists and ethnographer probably, you know, discovered that they are, they're still making these vessels. And now that evolved into like a tourist business where they make them for tourists.

• 10:13Speaker 03

  And you can go into shops and you can see, you know, how they're made and they're using like ogres to haul out vessels. And they use, you know, rubbing stones to shape them. So it's basically same, you know, tools and techniques. And as depicted, let's say, somewhere in a, in a tomb, right on the wall, you see someone, you know, barefoot sitting and grinding this vessel. It's exactly the same. The only difference is instead of like copper or bronze tools, you know, they use steel tools now. But that's the only difference. And I don't think they use a flint chisels anymore. It's, it's like, you know, metal chisels.

• 10:46Danny Jones?

  And so all of the ones that you measured that you knew were handmade in ancient Egypt in these museums, none of those were perfectly symmetric.

• 10:54Speaker 03

  No, no. And in fact, that was, you know, one of the things I, you know, introduced in my paper. I introduced a technique on how to characterize a vessel. Because, you know, when you, let's say, look at a vessel like this, you know, what does perfection mean, you know?

• 11:09Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 11:09Speaker 03

  In order to define, you know, the perfection, I had to define the metric of quality. And metric of quality is basically a sum of concentricity and circularity metric is. So you take this object and then forgive me for repeating, you know, this from our previous discussion, but you basically take a 3D scan and you slice it into, like perpendicular to the axis of symmetry. And you get, you know, more or less circular slices. And each slice, you can characterize it, how round it is. And, and those slices, you know, when you superimpose one on top of them, how concentric they are, you know? Do they all center on the same axis or are they, you know, slightly off? And and you get a number and you add these numbers together and you get a value, you know, which tells you how perfect your vessel is. So if the value is like real low,

• 11:53Speaker 03

  because I'm looking for deviations. So real low values till you tell you it's a high quality. Uh, you know, manufacturing process because it's very round and it's very like concentric.

• 12:04Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 12:04Speaker 03

  But if it's a handmade, you know, the value is not going to be very low because it's not perfectly round and it's not perfectly concentric.

• 12:10Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 12:11Speaker 03

  So you get higher values and all handmade vessels that were, you know, made in Egypt, you know, they form like a cloud and I want to plot plot the the points on a chart. And one axis is concentricity, the other circularity, you know, there is a cloud.

• 12:26Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 12:27Speaker 03

  And then I take vases from the Petri Museum, you know, and I crunch the numbers in a similar way and I get another cloud. And the biggest surprise to me was that both clouds are like virtually indistinguishable, you know, they like map on top of another.

• 12:41Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 12:41Speaker 03

  So which means that the quality of the Petri vessels, I, you know, cannot distinguish from the quality of the handmade vessels in a, uh, that were made by hand in Egypt. Whereas the, uh, you know, so called the precise vases, let's say from Matt Bell's collection.

• 12:57Danny Jones?

  Yeah. So where did you get the most precise measured vases?

• 13:00Speaker 03

  Right. So the most precise were, you know, the so called precise vases for Matt Bell's collection.

• 13:05Danny Jones?

  So from Matt Bell's personal collection?

• 13:07Speaker 03

  From his personal collection. He has about eighty and maybe a ten or so were qualified as precise.

• 13:14Danny Jones?

  Okay. Yeah. Ten of the eighty were perfectly precise, really, really, really, like within, what was the deviation?

• 13:20Speaker 03

  Like, uh, boy, a good question. See if I can remember.

• 13:26Danny Jones?

  I thought it was like one one thousandth of an inch or something crazy.

• 13:28Speaker 03

  Yeah, it's like a few few thousands of an inch.

• 13:30Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 13:30Speaker 03

  Uh, and you know, anybody interested can can can look up the actual numbers in the paper because it's, uh, it's free, uh, like open access. Anybody can download and see.

• 13:39Danny Jones?

  We'll link it below for folks that are listening.

• 13:42Speaker 03

  And forgive me if I don't, you know, remember the numbers.

• 13:45Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 13:45Speaker 03

  Uh, but the point is the precise vases, you know, form a separate cluster. A separate cluster of very low values. So when you plot, and I call this quality map. So when you plot this handmade Egyptian vases, you got like a big blob. And then, you know, you plot the Petri Museum vases, you get another big blob and the two blobs overlap. Where you cannot distinguish them. But when you plot, you know, precise vases from Matt Bell's collection or from, you know, some other people I've met and befriended. It's a different, you know, tightly packed cluster of, of low concentricity error and low, you know, roundness error values. That's very distinct, so you can easily tell them apart.

• 14:26Speaker 03

  But where, you know, the biggest surprise was on all of this eBay vases that I bought.

• 14:31Danny Jones?

  eBay vases?

• 14:31Speaker 03

  eBay vases. And by now I probably have fifty or sixty, maybe even more. I mean, my house is just, any nook and cranny, you know, there is a vase in it.

• 14:40Danny Jones?

  How much can you, can you buy one of these for on eBay?

• 14:43Speaker 03

  Uh, like ten bucks.

• 14:45Danny Jones?

  No way. And they're granite?

• 14:47Speaker 03

  Some are, yeah. I think for granite vases, I paid maybe like fifty bucks, and I'll explain why. But the point is, when I analyzed the, in a modern, you know, eBay vases, you know, they formed the same cluster as, you know, the vases, precise vases from Matt Bell's collection.

• 15:04Danny Jones?

  No way.

• 15:05Speaker 03

  Yeah, it was exactly the same, you know, no difference, you know, whatsoever. And of course, you know, to me, you know, the only conclusion I, I think I can draw is, you know, those were made in modern times. As opposed to in the ancient times.

• 15:20Danny Jones?

  And the ones that you purchased on eBay, the description was, how, how did they describe they were made?

• 15:26Speaker 03

  Uh, most didn't have any description. And really, uh, sometimes I would buy a vase. Uh, and it says one thing, but you know, when I look at it, I know it's another thing. Uh, the most common material, of course, is marble, you know, because it's beautiful. So.

• 15:43Danny Jones?

  Also very soft, right?

• 15:44Speaker 03

  Yeah, also very soft. So most vases are marble because, uh, it's a beautiful material, it's easy to machine. And the way they're made, you know, you're just. Put it in a lathe and you run like a steel cutter typically and that's you know good enough to give it the outer shape and you know give it the inner shape and it's all perfect and nice and looks beautiful. Some vases are made out of what is called like Pakistani onyx and one that once again it's a misnomer because it's not onyx it just looks like onyx and in reality it's calcite but it's very beautiful it looks like onyx but it's the same you know softness as marble but you know beautiful texture. So those are made in India and Pakistan and of course I wanted to have some harder stones

• 16:27Speaker 03

  too like granite and granite isn't like typical for your gift shop vases because it's hard stone and it can be machined no problem machining it but it requires a diamond tipped tools and in fact there are multiple companies that that make you know this kind of product out of granite and the typical application is outdoors stuff because you know what happens to marble outdoors like very quickly it degrades because acid you know in in water and and just it's soft stone and a water erodes it on with acid even faster you know. So it's very unstable. So that's why a lot of marble structures you know Greek Roman

• 17:11Speaker 03

  ruins are in terrible shape. So if you want something to last you make things out of granite and what where people want something to last that like funerary stuff you know monuments and and a lot of granite vases are actually urns or or vases for flowers that you put at a tomb and there are shops in China and India that like mass produce this in a funerary area.

• 17:37Danny Jones?

  New seasons means fresh starts and with Ira Store's anniversary sale running from April 13th through April 27th, it's honestly the perfect time to upgrade your hair and skincare routine. Ira Store has been leading the way for red light therapy for over two decades and for April only you get a bundle discount on two customer favorites, the Ira Store Elite and the Aluminum Mask. The Ira Store Elite is clinically proven to help Regrow hair using 300 lasers and 200 LEDs that send light therapy directly to your scalp. And the iRestor Illumina is a dermatologist recommended face mask with double the power than most competitors. It targets fine lines, breakouts, stimulates collagen, and boosts

• 18:19Danny Jones?

  blood flow. I've been using my iRestor Elite to research and read up on guests. It's the coolest looking and least invasive method I've found for hair growth. iRestor is kicking off their anniversary sale with some huge discounts on their red light therapy devices. And right now, you can save on customer favorites like the iRestor Elite helmet and the Illumina face mask. Just head to irestore.com and use the code Danny Jones to take advantage of this sale. That's D A N N Y J O N E S, no spaces, at the letter I R E S T O R E dot com. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Give your hair and skin the upgrade they deserve so you can feel confident and refreshed.

• 18:59Danny Jones?

  Why did I never think of that? Those things are like the same size as urns.

• 19:06Speaker 03

  Yeah, so urns.

• 19:08Danny Jones?

  I wonder if they were used for that back then?

• 19:11Speaker 03

  Who knows? Actually, I have some idea of what they were used.

• 19:14Danny Jones?

  I wonder if they did any cremation in ancient Egypt?

• 19:17Speaker 03

  Not to my knowledge. I guess mummification was the go to.

• 19:20Danny Jones?

  Yeah, that's what I thought.

• 19:21Speaker 03

  Thing. And we know from studies that a lot of the ancient Egyptian vases were used for cosmetics. So cosmetics and specifically coal.

• 19:30Danny Jones?

  Maybe, but they pull, sorry to interrupt. I thought they pulled organs out before they did the mummy. Maybe they could shove the heart in one of those vases.

• 19:36Speaker 03

  Those are like canopic jars.

• 19:38Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 19:38Speaker 03

  So when you have a mummy or burial, it was a mummy, you know, organs were typically put in canopic jars. But if we talk about like hard stone vases, pre dynastic, those were primarily used for like ointments and cosmetics. Because some of them that I even, that I analyzed using x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, I was able to found traces of coal. And coal is this lead rich black substance they used for eyeshadow and whatnot. But kind of finishing to answer your question. So I bought a lot of this granite vases from the shops that make funerary implements.

• 20:19Speaker 03

  And shout out to Night Scarab, you know, he bought some, I think.

• 20:26Speaker 03

  One Onyx vase and one, um, should I forget the word, uh, the glass, volcanic glass, what's the word? Obsidian.

• 20:34Speaker 04

  Obsidian.

• 20:35Speaker 03

  Obsidian short glass that he shared scans with me. So there was, you know, a good sample of, uh, really hard stone vases there. And once again, what I realized is, uh, you know, the manufacturing quality isn't distinguishable, is indistinguishable between, you know, those eBay vases that were made on a lathe. Or in case of this, you know, granite finery vases, they were made on a mill. Because, uh, to turn them on, uh, to turn them on the outside, you use a lathe. But then, you know, if you need to hollow out, you use a mill.

• 21:08Speaker 04

  Mm-hmm.

• 21:10Speaker 03

  Uh, and the quality was indistinguishable. And, you know, how come I didn't find any of that at the, you know, Petri Museum? And ever since, uh, you know, I've been actually, you know, posting some of my findings on X and on my blog and, you know, people were going back and forth. So I went again to Petri Museum. So I've been there three times now. So I've been twice in May of last year and that information is published in my paper. And then I went again in December of, of last year. And I also went to, um, Manchester Museum.

• 21:48Speaker 03

  And, uh, by luck, a colleague of mine was able to go to the, uh, Pushkin Museum in Moscow in Russia that has a substantial Egyptian collection. And they scanned like 20 more vases from it. So all in all, we have, uh, like 50 or 60, you know, museum vase scans. And, uh, none of them are precise. So none, none of them are in a, you know, like nearly in the same ballpark of what you get, you know, when you buy a vase from eBay, you know, that's been turned on a lathe. And that to me, uh, is, you know, conclusive proof that, uh, you know, this so-called precise vases from private collections

• 22:31Speaker 03

  aren't, uh, of ancient Egyptian origin, just, just based on their, you know, manufacturing quality.

• 22:37Speaker 04

  Hmm.

• 22:37Speaker 03

  Because there is nothing in museum. That is like, like that. And when people say, "Well, you haven't seen all of them." And it's true, you know, I haven't scanned like every single in a vase in the world. But, you know, the research thing is statistics. Sure. And if we, you know, the reason the world functions is because we believe in statistics, right? So when you develop a drug, you know, it helps one out of, you know, a hundred people. But that's good enough, right? It's a proxy. Right. You have a million people sick and, you know, 1% is 10,000 people. It's a lot. So we know that statistic works. And if you like sample, sample and sample and you don't get any of this in like unusual

• 23:20Speaker 03

  objects in your sample, you know, they likely don't exist. And then the question becomes, you know, what are they? And I don't know if they were made like in modern times or they were made in 19th century. So the lathe and machining tools and our ability to work hard stone at, at very high quality and existed for at least, you know, 200 years. So I cannot tell, you know, whether those vases were made in modern time or in like 100 years ago. But I sure as heck know they weren't made in ancient Egypt, just because they're so different in their manufacturing quality. But that's, that's not maybe even, you know, the biggest argument.

• 24:03Speaker 03

  To me, it's, it's the biggest argument scientifically based on, on the quality, you know, on the manufacturing quality. But there is another, you know, very important observation that, you know, we made recently. And that has to do with the stone itself. For example, you know, pre-geneistic stone vases, they're made of predominantly of four stone types, you know, basalt is one, then you have your diorite and andesite and you have your, you know, brachia.

• 24:38Speaker 03

  And sometimes, you know, calcite. So maybe like five predominant stone types. And every like museum you go to British Museum, you know, Oxford, you know, Cambridge, you know, Met, in Boston Museum, it's in the same stone type, you know, four or five stone types. And that's how it was. And if you wanna, you know, read more about it, there is an excellent book by Barbara Aston. It's actually her PhD thesis. And her book is like 200 pages and she studied every, you know, hard stone vase in existence, pretty much.

• 25:14Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 25:15Speaker 03

  Yes, it's unbelievable.

• 25:16Danny Jones?

  What was her name again?

• 25:16Speaker 03

  Barbara Aston.

• 25:18Danny Jones?

  Barbara?

• 25:19Speaker 03

  Aston, yes.

• 25:20Danny Jones?

  Aston.

• 25:20Speaker 03

  Yes, and her book slash dissertation thesis is called Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels. And the amount of work she's done is just unbelievable because she cataloged over, you know, 1,000 vessels. So most of that book is a catalog. She says vessel so and so, material such and such, museum, specific place. So she cataloged all of them and out of like 200 or 300, she got permission to take stone samples that she studied under like electron microscope to figure out the stone type and where that stone came from. So that's like the go to resource for your stone vases.

• 26:01Speaker 03

  Very exhaustive exploration and she was able to establish where the stone came from, you know, in Egypt. So specific like quarry sites.

• 26:09Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 26:10Speaker 03

  And, you know, which vases are made of which stone and gives a complete catalog. And guess what? How many granite vases are in that catalog?

• 26:23Speaker 03

  Of 1,000?

• 26:24Danny Jones?

  Out of 1,000?

• 26:25Speaker 03

  Out of 1,000, how many granite vases are there?

• 26:30Danny Jones?

  Two hundred.

• 26:32Speaker 03

  One.

• 26:33Danny Jones?

  One?

• 26:34Speaker 03

  One. One. Yes.

• 26:39Speaker 03

  And that was a big shocker because, you know, Ben was, and the term OG vase, like original granite vase. And then, like, all over internet, it's OG vase, original granite vase. And then Matt Bell has this precise vessels and most of them are granite. And, you know, none of ancient Egyptian vessels are granite, save for one. And by granite, we mean Osman granite.

• 27:08Speaker 03

  Which is, you know, this characteristic, you know, pink granite that Egyptians used. And they use this Osman granite a lot for sarcophagy, for various sculptures, for collabs. But not so much for vases, because only one vase is known to exist that's made out of Osman granite. You know, that's documented by Barbara Aston in that book. And she says, yep, you know, only one, you know, Osman, you know, pink or red, you know, however you want to call it. Pink Osman granite, red Osman granite vase. And she was able to find in museum collections. And if you go like to online resources and you look for granite vases, you'll find some, but it's all mislabeled.

• 27:50Speaker 03

  It's not granite. It's some other type. It's either diorite or andesite or, or something else. Because those materials, you know, look similar, but when you look closer, you know, it's not granite. And this Osman granite has a very specific, very certain texture. It's like big splotches of black with pink in a felt spot around it. So it's very characteristic. You cannot really mess it up with anything else. And that's, you know, one thing, you know, Veronica, my lovely wife, has done. She took a lot of, of pictures of, of Osman, you know, granite objects from, you know, various museums and put them on her blog, like side by side. So you could see what the, you know, pattern is.

• 28:31Speaker 03

  And then, you know, you compare against an OG vase or against Matt Bell's vases that are, you know, granite. It's like entirely different pattern.

• 28:41Danny Jones?

  So, so just to clarify, out of 1,000 vases that Barbara analyzed, one out of 1,000 were Aswan granite.

• 28:49Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 28:49Danny Jones?

  Not, but others were granite in general?

• 28:52Speaker 03

  No.

• 28:52Danny Jones?

  No granite at all?

• 28:53Speaker 03

  No granite at all, no.

• 28:54Danny Jones?

  How many of Matt Bell's vases are Aswan granite?

• 28:59Speaker 03

  I

• 29:03Speaker 03

  don't think he has any Aswan granite at all.

• 29:05Danny Jones?

  None.

• 29:05Speaker 03

  He has a, you know, a few red granite, but it's not Aswan granite. You know, when I look at it, or when anybody look at it, and in fact, you know, you can take a picture of his vase, you know, versus Aswan granite, you see that the pattern is different. So that's another red flag. It's, it's red granite, all right, but it's actually Indian red granite.

• 29:24Danny Jones?

  Indian red granite?

• 29:24Speaker 03

  Yeah, that's what it looks to me.

• 29:26Danny Jones?

  Is it possible that any of the granite in his collection came from Egypt?

• 29:31Speaker 03

  You know, I'm not a geologist and I cannot speak in absolutes of that nature, but you know, when I look at his, you know, granite, red granite vessels, they look a lot like Indian, you know, granite to me, and I'll show you in just a second, although, you know, I cannot establish the variety for sure. What I can, I can say for sure, for sure, it's not Aswan granite, because it looks like very different. So, and, and to me, that's a dead giveaway, because, you know, ancient Egyptians, they, they just didn't use, you know, red granite or Aswan granite for stone vases. You know, they used it for sculptures, they used it for columns, they used it for sarcophagy, they used it for building blocks, they just didn't use it for vases. And that, that also...

• 30:15Danny Jones?

  Let me ask you, sorry.

• 30:16Speaker 03

  Sure, yeah.

• 30:17Danny Jones?

  This may be a very dumb question. What kind of granite is inside the Great Pyramid?

• 30:23Speaker 03

  Probably Aswan, yeah.

• 30:25Danny Jones?

  Can you confirm that, Steve?

• 30:26Speaker 03

  Yeah, I'm not entirely sure, but...

• 30:29Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 30:31Speaker 03

  So, and, and I think this stone choice makes sense, because, once again, if you read like Barbara Aston's book, or, you know, other publications, they trace how different types of stones were used, you know, throughout Egyptian history. So the, you know, oldest vessels are basalt, and then you get, you know, diorite, andesite, and andesite porphyry. It's, it's this beautiful, you know, black and white, you know, splatchy vases, that's like andesite porphyry, yeah.

• 31:00Danny Jones?

  Aswan red pink granite.

• 31:04Danny Jones?

  Sourced from quarries in Aswan.

• 31:06Speaker 03

  And then you get some calcite vessels too.

• 31:12Speaker 03

  And as time goes by, you know, different tastes. So then in like early dynastic Egypt, you know, glaze was all of the importance. And all of this, you know, bowls were made out of glaze and tens of thousands of them. You know, there was like massive manufacturing of really, you know, beautiful glaze bowls that you can see everywhere, you know, they're not pre dynastic, but they're early dynastic. And that towards, you know, later dynastic periods, the shift was to travertine, you know, which was incorrectly labeled labeled as alabaster, but it's travertine and some serpentine and some other stone types.

• 31:55Speaker 03

  So it's, it's like fashion, you know, they started with one stone types and, you know, switched to the next and, and ended up actually with metal and glass and fions. Because as technology progressed, you know, demand for stone vessels kind of dropped because in a metal implements looked more beautiful or the glass, you know, was exotic or fions was exotic and it makes sense. Like we don't drive steam cars, right? So even gas engines are, you know, getting out of fashion, we're getting into towards electric and who knows, maybe 10 years from now will be fusion cars. That, that all makes sense, but kind of returning to the authenticity subject.

• 32:37Speaker 03

  So the granite, you know, wasn't used and besides, that's not an Aswan granite, you know, upon my examination.

• 32:43Danny Jones?

  Amanita misceria is the third most popular microdose psychoactive in the USA with three million people reportedly using it. That's more than LSD or DMT, but there's a wave of dangerous gas station fakes out there and who knows how many people are getting cheated out of the real deal. Amentara is the complete opposite of all those scams and that's why I only trust Amentara. I never would have touched Amanita if it weren't for Amentara. They are the trusted Amanita supplier in the U.S. Totally legal, no synthetics and. 55,000 happy customers. Small doses put you in a calm, focused, almost flow state headspace. While medium doses is more like a jolly alcohol alternative. Great for sleep and dreams. Some people even call it nature's wine. I take a few of these capsules most days after work,

• 33:28Danny Jones?

  and it helps me get rid of all the stress from the workday and be more engaged and in the moment with my family. Imagine being in a stress-filled environment and not feeling triggered. That's what Amanita does for me. They are the largest Amanita miscaria supplier in the US. Totally legal, ethically sourced, and lab-tested. They have the largest Amanita miscaria selection from oils to capsules, chocolates, and the raw caps. It's not just a store or a single product. These guys are helping pave the way for a new legal medicinal psychoactive mushroom in the US, and I'm happy to be a part of it. Go to amentara.com/go/dj and use the code DJ22 for 22% off your first order. That's spelled A-M-E-N-T-A-R-A dot com slash go slash DJ

• 34:13Danny Jones?

  and use the code DJ22 for 22% off your first order.

• 34:18Speaker 03

  And something that even Matt agreed with me, that the surface of this so-called most precise vase is pristine. There is not a nick, not a scratch. And it just strains credulity that after 5,000 or 6,000 years,

• 34:33Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 34:34Speaker 03

  They're just so pristine. And all of the vases and collections are just... I mean, in museums, I don't want to say terrible looking, but they show the age. There is weathering, and there is damage, and a bunch of imperfections. You have no doubt, looking at an old thing, just because it's so worn. And no wonder. They've been traded so much, they spend so much in the sand. Sure, they show their age. But, you want to ask a question?

• 35:07Danny Jones?

  No, I have so many questions running through my head right now.

• 35:10Speaker 03

  Well, one other thing I'm going to say, and then you can ask questions. I think a popular theory was, and the one that Dan from The Dunking

• 35:23Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 35:24Speaker 03

  Kind of dwelled upon considerably. And for that matter, Ben also said...

• 35:33Speaker 03

  That all of the best objects were, you know, given by Petri to private collectors.

• 35:38Danny Jones?

  That's Ben Van Kirkwick and Dan from Dedunking said all of the most precise bases were given away by the Petri Museum to private collectors.

• 35:47Speaker 03

  By Petri himself to private collectors.

• 35:49Danny Jones?

  Oh, by Flinders Petri.

• 35:50Speaker 03

  Right, yes. And that's kind of a popular theory that's, you know, discussed by

• 35:55Danny Jones?

  Is there any evidence of this?

• 35:56Speaker 03

  Exactly my point. Because of my work that, you know, received good reviews, the director of Petri Museum helped me a little bit, you know, with this question. So she directed me towards, you know, valuable resources that, you know, contained in the notes and publications on how, you know, the artifacts trickle down from, let's say, the excavation site to museums and elsewhere. And there is an invaluable book called Scattered Finds.

• 36:38Speaker 03

  I think this book was written by, I believe, one of the curators of the Petri Museum, which documents, you know, the process of how excavation took place and then how these objects were inventoried and moved around and ended up being scattered, but not irregularly or unaccountably, but rather how Petri collection formed the core that was split and shared among other museums and institutions. So, you know, Petri had incredible integrity, along with all of the people he worked with. And all of the objects were accounted for, you know, there is a record for everything.

• 37:22Speaker 03

  And you can go to the archive and you will find

• 37:26Danny Jones?

  There's a paper trail.

• 37:27Speaker 03

  Right, there is a paper trail. Yeah, and the deal was, the expeditions were sponsored, obviously. You know, I mean, you cannot go to an expedition without having sponsors, you know, backers. And those sponsors and backers were primarily other institutions, like, you know, Boston Museum of Fine Art or some other archaeological society.

• 37:48Speaker 03

  There were private patrons also, but at the end.

• 37:51Danny Jones?

  And what year are we talking this was done?

• 37:53Speaker 03

  Beginning of the 20th century, maybe late 19th century, early 20th century.

• 37:57Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 37:57Speaker 03

  You know, somewhere in that ballpark. And the agreement was that backers, you know, get portion of the collection. And the backers were other institutions, other museums, other universities. So that's how you have, you know, collection of the British Museum. That's why you have Ashmolean. That's why you have, you know, Manchester. That's why you have, you know, collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. So all of those places received, you know, portions of the Petrie collection.

• 38:25Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 38:27Speaker 03

  We weren't able to find any records of objects, you know, going to private collectors like off the books. There were a lot of objects given away, but those were like Shaktis. And if you know, Shaktis are a little like blue figurines that were so numerous, they weren't even considered valuables.

• 38:47Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 38:48Speaker 03

  Valuable and there were like thousands of them, you know, given as gifts for subscribers. And subscriber were someone, you know, who contributed money to this, you know, foundation or fund that, you know, supported, you know, Petries or their archaeology explorations. And as a token of appreciation, they would, you know, get the Shaktis. So there is no record of, you know, I wasn't able to find any record of Petrie giving away, you know, just objects indiscriminately. And if he did, as I said, it went to a museum.

• 39:20Danny Jones?

  Right. Well, it's possible some of the, I mean, it could be possible that some of the big institutions that funded the excavations could have had some big shots behind it that were like, hey, we're going to fund this, but, you know, you got to pay us a tax, something like that.

• 39:33Speaker 03

  Well, I cannot comment on that, but what I can say is this.

• 39:42Danny Jones?

  I mean, we don't have any evidence for it, but you can't rule it out.

• 39:44Speaker 03

  The stone vessels weren't even considered like valuable artifacts.

• 39:49Danny Jones?

  Oh, really? And also in the 1800s, they had the technology to measure this stuff, see how precise it was.

• 39:54Speaker 03

  That's exactly another point. I'm glad you're making it, but let me finish kind of the first point. So the stone vessels weren't even considered like valuable. And frankly, until I guess Ben started popularizing them, I don't think anybody cared much about them because, you know, pottery and stone vessels look very similar, you know, pot is a pot, you know, what is so unique about it? So the popular objects of the time were mummies. So everybody wanted to have a mummy. So when Petrie or the archaeologists, you know, were giving up, you know, the finds, the squabbles were about mummies. And this book that I mentioned has a story where Australian, you know, museum received their share of finds.

• 40:36Speaker 03

  And there were no mummies in it and there were no like sarcophagi or bigger objects. And they were like very upset. They said, you know, what kind of trash you send us, you know, you send us the shards and pots and whatnot. You know, where is the real stuff? So everybody wanted to have mummies and, you know, big objects.

• 40:53Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 40:53Speaker 03

  So pots, nobody cared about. And, uh, and the other point is I myself personally, when I went, you know, to Petrie Museum for the first time to study. I, I bought the vessels, stone vessels by looking at the pictures on the museum because I had to say which ones I wanted to study. So I bought them and I divided them in two categories. One I called precise and the other called imprecise. Because when I went, I had a theory in my mind that, you know, Ben was right all along and there were like two industries. One was making precise objects and the one.

• 41:30Danny Jones?

  That was your, your, your mindset when you went into this?

• 41:32Speaker 03

  Yes. I, I bought in, in Ben's narrative a hundred percent that, you know, tale of two industries. And the bad ones are really handmade by Egyptians and, you know, the precise ones.

• 41:45Danny Jones?

  Basically for, for folks that are trying to, that are listening to this, that Ben, Ben did a series of videos on ancient Egypt and some of the stones and the artifacts that come out of ancient Egypt. And basically the story is that the older you get, the more precise stuff is. And the, and the more recent you get, the closer you get to, you know, year zero, the more.

• 42:09Danny Jones?

  More rudimentary and crude the stuff becomes, right? And less precise the stuff becomes. So the idea is that maybe there was some sort of a technology prehistory that we're not aware of, that we have no evidence for, that was responsible for some of this precision stonework, like the pyramids and the vases and all that stuff. I mean, you have those giant circular saw blade cuts in those big rocks. It's like, what the fuck is this? Maybe there was some lost industrial civilization that could explain this.

• 42:38Speaker 03

  Yeah, and I really, you know, believe that because it's a fascinating idea. And it goes against the grain. And I gotta give Ben credit. He's an excellent storyteller. You know, he's an inspirational figure, I'd say, and a great storyteller. And when he presents in his stories, it's very compelling. So I bought it like a hook and sinker, you know?

• 42:58Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 42:59Speaker 03

  So I went

• 43:00Danny Jones?

  Me too.

• 43:01Speaker 03

  To the museum with the idea that I'm gonna prove his theory. And that's why I looked. When I looked at the pictures, I saw them like in two bins.

• 43:11Danny Jones?

  And by the way, I still buy it. I'm not, I'm, I still think that he's dead on with that. Even if the vases are, are moderns, the precision ones are moderns. There's still a lot of stuff. There's still a lot of evidence that there was some lost industrial technology that we're not aware of.

• 43:26Speaker 03

  I would say, you know, the, we shouldn't conflate the subject of vases, you know, with the rest of it.

• 43:33Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 43:33Speaker 03

  Because a lot of people who, you know, get upset, you know, with my work, they say, oh, you know, you say that the pyramids were, you know, built by hand.

• 43:42Danny Jones?

  We're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

• 43:44Speaker 03

  Yeah, I'm saying, no, you cannot generalize to that extent. I'm just saying vases aren't it. You know, vases are handmade. There is nothing special about them.

• 43:54Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 43:55Speaker 03

  But I, I would love to study sarcophaging, you know, to venture my opinion. And I'd like to study, you know, the, the pyramids and some Assyrian, you know, some other artifacts.

• 44:05Danny Jones?

  I want somebody to study that damn labyrinth.

• 44:07Speaker 03

  Yeah. Yeah, so my point is, in order to answer a question, you gotta really study it. Because what appears on the surface utterly, you know, may utterly deceive you. And that's how, when I looked at the pictures of the vases and like categorized them into categories. And I couldn't believe it, that you know, when I scanned these objects and I analyzed them, that both were of the same quality. And I say, but how come, you know, when I look, this vase looks fine and this vase looks crooked, but you know, when I analyze it, it's the same quality. And that's, you know, how human eye perceives. If the surface is like smooth and not so much eroded, you think, oh, you know, this is a nice looking object.

• 44:48Speaker 04

  Right.

• 44:48Speaker 03

  But at the same time, you can have a much more like perfectly made object that's surfaces a bit, you know, weathered. Or even, you know, the color or texture of the surface is different and it doesn't look nearly as fine. Or it might have some features about it that kind of throw you off. But computer is, you know, blind to the nuances of aesthetics. And the computer just gives you numbers. And I was blown away to see that, you know, going by eye, I couldn't really tell, you know, which object was precise and which wasn't. They were all, you know, imprecise to the same extent. You know, granted, you know, some, you know, Petri museum objects were better made than others. And that happens all the time when you do, you know, things by hand.

• 45:31Speaker 03

  So some pieces turn out great, some not so. But in the end, you get the statistical distribution, you know, the bell curve. And as long as everything fits on the bell curve, there is no problem, but you'll have a few objects outliers. Well, not exactly outliers, but you know, as the bell curve goes, you have some objects on the front and some objects in the back.

• 45:52Speaker 04

  Right.

• 45:53Speaker 03

  And these are like exceptional pieces of craftsmanship and these are like poor pieces of craftsmanship. But it feeds the curve, you know, feeds the statistical distribution. And most of them, like 90% are somewhere in the middle. But occasionally you get an exceptional piece when everything was lucky, you know, the artisan was lucky, the conditions were right and it turned out to be, you know, more perfect than the rest. But overall, basically you cannot tell just by eyeballing an object how well it's made. You have to analyze it with a 3D scanner and do the number crunch in order to tell, let's say, a contemporary Laster object from a similarly looking handmade object. You just, you know, cannot tell.

• 46:36Speaker 03

  And that's why even if collectors were trying to steal the most precise objects, you know, from Petri, you know, back then, when he was excavating them, he wouldn't be able to do it. Just because they all look about the same.

• 46:49Speaker 04

  Right.

• 46:52Danny Jones?

  How did it make you feel when you when you saw the data come through and analyzed it?

• 46:58Speaker 03

  Couldn't believe it because as I said, I went to Petri Museum and it was a certain mindset. So when I got the scans and the results were not what I expected, I was like, what the hell? I was looking for a mistake because the first thing, you know, what was wrong? You know, how did I ended up with this data? But you know, when I scanned my object, I also scanned a reference standard. And that's another thing that, let's say, non scientists often overlook is whenever you do any kind of measurement, you know, how do you know that your measurement is correct? So you have to measure a standard. And in case of, you know, 3D scanning, you have to 3D scan a reference sphere. And it's a sphere of known diameter and known quality, right?

• 47:44Speaker 03

  And I scanned that sphere like four times throughout my scanning process. And every time it came out perfect. So I know my scanner was working right because every time I scanned the goddamn sphere, it gave me the perfect one inch circle. And I included the data, it was my data set, so anybody can download and see what the sphere looks like. So I know my scanner was working right. So I thought, okay, well, maybe there is an error in my code. So I spent like two months rewriting my code, my analysis code. So every morning I would get up like at six in the morning because I couldn't sleep. You know, I really couldn't sleep. So I would get up in the morning, not drinking coffee, not taking shower, not, you know, dressing in my boxer shirts, sitting on my couch, you know, rewriting the goddamn code.

• 48:27Speaker 03

  And it took me two months to do it and in the end I couldn't find an error. And in the end, you know, my results are kind of cleared in the sense that the signal became obvious that the scans are correct. And what they're showing me that these objects are, you know, handmade and there is, you know, nothing. Unique about them from the standpoint of like lost ancient CNC machining technology. They are handmade, you know, consistent with with the same hand process Egyptians pursue now when they make this travertine and calcite vases for tourists. And utterly inconsistent with the turning on a lathe or milling that we find in this eBay vases.

• 49:10Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 49:11Speaker 03

  Or precise vases from Matt Bell's collection. So gradually I started to accept this because I already started writing a paper. Because I wanted the contents of my nature paper to be different. I wanted it to say, hey, I found lost ancient technology. So I already wrote a paper like that. So I had to discard it and start writing a new paper, the one that ended up publishing. So it took me like a while to adjust to the facts and make peace with them. Because they were entirely at odds with what Ben was led us to believe.

• 49:47Danny Jones?

  It's amazing how hard that is for us, huh?

• 49:49Speaker 03

  Yeah, it is. And that's why famous Conan Doyle quote attributed to Sherlock Holmes. When you start an investigation, you should never have a theory. Because then you invariably make facts, bend facts to fit the theory.

• 50:07Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 50:08Speaker 03

  I was lucky in the sense that I was able not to fall into the same fallacy. And when I saw the facts that contradict my theory, I didn't throw out the facts. I threw out the theory. And I arrived at what I believe a correct theory is. But psychologically, it's difficult. And of course, Matt wasn't too happy to see me change, do a 180 on his precise vases. So I think it was hard on him too, especially since I've been like three times on his show. And every time we thought this was lost ancient technology. And then I come out and say, well, I don't think it was.

• 50:51Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 50:52Speaker 03

  So I think it was hard on him too. I don't know where he stands now, but.

• 50:59Speaker 03

  To me, it's it's pretty clear. But there was a an additional, I guess, point I wanted to address, and that's why I brought, you know, all of this props here with me.

• 51:10Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 51:11Speaker 03

  A lot of people, and once again, because Ben was saying it so many times, that, you know, you can't make these today out of granite.

• 51:19Danny Jones?

  Yeah, that's right, right.

• 51:22Speaker 03

  And I heard this, you know, so many times.

• 51:24Danny Jones?

  Does he still say that? Is that still his position?

• 51:27Speaker 03

  Uh, as of like a few months ago, probably, but, you know, it's been a while since we talked, so I don't know what what his views are now.

• 51:35Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 51:35Speaker 03

  And I and frankly, I'm I was hoping that he would change his views in view of the facts that I uncover and present. Uh, but I don't know, you know, where he stands. Uh, maybe you can ask him.

• 51:45Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 51:46Speaker 03

  But

• 51:46Danny Jones?

  By the way, Ben, the one who connected us in the first place.

• 51:48Speaker 03

  Yes, so, you know, thank you, Ben, obviously, for connecting and, uh, you know, he's a friend. I love him to death, but I'll I'll cite, you know, the famous uh, Latin saying, you know, Plato is my friend, but the truth is better friend. So, you know, Ben is my friend, but truth is more dear to me. So I'm gonna speak my mind, uh, you know, honestly and truthfully. Um,

• 52:12Speaker 03

  so there was a lot said, you know, by him and others that this precise vases are like airspace precision. We cannot make them today.

• 52:19Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 52:20Speaker 03

  You know.

• 52:21Danny Jones?

  Chris Dunn was part of that.

• 52:22Speaker 03

  Dunn, anybody. So I was saying, you know, what a pardon my French bullshit, so let me make them.

• 52:30Speaker 03

  So I went to like a few shops in China. Of course, you know, if when you wanna make something, you know, you you go to China, right?

• 52:37Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 52:38Speaker 03

  Probably would have been smarter and and better going to places in America, but you know, you have to go to an artist. Because nobody typically works on hard stone. Because, as I said, it requires like diamond, diamond tip tools.

• 52:52Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 52:52Speaker 03

  And it's difficult and because shit you buy on eBay is like ten, twenty dollars. And how you're gonna compete if you spend like twenty or thirty hours making something out of granite? And you have to compete with this beautiful Pakistani Onyx vase that's like five dollars retail. You can't. So nobody wants to do it unless you say, well, here's ten thousand dollars, you know, do it. I didn't have ten thousand dollars, so I started like a post on X and said, hey, I'm gonna make these vases out of granite. So who's gonna pitch in a thousand bucks? If you give me a thousand bucks, I'll give you a vase.

• 53:35Speaker 03

  So four people fortunately pitched in and that gave me a budget to work with. So I went to a shop in China and I said, can you make this? And they said, sure. So I sent them drawings. So I actually took one of the vase from the Petri collection that I scanned and I asked IKEA designer, can you just make an idealized version of it that I can send to a shop to get a CAD drawing? And that's what I did. And I sent them to the shop and they made me a few vases and I brought them here. So here is one. This is one that you had made in China? Yes, and here is another, right? So I had two more, but I... And what is this material? Granite.

• 54:20Speaker 03

  So this is black granite? This is black granite? And this is red granite. Yes. And you can see this vase has all of the attributes of the precise vase. It has lug handles that people said cannot be made. It has a narrow neck that people say cannot be made. And it's hollowed out on the inside. So inside is a lot larger than the outside. The inside also feels similar to the other vases I've found. Right, because it's machining marks. And in fact, I also have videos of how they were made and I've sent some to Steve and maybe when this episode airs, he will include a few of those, yeah. And I have a lot to say about it, but basically...

• 55:05Speaker 03

  What kind of granite is this, red? This is red granite, right. And this is Indian. Yeah, I'm actually asking which granite this is. And this looks pretty similar to what Matt's vases look. And they basically turn the outside on a lathe and then there is this rim left where the lug handles are. And then they manually shave them off with an angle grinder. And the inside, they use a

• 55:31Danny Jones?

  So they shave, so this is all round?

• 55:34Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 55:34Danny Jones?

  And then they shave off here?

• 55:36Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 55:37Danny Jones?

  To make these pop out?

• 55:38Speaker 03

  Exactly. And you can tell-

• 55:40Danny Jones?

  You can't feel it, really?

• 55:41Speaker 03

  No, because it's good work.

• 55:43Danny Jones?

  I'm sure you can see it on the heat map, but...

• 55:44Speaker 03

  Yes. Yeah, and obviously, yeah, and that's how it was hollowed out. That's the rough hollowing out, and then they did the fine hollowing out on the lathe.

• 55:52Danny Jones?

  Mm-hmm.

• 55:53Speaker 03

  So the rough, they used this cutter, and the, you know, more fine one, they did on the lathe.

• 55:58Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 55:58Speaker 03

  And that's the polishing.

• 56:01Speaker 03

  Yeah, and frankly-

• 56:02Danny Jones?

  And how precise?

• 56:04Speaker 03

  Excellent question. But, um, before I proceed, I wanna talk about logistics a little bit.

• 56:10Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 56:11Speaker 03

  So, it's not really expensive to make this. You know, what is really difficult is, uh, going back and forth. So I'm here in America, and I'm talking to a girl who is an intermediary. And English is not a native language for her, and Chinese is not a language for me. And then there is a time difference, and then she relays this information to the, you know, guys who make them. So we have me, her, maybe somebody else, and then guys, and a lot of information gets lost.

• 56:40Danny Jones?

  Telephone game.

• 56:41Speaker 03

  Yeah, basically. So, management was difficult. So making this for them wasn't. But making them, you know, the way I want them, was difficult because either I couldn't explain it, or, you know, they couldn't communicate it, you know, by jumping through the steps. And when they do something, uh, I wasn't there standing, you know? No, and that's not what I want. You know, it's like, kinda like, remote work. You know, work with engineers remotely, even when we speak the same language. It's not the same when you're, like, all in the same room. So that was, like, the only challenge. And that's why, you know, some of the vases don't quite look, you know, the way I want them to look. It's just because it was like an impossible game of, like, tag to try to explain and then adjust or adjust. But anyway.

• 57:26Speaker 03

  So I scanned these vases, and I'm going to publish the scans shortly. And they're practically distinguishable from the precise vases in Matt Bell's collection.

• 57:36Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 57:37Speaker 03

  Yes, yes. And that was, uh, you know, the objective. I wanted them to be of the same quality. And, you know, some are better and some are a little worse.

• 57:46Danny Jones?

  I see that one in the back.

• 57:48Speaker 03

  Yes, and that's another story. That's the spinner.

• 57:51Danny Jones?

  This is the spinner.

• 57:52Speaker 03

  Right, and you can.

• 57:53Danny Jones?

  Oh yeah, because all of Matt's ones were rounded bottoms.

• 57:56Speaker 03

  Well, some were, and you can actually, you know.

• 57:58Danny Jones?

  Yeah, a lot of them were, right.

• 57:59Speaker 03

  And you see it spins, spins just fine. Yeah. Spins no problem. And because that's another people we're saying, I think like, uh, was this Brighton side guy, Chris Corseti?

• 58:13Danny Jones?

  Sorry?

• 58:14Speaker 03

  Corseti?

• 58:15Danny Jones?

  Oh yeah, Jimmy Corseti.

• 58:16Speaker 03

  Jimmy Corseti, sorry. Yeah, he kinda pointed out, so you can't make this. Well, you know, I made this and it spins.

• 58:22Danny Jones?

  Holy shit, man.

• 58:24Speaker 03

  But that's not it. Uh, check this out. Uh, can you see? The light shining through?

• 58:30Danny Jones?

  Oh, Steve, you wanna hit the lights? Or if you, we don't have to, but it might be fun.

• 58:35Speaker 03

  Oh, you can see it.

• 58:38Speaker 03

  I don't know.

• 58:38Danny Jones?

  Steve's gonna kill the lights so we can get a really good shot of this.

• 58:44Speaker 03

  I'll let you play with it. Just, uh,

• 58:47Speaker 03

  just shine on the side and you can see. You can actually.

• 58:52Danny Jones?

  Can you see it?

• 58:52Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 58:54Danny Jones?

  So we did this, when Matt came on the show, we did this with his vases and he was doing this too.

• 59:00Speaker 03

  So you can actually shine the light through because there is quartz.

• 59:03Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 59:04Speaker 03

  And these are like thin enough to where it shines through. And this is not like a particularly bright light. Yeah, and there is a, an interesting thing about the spinner vases. So when I ask them, I actually like this better than this. But, you know, when you eyeball them, you know, which, which one do you think is more precise?

• 59:25Danny Jones?

  All of these?

• 59:26Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 59:30Speaker 03

  Let's see, how your eyesight? Which, which do you think is like more precise?

• 59:36Danny Jones?

  I mean,

• 59:37Speaker 03

  circularity?

• 59:37Danny Jones?

  My brain wants to tell me the shiny one is the most precise.

• 59:43Speaker 03

  And what would be your second one?

• 59:46Danny Jones?

  The red one, probably.

• 59:47Speaker 03

  Good, yes. Your eyesight is really good.

• 59:51Speaker 03

  You, you got it, yeah. So this is-

• 59:52Danny Jones?

  I got it?

• 59:52Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 59:53Danny Jones?

  Oh, wow.

• 59:53Speaker 03

  This is more precise than this one. And these are less precise. And the reason being, you know, when you look at the videos, they actually cheated a little bit. I asked them like to turn the whole thing, but instead they, there was like a big foot in here-

• 1:00:10Danny Jones?

  Oh, really?

• 1:00:11Speaker 03

  -grounded manually. So this is the angle grinder as opposed to turning on the lathe. And this section, you know, they also ground, you know, with the angle grinder. And you can see, see that. Oh, sorry. So, yeah. You see, the, the foot is pretty large. So those are areas that they messed up, uh, because it's not like machine work.

• 1:00:32Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 1:00:32Speaker 03

  Semi-hand work. And then the end of the day, you know, this vase looks, uh, in quality, you know, pretty similar what you end up with the vases from Petri Museum.

• 1:00:43Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 1:00:44Speaker 03

  Yes, yes. So this, uh, quality fell short of, of the machine work like this too. Like this too made, you know, the machine work quality like 100%. Because these were like mostly turned and the lock handles are fairly small and they did a better job at polishing them. So with this, it was so hard to explain to them what I wanted. To where they said, "Ah, just screw it." And they used angle grinder for most of the work. And that's kind of the result that, that you see. And I'm like, "Oh, God, do I go through another round of management trying them to say, "No, just turn everything on the lathe and, and polish it better." You know, I might.

• 1:01:22Danny Jones?

  Is there another way they could do this more, even more precisely? Like, like with a, with a CNC machine or something?

• 1:01:28Speaker 03

  Yes, they can. And I asked, you know, can you do that? And they say, sure. You know, would you order a hundred? You know, if I order a hundred.

• 1:01:36Danny Jones?

  How much would that cost?

• 1:01:37Speaker 03

  Uh, probably will cost, uh, like 20 grand, maybe?

• 1:01:42Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:01:43Speaker 03

  Yeah, because I think if I do a hundred, then each one would, would cost about 200 bucks.

• 1:01:47Danny Jones?

  All right, let's think about it. $20,000, we get 100 vases. We sell each vase for $50,000.

• 1:01:53Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:01:54Danny Jones?

  How, what's the profit?

• 1:01:55Speaker 03

  Yeah, I mean, obviously you can make this work. And in fact, what I'm going to say, if, if you want a vase like this made, you know, you can still, you know, donate a thousand bucks.

• 1:02:04Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:02:04Speaker 03

  And I will still, you know, make one for you. Um, because I mean, I, if nothing else, I fell in love with stone vessels. So that's why I have like a hundred of them now, you know, they're all modern.

• 1:02:17Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:02:17Speaker 03

  I, I do, I did end up collecting some, you know, genuine too. But I mostly found that I am like a vase junkie. I just like the shape and it was kind of fun to have this made. But, uh, I was astounded that you can actually, you know, shine the light through, how thin, you know, the walls were. On the black, you can't do it because, you know, the crystals aren't as, as big. But on this one.

• 1:02:42Danny Jones?

  What about those really tiny ones like this?

• 1:02:46Speaker 03

  Yeah, I mean, you can do it.

• 1:02:48Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:02:49Speaker 03

  In fact, um, you know, the machine shop that makes parts for me for, um, for the, um, for my fusion project.

• 1:02:55Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 1:02:56Speaker 03

  You know, they have a CNC mill that, you know, we can use to make this. And it's currently in disrepair. And the guy said, well, you know, you fix the mill for me. You know, I'll make some of this for you. So I said, all right, you know, you captured my interest. I'll help you, you know, fix the mill. So we can make them here as opposed to in China. And I don't have to, you know, jump through the hoops and, and play this, uh, you know, broken phone.

• 1:03:18Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:03:19Speaker 03

  Trying to explain what we need. Besides, you know, I'll just give you a CNC, you know, drawing.

• 1:03:24Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:03:25Speaker 03

  And we can just program it into the machine and it will grind everything perfectly.

• 1:03:28Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 1:03:28Speaker 03

  And, and there is no problem for the modern industry because think. About machine tools, you know, cutters, you know, end mills and whatnot.

• 1:03:37Danny Jones?

  Uh huh.

• 1:03:38Speaker 03

  You know, they they don't grow from the ground, you know, they don't fall from the sky. They are machined and and this guy, he can machine, you know, tool steel. No problem. And how you do it? You have, you know, diamond tip cutters. And and as as you know, the flutes on on the cutters are elaborate, you know, there is like complex shape to it and and whatnot. So none of that is problematic, you know, for a CNC and you use diamond tip tools to do it.

• 1:04:04Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:04:04Speaker 03

  So it's just, you know, the approach I took, uh, it's ended up being like semi machined, like half of it, you know, was turned and the rest, you know, was machined with an angle grinder. And then this, you know, as I said, they turned out to be the same quality as Matt's, you know, most precise pieces. And, you know, these, in the interest of full disclosure and honesty, aren't as precise, but you know, when you look at the manufacturing process, you know, I I saw where they didn't follow my instructions. But heck, you know, they're balanced, they spin and you can shine the light through it.

• 1:04:34Danny Jones?

  Yeah, that's fascinating, man.

• 1:04:36Speaker 03

  We can absolutely make them today. And this looks pretty much, you know, like Matt's spinner. And that's where I got the inspiration from.

• 1:04:43Danny Jones?

  The regular season is wrapped and the NBA playoffs are finally here. And there's no better way to get in on the action than PrizePicks, a preferred partner of the NBA. And right now, if you pick live squares during the NBA playoffs, you can win a trip for two to the NBA Finals. To enter, just make a $5 lineup with at least one live NBA player pick during any part of the 2026 NBA playoffs. Live player picks are picks made after a game is already in progress. I love how simple this app is. You open the app, you pick more or less on your player projections, you build a lineup in under a minute, and then suddenly the game is way more fun to watch. No draft, no season long commitment, just daily fantasy whenever you want to play. And yes, PrizePicks is available in all 50 states.

• 1:05:27Danny Jones?

  The early payout is probably my favorite and most used feature. If your player gets off to a hot start, you now have the option to cash out your winnings before the game even ends. That kind of flexibility during the playoffs is huge. Download the PrizePicks app today and use the code DANNY to get $50 in lineups. After you play your first $5 lineup. That's code D A N N Y to get 50 bucks in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. PrizePix, a preferred partner of the NBA. So let me ask you this, the vases that we know were made in predynastic Egypt, would it have been possible to do those with the tools that we attribute to them?

• 1:06:03Speaker 03

  Yes, and here's the interesting, like really interesting story behind it.

• 1:06:10Speaker 03

  I would say it goes like this. On my third visit to Petri Museum, I actually looked at some of the unfinished vases. And they had a couple, and I actually asked one that I photographed. I think it was diorite, maybe like an unfinished vase. And you could see, and if you go like for their catalog, you will see all of the manufacturing steps because it's a large collection, like thousands of objects. And in that thousand of objects, there are some vases that were started but not finished. And by started, you mean an artisan like with a chisel gives the vase its initial rough shape. So basically sculpts it with all of the handles, with all of the like essential parts, but it's not smooth, it's rough.

• 1:06:55Speaker 03

  And there are plenty of, or plenty examples like this in Petri collection. The one that I photographed was the vessel that already was in the, in some stages of smoothing, polishing. And I am actually writing a new paper on reconstructing, you know, the technology. And I think how it went is after the object was chiselled and chipped and sculpted, it was mounted like on a shaft and it was submerged into a sand slurry, like abrasive sand.

• 1:07:31Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:07:32Speaker 03

  And then it was rotated.

• 1:07:35Speaker 03

  And the reason I believe this is the case is when analyzed, when analyzed the skins, I clearly see that the outer surface of the vase, of the predynastic vase, was shaped by rotation of the vessel itself. It's uh, it's like glaring, you know, from the data.

• 1:07:54Danny Jones?

  Interesting.

• 1:07:55Speaker 03

  Because the, yes, that's the unfinished object. And um, the reason I know that the entire vase was rotated is because concentricity is excellent, but circularity is poor. And the thing is, once you submerge this entire object in abrasive slurry, so it's wet sand basically, and rotated, you know, the longer you rotate it, the more round it will become. It's like stones on the beach, like pebbles on the beach. You know, just naturally, sand and water gives everything a round shape. So you start with a random shape, but this uh, natural grinding gives you round shapes. So the more you rotate it, so the rotation here was abandoned, you know, midway.

• 1:08:37Speaker 03

  And you see how the handles were uh, like smoothed out.

• 1:08:41Danny Jones?

  Yep.

• 1:08:41Speaker 03

  Because that's what happens, you know, when you turn the thing. And I think, you know, that's, that's what they did. They turned it and I think the objects got really hot in the process. Because, once again.

• 1:08:51Danny Jones?

  So that's what aspom granite looks like?

• 1:08:53Speaker 03

  No, that's, that's diorite.

• 1:08:54Danny Jones?

  Oh, diorite, okay.

• 1:08:55Speaker 03

  Yeah, aspom granite looks similar to this, but it's got like big splashes uh,

• 1:09:00Danny Jones?

  Got it.

• 1:09:01Speaker 03

  of, of black in it. Uh, so when you rotate it like in a slurry, it gets hot. And what Barbara observed in her dissertation, she says, all the samples she ran through electron microscope, she says that the chemical composition of stone was altered. Altered by presence of heat and water.

• 1:09:25Speaker 03

  That's what she observed. It wasn't like a virgin stone. So the stone was altered by heat and water. And when I read this, I said, but of course, this is what's going to happen if you dip this into sand, wet sand and rotate it, it's going to get wet, it's going to get hot. And the surface is going to receive this glaze. So most preternastic Egyptian vessels, at least in the basalt ones and the right ones, they have this glaze on top, which you don't know what it is, but it's the same freaking stone. It's just been chemically altered by heat and water. And I submit in the process of, this is abrasion basically, right?

• 1:10:07Speaker 03

  In the process of abrasion, and this is a lapidary technology where this thing is rotated. And of course, once it's done, they would handwork the handles to define them better. And you just use grinding stones for that. And I was able to identify a bunch of grinding stones too, in what I think were grinding stones in the Peter collection. And I posted some on my blog. More interesting is how did they do the inside, right? So that's more interesting because what does my analysis tell me? My analysis tells me that the outer surface, the whole object was rotated. But the inner surface, they used a grinder tool that was rotated. And it's also very clear from the data that I published is because

• 1:10:53Speaker 03

  roundness is very good, but concentricity is poor. And this happens when you have a tool, like a milling bit, boring bit, that rotates and gives you nice round cuts. But you move it, and this cut is here, this cut is there, they're not like coaxial.

• 1:11:12Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:11:13Speaker 03

  And that's the thing I see on all preternastic vessels. So none of them like a perfectly straight inner part. It's this way, that way. Even a vase that looked like you could do just a core drill, wasn't done through a core drill. It was done with this grinding bit, which I think was a mace head. So there is this, a lot of this, you know, mace heads that, you know, were fit. And that was like Matt Bell's observation, actually, when we were discussing. He says, oh, I think that, that foot, because this was, was clamped and there was a foot here that was, you know, cut off. And it looks exactly like mace head. And when he said that, I thought, you got it, you know, I think that's the mace head they used.

• 1:11:55Speaker 03

  But I think they also used it for grinding the inside because it's, it has the perfect shape off of the boring bit. And I found a few of these boring bits in Petrie collection in Manchester Museum. And I published them on my blog. I see, you know, they have this elongated, some have this elongated shapes. And that what you need to introduce it vertically, you know, then you rotate it horizontally. Because then the neck is narrow. So you put it vertically and then you rotate it. And then it's on a shaft and you rotate the shaft. And that's how they hollowed it out. And the other interesting part is I actually, I speculate, I don't believe it was manual labor.

• 1:12:39Speaker 03

  I believe they used some sort of automation for it. And it's actually very well established that they used bow drilling. And in bow drilling, you have a shaft and you have like a leather strapping that goes around the shaft and you have a bow. And just this year, a paper was published where they discovered an intact like bow drill, complete with a leather shaft. They discovered this? They discovered in a, in a museum. They didn't know what it was until, because you know, museums have so many objects that been excavated and just tucked away. And researchers stumbled upon like a perfect set of a bow drill, you know, complete with the leather wrap. And even a bronze bit. So clearly it was not meant. You find this, Steve? Yeah, it was not meant for stone drilling.

• 1:13:24Speaker 03

  But you know, if you replace the bronze bit with, let's say, a diorite or a flint, you know, that will be suitable for stone. But the point is, you know, the bow drill was known in preternastic times. And I think they could have used a bow drill, you know, when they made the pots. Let's say when they hollowed out the inside. Or I actually believe they used water. And and this is not like a wild idea or unprecedented idea. Because we know Egypt was a lot wetter, you know, back then and you know, Giza Plateau had waterworks and channels and whatnot and and the water level was a lot higher. Yeah, you got it. This is it.

• 1:14:02Danny Jones?

  This is the bow drill?

• 1:14:05Speaker 03

  You might need to scroll up a little bit. That's a leather. Is this the leather implement?

• 1:14:11Danny Jones?

  Scroll up.

• 1:14:15Danny Jones?

  How a fifty three hundred year old bow drill is rewriting the story of ancient Egypt. This was published like one month ago, exactly. In examining the fifty three hundred year old Egyptian artifact, uh, artifact, remarkable new research has confirmed the existence of far more mechanically sophisticated technology than we ever thought possible from before the age of the pharaohs.

• 1:14:40Speaker 03

  Yes. And it's not high technology. I mean, it's low tech, but ingenious use in.

• 1:14:46Danny Jones?

  Research is at Newcastle University and that, uh, can you zoom in? Academy of Fine Arts Vienna reexamined the ancient artifact excavated a century ago from a grave at Badari in Upper Egypt. The artifact was only sixty three millimeters long and weighed one point five grams, catalogued as one nine two four point nine four A A in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge. The object was described by the original excavators as a little all of copper with some leather thong wound around it. Sixty three millimeters long?

• 1:15:27Speaker 03

  Mm hmm. Tiny. Well, not that tiny, but you got it. So yeah, copper bit with leather around it. So that brown thing is leather. Oh, what's left of it?

• 1:15:40Danny Jones?

  What is it, a bow drill for ants?

• 1:15:41Speaker 03

  Well, I mean, if you make furniture, you know, holes, you know, things of that nature, or kind of any implement, you know, with a hole, even like pallets, pallets are very common preternastic Egyptian objects that you see in every museum, and they usually have holes for eyes, where they inlaid other, you know, materials, like a fish shaped, so you, that could have been, you know, used to drill a hole, and then, you know, you inlay another piece in it. But, but the point is, I think they used, you know, some kind of automation, it, I think it's incorrect to think of, let's say, preternastic or ancient people as primitive.

• 1:16:22Speaker 03

  They were not as technologically advanced as us, but they were ingenious, and it means they found ways to automate tasks that, you know, that were difficult and laborious, in line with the technology available to them. And it's very well known that, in Turkey, Herakopolis, there was an ancient sawmill for cutting stones that was automated by water. So there were water mills that were spawned by, you know, flowing streams of water, with reciprocating saws for cutting stone. And that is like 2,000 years old. So I would argue that, you know, something similar

• 1:17:01Speaker 03

  existed in preternastic Egyptian times, where they used flowing water to actuate, you know, there's stone grinding, you know, implements for the vases. So you can have a mill, wheel, that turns, and then, you know, some, maybe a leather belt, or, or, or something, or, or cogwheel, that would, you know, make this thing turn, and turn, and you don't care. You just put it in stone, I mean, put it in sand, yes, exactly. Herakopolis, yes. Put it in sand, you know, add some water, you know, set it in a shaft and let it turn. And eventually, it will be, you know, pretty darn smooth, depending on when you, you know, take it out. And

• 1:17:42Danny Jones?

  How do you think they did the, like, the Petri core, or those cores?

• 1:17:46Speaker 03

  Good question.

• 1:17:48Speaker 03

  I don't know for sure, but one thing I can say, if you're talking about this quote unquote famous core, there is one famous Petri core. Uh, I, I don't remember its number, but it's, I think it's a red granite.

• 1:18:02Danny Jones?

  Number seven, I think.

• 1:18:02Speaker 03

  Number seven, that's one granite that arguably has the thread.

• 1:18:07Danny Jones?

  The spiral.

• 1:18:08Speaker 03

  The spiral.

• 1:18:09Danny Jones?

  Spiral groove.

• 1:18:09Speaker 03

  Well, I will disappoint you. I don't believe it's a high-tech core for two reasons. One reason is when you use core drilling with, let's say, copper tubes, or bronze tubes, even copper tube will work, or even bamboo tube will work. Everybody knows it's not like the bamboo or the copper that does the drilling. It's the grit, it's the abrasive that you introduce, and this copper, it just drags it. And then, when you do this, because this is a fairly primitive process, your core ends up being tapered. It's thinner at the top than at the bottom, because the top portion

• 1:18:52Speaker 03

  was in contact with the abrasive slurry for longer, so it ground more. And this has actually been recreated by Scientists Against Myths, and by many other researchers who studied, you know, core drilling, you know, with copper, uh, copper tubes. You get this tapered core always, and that's how Petri core number seven is, it's tapered. So that's like, uh, one, let's say, trait that matches the idea that that was core drilled, you know, using a copper tube. The other one is where the groove is observed. Well, lo and behold, when you core drill using, you know, copper tubes, you get this grooves, but these grooves aren't continuous.

• 1:19:37Speaker 03

  And in fact, uh, all researchers that have done it observed these grooves, and even, um, there was a study at, at UPenn by two engineers who did some core drilling and, and put the resulting cores on their SEM, you know, to look at the grooves. And they observe, uh, you know, the pattern of them to match exactly, you know, what's found in the, you know, core drills, uh, uh, core drills, uh, excavated in Egypt. So there is a, like, 100 visual consistency. And that's another point. And the third point is the groove on the famous Petri core is not continuous. You know, a lot of people looked at it.

• 1:20:19Speaker 03

  And, yes, and scientists against myths looked at it. And somebody else looked at it. Oh, I think Knights Karab looked at it too.

• 1:20:27Danny Jones?

  I know Chris Dunn looked at it and he said that they ran a string all the way around it.

• 1:20:31Speaker 03

  Well, I dispute that that finding because the other people who've done it show that there are multiple non-continuous grooves there. Yeah, that are entirely consistent.

• 1:20:42Danny Jones?

  Yeah, it doesn't, but just looking at the photos, it certainly does not look like it's a continuous spiral.

• 1:20:47Speaker 03

  No, it's a bunch of different grooves because tiny little stones, bits of grit, you know, were dragged. And you get this, you know, discontinuous mess of, you know, big and smaller, you know, grooves. So to me, it's it's not a particularly fascinating artifact. But there are other cores that I've seen at the Petri Museum, basalt cores, that appear to be more interesting because I didn't see tapering on them. You know, I haven't scanned them. I haven't studied them. But when I looked at the pictures, they looked like, you know, just tubes. And I was like, you know, how the heck do you do that? So that was more interesting. So maybe in one of those days, I should scan and study those.

• 1:21:28Speaker 03

  But, you know, because there's so much work was going on, I couldn't do it this time around.

• 1:21:33Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:21:34Speaker 03

  But the Petri core number seven, there is nothing fascinating about it. And I think it's time to, you know, quit claiming it as an evidence of high tech. Because if it is evidence of anything, it's evidence of core drilling. And we've been able to reproduce all of the characteristics of that core exactly on more than one occasion. As I said, scientists against myths. And then there is another book everybody should read. It's a book by, let me try to remember the name. My memory. It's a British.

• 1:22:11Speaker 03

  Researcher, he wrote a book on recreating ancient stoneworking techniques.

• 1:22:17Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:22:17Speaker 03

  I can't remember his name.

• 1:22:20Speaker 03

  Well.

• 1:22:21Danny Jones?

  When was it published? Or how old was it?

• 1:22:23Speaker 03

  Fairly recently, maybe like twenty years ago.

• 1:22:25Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:22:25Speaker 03

  Uh, shoot, I have it referenced everywhere and I can't remember his name.

• 1:22:29Danny Jones?

  Hold that thought, I gotta take a pee real quick.

• 1:22:30Speaker 03

  Okay. Yeah, maybe it's here, hold on.

• 1:22:32Danny Jones?

  We'll be right back. We're back.

• 1:22:35Speaker 03

  Yeah, so.

• 1:22:35Danny Jones?

  So here's the book.

• 1:22:36Speaker 03

  Yeah, so the book is by Dennis Stokks, Experiments in Ancient Egyptian Archaeology, where he recreates ancient stoneworking techniques, including, you know, drilling, you know, taking cores, shaping vessels, you know, cutting stones using copper saws. Um, so I guess the point is whenever you study any subject, you really gotta study a literature on it, because a lot of people have done research, a lot of people, you know, done analysis and and you gotta absorb all of that. You can never ignore, you know, the body of work that existed up to the point where you decided to enter the field, right? And that's kind of what I ended up doing over the past year.

• 1:23:20Speaker 03

  You know, had to study all of the sources, you know, read these books and dissertation to see, and even, you know, talk to people who actually, you know, bothered to recreate, you know, techniques. So can you cut a granite with a copper saw? Absolutely. It's not the copper that does the cutting, it's the abrasive.

• 1:23:38Danny Jones?

  Sure, the slurry.

• 1:23:40Speaker 03

  Yeah, for that matter, you can cut copper with a, with a string, I mean, you can cut granite with a string. It's, it's not the string that does the cutting, it's the, you know, slurry, the abrasive slurry that does it. Um, so, so things like that, and the bigger point, so ancient people were ingenious. You know, when you don't have the technology, you use your brain a lot more and see, you know.

• 1:24:02Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:24:02Speaker 03

  How you can do less work. So that's why I never buy the mainstream archaeologist's explanations when they concoct this elaborate techniques of how, you know, the blocks were hauled and. How much labor went?

• 1:24:16Danny Jones?

  On police?

• 1:24:17Speaker 03

  Yeah, because when I look at it, it's ridiculous. It's like too labor intensive. I don't necessarily believe aliens, you know, have done it. Or Atlanteans, but I don't believe that, you know, people were hauling, you know, these blocks. Because, you know, humans are lazy, right? So we don't want to do the work. And then somebody would say, well, you know, pharaohs would command you to do this. And pharaohs weren't stupid. Because every slave who is doing stupid work is not doing something useful to enrich the pharaoh. Right? Or not fighting the enemies, not, you know, conquering lands, not mining, you know, something useful. It's business. So let's say you're Jeff Bezos, right? So you have hundred million slaves. You're not gonna make them do stupid stuff, right?

• 1:24:59Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:25:00Speaker 03

  Yeah, and so I don't believe, you know, pharaohs were stupid or kings were stupid. And all of this, you know, monuments that we see. I don't believe that like stupendous amount of work went into them. It's just because it doesn't make economic sense. So these people, and another argument I would give is even if you had like hundred thousand slaves working. Well, you gotta feed them. Imagine, you know, how much food you need to keep, you know, this army going. And, you know, could your country produce that much food? At the time, and if it could, would it live enough for the population or for the actual army?

• 1:25:38Danny Jones?

  Uh huh. What is the official narrative? The official consensus on how many people built those thing, built those pyramids? And how many, how long it took?

• 1:25:49Speaker 03

  I cannot answer this truthfully.

• 1:25:51Danny Jones?

  You find it, Steve?

• 1:25:52Speaker 03

  I apologize.

• 1:25:53Danny Jones?

  What does, what does a old handy dandy Gemini or Chat GPT tell us?

• 1:25:58Speaker 03

  I just don't believe anybody would would undertake, for whatever reason, you know, such a stupendously expensive enterprise. So therefore, you know, I wouldn't rule out aliens or Atlanteans at this point, you know? I haven't studied the object, like the subject too closely. But I don't think the explanation is just enormous amount of labor over enormous time because of the expense.

• 1:26:26Danny Jones?

  Modern consensus estimates that approximately twenty to thirty thousand workers were directly involved in building the Great Pyramid of Giza over a period of about twenty years. Uh, I call bullshit. Get the fuck out of here.

• 1:26:38Speaker 03

  It's just my feeling because I think I deeply believe that, you know, people could be mean, but they're rational. You know, we're overall, you know, we're rational. If something happens that's irrational, we just don't know the reason for it. So somebody is is doing something. But there is always a reason and and Pharaohs and somebody else were rational. So if you're spending that much resources, I think your country will be ripe for conquest by somebody else. And while you're busy feeding this army of slaves that are building, you know, some edifice, you have no food or no money, you know, to to pay the real army. So anyway, I don't really know how how the pyramid was built yet.

• 1:27:21Danny Jones?

  Or how those stones were moved, how they were elevated up there, or how they were like.

• 1:27:25Speaker 03

  I think it's, you know, fascinating topic to explore. And that's, you know, what I would like.

• 1:27:29Danny Jones?

  It is fascinating.

• 1:27:30Speaker 03

  To do eventually. I just don't believe it's a stupendous amount of of stupid labor. It's just because we see evidence to the contrary. We see that the ancient people were ingenious. And that's another thing that the point I'm making in my paper that I'm working on currently is that, you know, pretty nasty Egyptians were actually familiar with all types of subtractive machining, you know, we use now, because that's what you see in the, you know, pretty nasty stone vases. You have turning and you have milling. And that's exactly the same subtractive machining techniques we use now. We use turning and we use milling. And they used, you know, far more primitive tools for that. So it was like a wooden shaft instead

• 1:28:14Speaker 03

  of of a nice, you know, metal chuck that we use in LA. And it was like a stone drill bit or stone in a mill bit.

• 1:28:21Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:28:22Speaker 03

  Right. But it was, you know, actuated for rotation, you know, the same thing we do. You know, now we use, you know, belts and and gears. And back then they used this bow strain or a piece of leather, but it's the same freaking principle. And that what blows my mind that, you know, 6,000 years ago, however long ago, they were familiar with the basic principles of subtractive machining. We know and use today, and that's like my point to me.

• 1:28:47Danny Jones?

  Did you know Fast Growing Trees is America's largest, most trusted online nursery? With thousands of trees and plants and over 2 million happy customers. They've got everything your yard or home needs. Fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, even houseplants. All grown with care and guaranteed to arrive healthy. It's basically like having the best nursery in the country delivered right to your door. Fast Growing Trees makes the process super simple and convenient. I ordered a lychee tree, which makes little dragon egg shaped fruits. And it arrived at my house, healthy, thriving, and ready to plant. And instead of driving around to a bunch of nurseries and hoping you picked the right variety for your climate, Fast Growing Trees helps you choose plants that are actually suited to the native environment where you live.

• 1:29:29Danny Jones?

  Every plant is backed by their Alive and Thrive Guarantee, so you know it's going to arrive in great shape. And right now, they've got great deals on spring planting essentials, up to half off selected plants. And right now, our listeners are getting 20% off their first purchase by using the code DANIE at checkout. That's an additional 20% off better plants and better growing at fastgrowingtrees.com using the promo code D A N N Y at checkout. Fastgrowingtrees.com code DANIE. Now is the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use code DANIE and save today. Offer valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. And, and I mean, forget ancient Egypt. How about Kailasa Temple? Have you seen that temple in India that's carved out of the side of a mountain?

• 1:30:15Speaker 03

  Yes, yes. Have you?

• 1:30:17Danny Jones?

  There's, there's no reasonable explanation to how anyone could even achieve something like that today.

• 1:30:25Speaker 03

  There is actually. I'm glad you mentioned it.

• 1:30:27Danny Jones?

  Look at this. It's a negative relief, enormous temple, cut out of the side of a freaking granite mountain.

• 1:30:35Speaker 03

  I might disappoint you here slightly too.

• 1:30:38Danny Jones?

  Please do.

• 1:30:40Speaker 03

  There is a, they've built a temple in India.

• 1:30:46Speaker 03

  So the stoneworking tradition is alive and well in India to this day. So they have traditional craftsmen that use nothing but, you know, chisels. You know, built a similar ornate temple in Hawaii. What is its name? Let me see. And it was just finished recently.

• 1:31:08Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 1:31:08Speaker 03

  Yes, and then a bunch of-

• 1:31:10Danny Jones?

  The same way this was with the negative-

• 1:31:11Speaker 03

  You know, very, very close, I would say. Maybe not exactly the same way, but you know, gives you the idea, you know, how-

• 1:31:16Danny Jones?

  Where instead of, instead of building and adding on, you're taking away the negative space.

• 1:31:23Speaker 03

  Let's see, Hindu temple in Hawaii, maybe.

• 1:31:27Speaker 03

  Yeah, that's it, yeah.

• 1:31:29Speaker 05

  That's a, that's one piece of rock?

• 1:31:30Speaker 03

  Well, I don't know about, you know, one piece, but it shows you the, yeah, that's the temple. It shows you the technique they use. So the very intricate sculpting technique was just, you know, hammers and chisels. There are some videos on YouTube and I can send you some videos-

• 1:31:48Danny Jones?

  What does it say? It doesn't look like it's one piece.

• 1:31:51Speaker 03

  It may not be, but it shows you that the tradition of stonework is alive.

• 1:31:56Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:31:56Speaker 03

  So that's all done by hand.

• 1:31:57Danny Jones?

  Oh, certainly impressive stonework.

• 1:31:59Speaker 03

  Yes. It's not one piece, no.

• 1:32:01Danny Jones?

  Right. But that Kailasa temple is one solid piece. Like, there's no moving parts at all in that whole thing.

• 1:32:09Speaker 03

  I entirely believe this-

• 1:32:10Danny Jones?

  And when was that built? Find out when the Kailasa temple was actually, uh, when that was carved out of the side of that mountain.

• 1:32:19Danny Jones?

  I wanna say it was like 600?

• 1:32:22Speaker 05

  750.

• 1:32:23Danny Jones?

  750. Right, okay.

• 1:32:25Speaker 03

  I'd be more interested in knowing how they made the, you know, Bear Bear caves.

• 1:32:29Danny Jones?

  What's that?

• 1:32:30Speaker 03

  Yeah, it's, is it Bear Bear or Bar Bar?

• 1:32:33Danny Jones?

  Bar Bar caves?

• 1:32:34Speaker 03

  Maybe Bear Bear caves.

• 1:32:35Danny Jones?

  Where's it at?

• 1:32:36Speaker 03

  It's in India.

• 1:32:37Danny Jones?

  In India?

• 1:32:38Speaker 03

  I cannot believe you haven't heard of that.

• 1:32:39Danny Jones?

  I don't think, I mean, maybe I've seen it, but the name's not ringing a bell.

• 1:32:42Speaker 03

  Okay, maybe I mispronounced it. Yes.

• 1:32:45Danny Jones?

  I've never seen this.

• 1:32:46Speaker 03

  Bar Bar.

• 1:32:46Danny Jones?

  I've never seen this.

• 1:32:47Speaker 03

  Bar Bar caves.

• 1:32:48Speaker 05

  It's a giant rock turd that they carved a-

• 1:32:51Speaker 03

  So they carved a cave inside this rock turd that's like a polished finish.

• 1:32:58Danny Jones?

  Can you find a video of this, Steve, or like a bit better photo?

• 1:33:00Speaker 03

  Somebody actually scanned them. There is a, like a metrology company from Europe did a 3D scan of the inner surface. And it's like mirror finish, you can see yourself.

• 1:33:10Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 1:33:11Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:33:13Speaker 03

  Barbar caves, yes. It's a mirror finish and you can see yourself, you can see your reflection. So that, I have no idea how that was achieved. You know, that I would never buy, uh, they can done, you know, it was

• 1:33:25Danny Jones?

  Or just find a photo or something.

• 1:33:26Speaker 03

  With chisels and stones. So, so the, the temple

• 1:33:28Danny Jones?

  Whoa, look at that. Look at that. It shows you the actual dimensions of it.

• 1:33:32Speaker 03

  Yes. So the

• 1:33:34Danny Jones?

  Oh, that's megalithomania.

• 1:33:36Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:33:39Danny Jones?

  Whoa.

• 1:33:42Danny Jones?

  Full screen this?

• 1:33:44Speaker 03

  Mm hmm.

• 1:33:46Speaker 03

  Yeah, look, look how shiny the walls are.

• 1:33:49Speaker 05

  Absolutely incredible. It's just like the caves we find on Barabar Hill.

• 1:33:53Danny Jones?

  No one ever told me about this.

• 1:33:56Speaker 03

  Oh, that's why I'm here.

• 1:34:00Speaker 05

  So we're now at the Nagajuni Caves. There's three caves on this hill. Separate to Barabar Hill. This is the Gopika Cave or Gopika. And this has remarkable carvings in Brahmin script, which you can see

• 1:34:15Danny Jones?

  Whoa.

• 1:34:16Speaker 05

  Show you in a moment. Also a little

• 1:34:18Speaker 03

  It's just mind blowing. I think this is by far the most interesting.

• 1:34:20Speaker 05

  More than tourists. But I wanted to show you these caves.

• 1:34:23Speaker 03

  Or monuments.

• 1:34:25Speaker 05

  Some of the finest polished granite stonework. Just like we find at Barabar Caves as well. All of this is polished, as you can see, the floor. Here, all the way along here. You can see the remarkable carvings here.

• 1:34:40Danny Jones?

  It's gotta be aliens.

• 1:34:41Speaker 05

  Which I find fascinating.

• 1:34:42Speaker 03

  It definitely doesn't look like I was cheesing.

• 1:34:45Danny Jones?

  That is insane.

• 1:34:47Speaker 05

  And then we go inside it.

• 1:34:48Danny Jones?

  Look how perfect that text is.

• 1:34:50Speaker 03

  Well, text, never mind text, you know, how perfect the walls are.

• 1:34:53Danny Jones?

  I know.

• 1:34:54Speaker 05

  You can hear the sound here.

• 1:34:56Speaker 03

  Consistent angles, consistent curvature.

• 1:34:58Speaker 05

  Wide this is, and it curves around this end as well.

• 1:35:02Danny Jones?

  Two thirty B.C. this was carved out?

• 1:35:04Speaker 03

  That's the inscription.

• 1:35:05Danny Jones?

  The inscription was two thirty B.C., which means the cave's much older.

• 1:35:09Speaker 05

  There's actually the kind of level, the center of it is under the floor. The acoustics are incredible and you can really imagine, I mean, these, I'm with some gentlemen here. And they were in here meditating. You can see why. It just booms. It's just, what an amazing spot.

• 1:35:26Danny Jones?

  Holy shit.

• 1:35:28Speaker 05

  Kind of precision, like the polished granite. Absolutely incredible. It's just like the caves we find on Barabar Hill.

• 1:35:41Danny Jones?

  How perfect is that symmetry on that?

• 1:35:43Speaker 03

  I don't know. I mean, I really would like to study the scans.

• 1:35:47Danny Jones?

  That is fascinating. I cannot believe I've never seen that before.

• 1:35:50Speaker 03

  So, so the, I think French company went in, you know, with the lasers and scanned it. I don't know if they published their scans or they could be obtained. Because then you can actually see how precise it's made. Because the point I keep making, you know, eyes often deceive us, right? So you look at something and it looks really nice.

• 1:36:07Danny Jones?

  Even if it's not precise, it is fucking astonishing. That is that old?

• 1:36:12Speaker 03

  And why?

• 1:36:13Danny Jones?

  Older than 200 B.C.

• 1:36:17Danny Jones?

  Laser scans of the 2,000, 300 year old Bar Bar caves in India reveal astonishing precision with granite walls polished to a mere finish and curved symmetrical designs created within 0.1 degrees of accuracy.

• 1:36:30Speaker 03

  I would say, don't believe the AI summaries because...

• 1:36:33Danny Jones?

  It's summarizing it off of YouTube video.

• 1:36:35Speaker 03

  We really need...

• 1:36:36Danny Jones?

  I mean, even if it's not precise, it's still incredibly pres- it's super impressive.

• 1:36:40Speaker 03

  And it might be, it might be precise. I'm saying is I'd like to see the, the data, you know, the actual scans to really quantify it. I don't know if they published a paper or if they published scans, but it's freaking unbelievable. Bar Bar caves, yes.

• 1:36:57Danny Jones?

  Wild.

• 1:36:58Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think that's maybe even more fascinating than pyramids. If it's really, you know, that precise as they claim. Because how the heck, you know, do you do it? Why?

• 1:37:08Danny Jones?

  And what was it for?

• 1:37:10Speaker 03

  What was it for? Exactly. What was it for? Clearly it wasn't a whim because somebody wanted a hole in the wall, right?

• 1:37:15Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:37:16Speaker 03

  Clearly served some purpose.

• 1:37:18Danny Jones?

  Right. I would love to see a peer review on the, on the function of the pyramids. Like a, like a real thorough

• 1:37:24Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:37:25Danny Jones?

  study done. Like, like, somebody could take Chris Dunn's work, combine it with like Jeffrey Drum's work, and do some sort of like collaborative interdisciplinary review of the function. But couldn't that be, would that be accepted by like mainstream journals?

• 1:37:42Speaker 03

  I think so. And, and in fact, this is what, what is badly needed. So it's not enough, you know, just... To publish a YouTube video, we're not enough to publish a blog post, right? So at the end of the day, we need to produce scientific papers. And I think it's necessary for two reasons. One is, when you write a scientific paper, you are obligated to include or address all prior knowledge about the problem. So this problem doesn't exist in the vacuum, right? It exists, you know, with everything around it. So your explanation needs to mesh with everything that we know. Otherwise, you know, if you find a guy with a knife, you know, did he stab it or did he pick it up?

• 1:38:21Danny Jones?

  Right?

• 1:38:22Speaker 03

  Right. So you need to consider all of it. And the other thing is, so when you write a paper, you need to be like really diligent on the analysis and presentation of your data. It's never enough to say, you know, I think, or this is it. Like, you know, the thing that kind of bothers me about, you know, how Ben reports in his videos, he makes a lot of claims without substantiating them. Meaning, you know, Peter giving away objects. Well, you can say that, like in scientific literature, only if you produce a piece of evidence that supports that claim. Here, here is a, like a paper that says, you know, this object, you know, was, was given to this person or something else.

• 1:39:06Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:39:06Speaker 03

  Or you can never like show a picture and say, you know, these are stone vessels and they, and this is a pottery. You know, how can you tell, you know, by looking at the picture?

• 1:39:14Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:39:14Speaker 03

  So it has to be like deeper analysis that goes with it.

• 1:39:16Danny Jones?

  Well, I don't think Ben is making like bold claims on anything. He's simply just asking questions and observing things, right?

• 1:39:23Speaker 03

  Well, I wouldn't disagree with you, you know. When I rewatch his videos, you know, he's making a lot of claims like that. And I'd like, you know, to use this as an opportunity to show how you cannot make claims in scientific literature.

• 1:39:34Danny Jones?

  Right, right.

• 1:39:35Speaker 03

  Because like when you write a paper, like every sentence that you write, it's either like your own, you know, genuine observation or conclusion, or if not, you got a reference, you got a cite a reference, saying, you know, if this is a clay pot. You make you making that statement, then you need to say why?

• 1:39:52Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 1:39:53Speaker 03

  And like, what analysis did you do to determine that this is a clay pot?

• 1:39:56Danny Jones?

  Uh huh.

• 1:39:56Speaker 03

  Because when you look at a picture, you cannot tell, you know, clay apart from stone, you know, they'll look the same, right?

• 1:40:02Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:40:02Speaker 03

  Or if you say it's a it's a clay pot, then you you say because Petri said so, right? And that's like, good enough.

• 1:40:10Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:40:11Speaker 03

  Well, you know, that's how science works, you know, we.

• 1:40:13Danny Jones?

  Well, let me ask you this, though. If you were to publish your paper with all the same evidence, came to the opposite conclusion, you think it would have been published?

• 1:40:19Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:40:20Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 1:40:20Speaker 03

  I think so, yeah. Um, and here is an interesting story, too. Um.

• 1:40:30Speaker 03

  I think we both underestimate and overestimate, you know, how scientific community functions. Uh, it is, you know, difficult to publish papers that go against the grain or against mainstream. I know this firsthand because a lot of my papers, you know, were rejected. I couldn't publish them because I argued, you know, against the point that was generally accepted. And they are, papers are rejected for two reasons. You know, sometimes the prejudice in a certain journal is just so high to where mere mention of a certain word, you know, gets you rejected. And I give you an example of cold fusion.

• 1:41:12Danny Jones?

  Oh, yeah.

• 1:41:13Speaker 03

  As as you recall, I'm also a nuclear scientist, so I work on nuclear fusion. And I research cold fusion, among other things. You know, I don't believe that cold fusion is, you know, genuine, it ever worked, but it doesn't mean.

• 1:41:27Danny Jones?

  You don't believe it ever worked?

• 1:41:28Speaker 03

  No, I don't believe it ever worked now. I mean, I I used to believe like 20 years ago, but I had a 180 on it.

• 1:41:36Danny Jones?

  Did you see Jeffrey Epstein's email about it?

• 1:41:38Speaker 03

  I think he was taking credit for something he didn't do.

• 1:41:41Danny Jones?

  I think so, too.

• 1:41:41Speaker 03

  Yeah. But my my point is, even though I don't believe in cold fusion, I tried to publish a paper recently where I mentioned cold fusion, and I actually said I don't believe in it. But because I mentioned it, that was enough for that particular repository to reject the paper. And I know this is stupid, like beyond belief, and that particular repository I'm referring to is Archive. Archive is the like main repository of unpublished papers. So, let's say, when I submitted a paper to Nature, it took a few months, you know, to to examine it and publish it. And what most researchers do, they want to share, you know, their papers quickly. So while, you know, the journal is mulling your paper over peer reviewing whatnot,

• 1:42:26Speaker 03

  you upload a preprint to Archive. And it used to be that Archive was, any paper you can upload, it was like a preprint server. Your unpublished works, you know, gives a home, gives a link, anybody can read. And I do have like several papers uploaded, you know, like from before. But lately, they've kind of evolved a stance on on topics. And they don't believe in cold fusion, they don't believe in UFOs. And maybe there are a bunch of other things they don't believe in, I don't really know. But they started applying this editorial criteria. When you submit a paper and they find a keyword they don't like, they don't accept the preprint. And the funny thing was, when I submitted my paper on fusion to the journal,

• 1:43:09Speaker 03

  they said, "Well, no, we're not gonna publish it unless, you know, it's it's published in another journal." And when it got published and they come back and say, "Well, will you upload a preprint now?", they still refused to do it. It's just, you know, prejudice, you can do nothing about it, it's just because they're so hard set on, you know, not considering certain things, and there is nothing you can do about but wait for people to die.

• 1:43:32Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:43:33Speaker 03

  And I think someone made this claim that physics make progress one funeral at a time.

• 1:43:39Danny Jones?

  Yep.

• 1:43:39Speaker 03

  I I don't remember who said it, but it's very true of of many scientists, so that exists for sure, yeah. So I I'm sure there will be journals and people who would never accept that, let's say, high-tech existed in the past, even if you find evidence for it.

• 1:43:55Danny Jones?

  Mm-hmm.

• 1:43:55Speaker 03

  So I fully agree with that. But there are other journals that, good journals, that would actually publish it because there is competition among journals.

• 1:44:06Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 1:44:06Speaker 03

  Yes, and I actually-

• 1:44:07Danny Jones?

  What is this? Oh, this is the quote, okay.

• 1:44:10Speaker 03

  So Plank's prin- Plank's principle. Principle, okay. Science makes progress one funeral at a time.

• 1:44:16Danny Jones?

  Yeah, it's a good one.

• 1:44:18Speaker 03

  So, but there are other journals too, and good journals for that matter, that actually would publish that stuff. And what I found out is, uh, nature portfolio of journals is more receptive to fresh ideas. So, let's say, science, you know, like, science magazine, right? Science journal. Uh, you know, could be more hard-nosed in, in their choices of what they publish and whatnot, but I think nature is more open-minded nature portfolio of journals. And, uh, it's the quality of paper ultimately that determines whether or not it's gonna be published. So if, if you present enough evidence and, and that evidence is incontrovertible and

• 1:44:56Speaker 03

  you're not trying to, uh, to do the, like, sensational claims and extrapolate into areas that are, are not worth it, I'm, I'm sure you'll find, you'll be able to publish your paper. And now, when I look back, the papers that I couldn't publish and got rejected, and now I think was for good measure, for good reason, because, you know, they weren't good enough, uh, to be published in that, you know, in, in that, uh, caliber, you know, of a journal. So I do believe that you can overcome all of it if you do diligent work, and it might be that you need to publish piecemeal until you really have this incontrovertible evidence

• 1:45:40Speaker 03

  and, um, and nobody, uh, can say it. But let's take the, you know, Barbara Caves as an example.

• 1:45:48Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:45:48Speaker 03

  So what I, uh, and, and granted, I have not researched that, that topic in depth, so I don't know whether the team that scanned them published their scans or published the paper. So I think, you know, the first step would be, you scan it, you publish a paper with the scans, and you just say, oh, this is what we've done, this is the data set, and you can study it. And that's pretty good and pretty important publication because it gives data for people to look at. And that's what scientists and researchers must do, they must provide the data. Because without the data, there is nothing to discuss. You know, we can look at the pictures and we can speculate, it means precisely nothing. Because at the end of the day, we cannot compare this against that, and that's what you need in order to drive a conclusion.

• 1:46:32Speaker 04

  Uh huh.

• 1:46:33Speaker 03

  So if you chisel the wall, this is what you get. You know, if you grind the wall with an angle grinder, this is what you get, right? If you use some, uh, you know, high-tech boring machine or laser or, you know, plasma jet, this is what you get. And that would be like this second paper, you compare, you know, different, uh, granite, you know, working techniques like chiseling, angle grinding, you know, plasma torches, uh, you know, lasers, you know, who knows? And you say what kind of quality of the surface you get.

• 1:46:59Speaker 04

  Uh huh.

• 1:47:00Speaker 03

  And then you take the published skin and you contrast them against, you know, these various, you know, machining techniques or, you know, chiseling, you know, chipping techniques. And you say, does it look similar to any of this? And i- if it doesn't, you can say, well, we have a cave that we don't know how it was made. But you cannot say it was made by aliens or by Atlanteans or by gods or, or reptilian beings, you know, from Tau City.

• 1:47:24Speaker 04

  Uh huh.

• 1:47:25Speaker 03

  Because none of that is present, and that's speculation.

• 1:47:28Speaker 04

  Right.

• 1:47:28Speaker 03

  And that obviously you cannot publish because, you know, it, it makes scientific journal look like, uh, like a yellow press, right? But you can say, well, it's not consistent with any known tools or techniques. And then you can say, well, look at all of the angles and all of the surfaces and you can come up with the same quality metrics. You know, how perfect the angles, you know, how flat the surfaces are. And you can contrast that against like manual, non-manual labor or known like machine labor. And, and does it look more like manual or does it look more like, you know, machine? And then, once again, you have a claim saying it's consistent with machining, right? You cannot say that, you know, ancient, uh, chiselled it because it's consistent with machining.

• 1:48:13Speaker 03

  So, so you imply, you know, that, you know, something else was there, but you don't know what it was.

• 1:48:19Speaker 04

  Right.

• 1:48:19Speaker 03

  And, and maybe you can say, well, maybe there was a lost civilization because how else, you know, we can explain? Or maybe, you know, there were visitors from outer space who done it because how else, you know, we explain?

• 1:48:30Speaker 04

  Uh huh.

• 1:48:30Speaker 03

  You cannot prove it, but you can show that it's inconsistent with chiseling, or maybe at the end of the day, you'll, you'll review the data and it is consistent with chiseling, you know? That's why I'm saying it's really hard to pass judgment unless, unless, you know, the data is available.

• 1:48:44Speaker 04

  Right.

• 1:48:45Speaker 03

  And that's what I strive to do in my line of work. You know, I publish, you know, all of the scans, all of the, you know, data, all of the spectrum data I collect for others, you know? To independently analyze and verify and maybe they'll discover, you know, something that I missed.

• 1:49:01Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 1:49:01Speaker 03

  Because that's kind of the point of science. You publish what you've learned so that somebody else can learn even more. And, and that's, you know, how we build. And that's why it took 300 years to develop the theory of electrodynamics.

• 1:49:15Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:49:16Speaker 03

  Ampere worked on it, Volta worked on it, or Ersted worked on it. And 300, 300 years later, you know, Maxwell writes his equations that are simplified by Heaviside and we finally have a theory. But it freaking took 300 years. Because everybody did their bit and they published their findings.

• 1:49:35Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 1:49:36Speaker 03

  And we kind of have to do the same approach in, you know, archaeology and elsewhere.

• 1:49:41Danny Jones?

  So going back to what you said about cold fusion, why don't you think cold fusion ever happened?

• 1:49:46Speaker 03

  Excellent question. And, and once again, when I entered the field, you know, 20 years ago, I entirely, you know, believed the narrative. And the narrative was like this, and Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, you know, made a breakthrough at the University of Utah where they demonstrated.

• 1:50:01Danny Jones?

  It was 89?

• 1:50:02Speaker 03

  Eighty nine.

• 1:50:03Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:50:03Speaker 03

  Can you imagine like 40 years ago, almost?

• 1:50:05Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 1:50:06Speaker 03

  Is it 40? Yeah, nearly like 30.

• 1:50:09Danny Jones?

  About 40, 30, 39 years.

• 1:50:11Speaker 03

  Yeah. Well, all around to 40, like nearly 40 years ago. So they claimed that the nuclear fusion took place in solid, you know, palladium electrodes in, in a glass. In submerged in water electrolyte, technically, you know, with some current passing through. They claimed to have observed nuclear fusion in the, in such a simple setup.

• 1:50:31Danny Jones?

  Deuterium?

• 1:50:32Speaker 03

  I think it was deuterium and palladium, yes.

• 1:50:35Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:50:36Speaker 03

  And clearly it was a sensational, sensational claim because fusion is believed to be a very complex process. You know, you build this four-story tall facility with plasma containment, you know, superconducting magnets, lasers, whatnot, and all of a sudden somebody says, oh, I can do it in a cup of water. Implications are staggering, so that's why it attracted so much attention. And then what happened, MIT, Texas Tech, and some, Texas A&M, and some other universities tried to replicate the results. And nobody could. Some people thought they did, but you know, the more they tried, they realized, oh, it actually not what it is.

• 1:51:17Speaker 03

  At the end of the day, nobody could replicate the result, and the topic was said to be disproven. And there was a split in academic community. Some people were believers and said, well, the fact that you couldn't replicate it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, because maybe your replication was wrong, because it's difficult, you know, to replicate things that are novel. And that's kind of what I thought. I thought maybe that's really what happened. People tried hastily to replicate it, you know, didn't work, but more specifically, there is intense competition for funding, you know, within academia. And that was the reason I didn't go into academia, because when I was young and naive, I thought,

• 1:52:00Speaker 03

  when you become a scientist, they give you money to do the research. That kind of makes sense, right? So, "Mom, I want to be a scientist." Hmm. Why? Because I'm curious. So you get a job at the university, and they give you money to do the research. And that's what a young, naive person thinks about science. That's what I thought. The truth is far more sinister than that. So when you grow up and become a scientist, and God forbid, you're hired by the university, they expect you to find money for the university. Right. And that, and two-thirds or one-half of that money will go to feed this bureaucratic monster. Right. That exists.

• 1:52:42Speaker 03

  And one-half or one-third of that money, you know, goes to fund your research. So when you are a professor at the university, you're forced to compete with all of the other scientists for limited funds, grant money. And that's a vicious, cutthroat environment no sane person can stand. And I think, you know, Sabine Hessenfelder is a good example of, uh...

• 1:53:08Speaker 03

  Of a narrator, you know, who described what happens in academia and how people people fight. Watch her channel and I entirely understand where she's coming from because I've been in academia, you know, myself, and that's one of the reasons I left because I don't want to feed the bureaucratic machine and then I'm forced to find funding and you never can find funding to do the research you want. You find the funding that for specific research because the system is screwed up. There is a bureaucracy that exists in the government that decides what to fund and what not to fund. So when you wonder why nobody is working on cold fusion or why nobody is researching in

• 1:53:51Speaker 03

  a vase as a pyramid is because there is no funding for it. So you go to funding agencies and you see what grants they give and the grant would be, oh, you do the like CO2 conversion into something or you do a solar panel or you do like a conventional fusion reactor or you study a Native American artifacts and you can never find, you know, the topics you want to explore. And it's not like you can say, hi, I have this idea, you know, give me money for it.

• 1:54:17Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:54:18Speaker 03

  It almost never exists.

• 1:54:20Danny Jones?

  Or could it be possible that like for example, the oil industry could be purposely thwarting that kind of research so it doesn't interrupt or just disrupt their?

• 1:54:31Speaker 03

  Also quite possible. I mean, also quite possible that, but I don't think it's the oil industry. It's the mainstream fusion industry and it's actually not my speculation. And if you read the reporting on this subject, it's a very well-known fact that the people that were most adamant against coal fusion were the mainstream fusion researchers because they didn't want their funding to be pulled from them or reduced and given to this other group. So everybody protects their turf.

• 1:55:02Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:55:02Speaker 03

  So if somebody comes up with a competing idea, this means next time you go for funding DOE or DARPA or somebody else. They might give you less money because they'll give some money, you know, to the, to this other group. So in this case, scientists are, you know, hugely disintensivized to support any innovation. Because it always, you know, threatens status quo, threatens funding. And we tend to think of scientists in idealized terms. We think, oh, these are, you know, truth thinkers, you know, very honorable individuals. They're not. In fact, I would say a lot of scientists I've known are either narcissists or really, you know, nasty characters that are concerned about, you know, prestige. And, and promotion and being on top of things.

• 1:55:47Danny Jones?

  Tenure.

• 1:55:48Speaker 03

  Tenure, yeah. Nobody gives a shit about truth. Because money corrupts everything. And once, you know, money started flowing into science, you know, money corrupted science. And now you cannot study anything.

• 1:56:00Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:56:01Speaker 03

  Because it's what you cannot, cannot get money for. But long story short, the reason I don't believe that the cold fusion was real is because it took me like many years to learn radiation detection. And that's what I specialize in. I specialize in gamma and neutron radiation detection, but mostly neutron radiation detection. Because whenever you have fusion, you always have neutrons. That's like a telltale sign of fusion. You got neutrons, you got fusion. No neutrons, no fusion. And I've reviewed all of the, any neutron signals published on this, in various cold fusion papers. And because I know so much about neutron detection, I, I could see the flaws in their measurements.

• 1:56:42Speaker 03

  They weren't following the procedure right. They weren't looking for sources of systematic errors. They didn't use the statistics or they abused the statistics. So in every paper, I could find the flaw at radiation management. And that was the motivation for me to develop, you know, my own hardware, my own software for radiation detection. Because I basically developed a standard on, on how to detect like low levels of neutron and gamma radiation. And that's what you need to prove that you have nuclear reactions. And when, you know, people claim, well, there could be some processes that don't result in radiation. I am very skeptical of that because nothing is ever perfect. Let's say.

• 1:57:25Speaker 03

  You can, you came up with a way to do fire with no ash. Let's, let's imagine that you burn logs, but there is no ash. That process will never be perfect to where there is no ash at all. There will be, maybe you burned this gigantic log, but you'll have this, just a miniscule amount of ash. Nonetheless, so I think the same idea applies to nuclear fusion. If there is some exotic process that allows you to do fusion without radiation, it will never be perfect.

• 1:57:57Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 1:57:57Speaker 03

  There will be, you know, some, maybe just not the stupendous amount of radiation like from a conventional reactor. That's going to kill you, you know, if you look into it. But it will be, you know, some that you should be able to detect. And if you got none, you know, to me, it's telling you, it's telling clearly you have like nothing going on. Regardless of what you claim. And the other thing, it's been 40 years, like nearly 40 years. And people, you know, kept researching it, researched it on and off and various private corporations issued grants and sponsorships. You know, big companies, we're talking big companies. And there is no result. So, so why is that? And, and I think it's because there was nothing to begin with.

• 1:58:41Speaker 03

  I think it's, I still believe it's a good idea.

• 1:58:43Danny Jones?

  It's possible it should be kept out of the public eye or a public study and kept dark.

• 1:58:48Speaker 03

  I don't think so. I, I really think, well.

• 1:58:52Danny Jones?

  Cause there's an argument for the study of anti-gravity for that. Because there was a lot of development with that in the 50s and then all of a sudden it went dark. And there's a lot of interesting.

• 1:59:01Speaker 03

  I mean, obviously it could be, could be that, but from what I know, it doesn't have to be that.

• 1:59:07Danny Jones?

  No.

• 1:59:08Speaker 03

  Yeah. From, from what I know, it would suffice to say that, you know, the data that's been captured either in error or insufficient, but it doesn't mean the idea is bad. So that's why I'm sticking with it because I believe the idea is bad. And that's why, you know, my research, you know, revolves around it. And I do believe I have some interesting, you know, results in some of them I published, you know, some, some of them I'm still working on. So I think we can still, you know, research it and figure it out. I just don't think we're there.

• 1:59:37Danny Jones?

  What do you make of all these nuclear scientists that are going missing? There's another one that just went, went missing today.

• 1:59:42Speaker 03

  Oh, man.

• 1:59:44Speaker 00

  New and exclusive holiday decor just launched online at The Home Depot. Check out the viral Grand Duchess collection with smart holiday lights you can control from your phone. Easily customize the twinkle across trees, wreaths, and garlands to match your holiday vibe. Create stunning light effects, then switch it up with the tap of your fingers. Even the man in red will be impressed. Shop the holiday decor you want, online only, at homedepot.com.

• 2:00:14Speaker 06

  I get so many headaches every month.

• 2:00:17Speaker 07

  It could be chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more.

• 2:00:22Speaker 08

  Botox, onabotulinum toxin A, prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for those who have 14 or fewer headache days a month. Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Myasthenia gravis, or Lambert Eaton Syndrome, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.

• 2:01:07Speaker 07

  Why wait? Ask your doctor. Visit botoxchronicmigraine.com, or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

• 2:01:16Speaker 03

  Israel killing scientists, I don't know. That's, that's in there.

• 2:01:22Speaker 03

  You know, they're known for doing that.

• 2:01:24Danny Jones?

  Israel's known for killing scientists?

• 2:01:25Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 2:01:26Danny Jones?

  In America?

• 2:01:27Speaker 03

  In Canada, for sure.

• 2:01:29Danny Jones?

  Well, they kill nuclear scientists, I'm sure.

• 2:01:30Speaker 03

  And in Iran, for sure.

• 2:01:32Danny Jones?

  In Iran, yeah, definitely.

• 2:01:33Speaker 03

  And in Iraq, all in America, too. There is a big story.

• 2:01:36Danny Jones?

  A 10th person linked to top US, top-secret US nuclear research has disappeared without a trace, per the Daily Mail.

• 2:01:43Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:01:44Danny Jones?

  And you find the actual, an actual?

• 2:01:45Speaker 03

  I can tell you another story.

• 2:01:47Danny Jones?

  New story to this?

• 2:01:47Speaker 03

  Where, where the scientist was believed to have been killed by Mossad. He was building like a super gun for Saddam. So Saddam Hussein, he used to have this super gun that potentially could shoot, you know, ballistic trajectories for, you know, thousands of... And, and the scientist who were building it, you know, was a genius. And I think when he was murdered, he was living in, either in Canada... Was murdered like in front of his apartment.

• 2:02:14Danny Jones?

  Huh.

• 2:02:15Speaker 03

  And everybody believes, you know, Mossad did this, but you know, I

• 2:02:19Danny Jones?

  Couldn't put it past him.

• 2:02:20Speaker 03

  Yeah. So, once again, from experience, I think that's probably is happening. I, I don't think people are being killed because they've made a discovery that wants to be, that people want to suppress.

• 2:02:36Speaker 03

  You know, which actually

• 2:02:37Danny Jones?

  It's very strange.

• 2:02:39Speaker 03

  It is strange, but

• 2:02:40Danny Jones?

  And not many people are talking about it.

• 2:02:42Speaker 03

  Yeah, I kinda learned a lesson there. So I decided put all of my research into public domain. You know, I made this decision like few months ago, where I'm not going to, to keep any secrets and I'm going to publish everything I've learned in nuclear science in public domain to where there is no point in killing me.

• 2:03:01Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:03:02Speaker 03

  It, it's all been disclosed.

• 2:03:04Danny Jones?

  Published April 11th, 2026, updated, okay, updated the same day. Another person with links to America's nuclear secrets has gone missing as the dis- disturbing list of deaths and disappearances in recent years continues to grow. Steven Garcia, 48, vanished without a trace on August 28th, 2025, and was last seen living in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Wow. Wow. Carrying only a handgun?

• 2:03:31Danny Jones?

  What? So all these people are allegedly like connected to the Department of Energy and doing like nuclear weapons stuff, like secret. One person actually worked at Wright Patterson Air Force Base.

• 2:03:50Danny Jones?

  Oh yeah, there it is. Punch in on that.

• 2:03:53Danny Jones?

  So they're all dead or missing. Steven Garcia is the latest. Top science, top scientist detecting signs of alien life at NASA JPL. Frank Mywald.

• 2:04:08Danny Jones?

  Um, two people from Los Alamos Labs. Scroll down.

• 2:04:16Danny Jones?

  Wright Patterson Air Force Base, two people linked to there.

• 2:04:23Danny Jones?

  That is frickin' bizarre. Why?

• 2:04:26Speaker 03

  I don't know.

• 2:04:29Speaker 03

  Yeah, but you know, my, my belief remains that we probably don't have, you know, the technology

• 2:04:37Speaker 03

  that is being suppressed.

• 2:04:39Danny Jones?

  You don't think there's any secret technology the government's hiding?

• 2:04:43Speaker 03

  Not, I don't think to the level that we might fantasize. Clearly, you know, they have technology we don't know of, but I don't think they have anti-gravity or teleporters or Stargates or fusion devices.

• 2:04:58Danny Jones?

  What do you think the stuff that the New York Times reported about in 2014 was?

• 2:05:02Speaker 03

  What was that?

• 2:05:03Danny Jones?

  The Tic Tacs that the Navy pilots saw on their radar?

• 2:05:06Speaker 03

  I don't know. That's another thing. I mean, I find, you know, UAPs extremely fascinating and worthwhile of research. And I really hope that peer-reviewed journals overturn their policy of not publishing papers on the subject.

• 2:05:21Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 2:05:21Speaker 03

  Because how do you expect to make progress?

• 2:05:23Danny Jones?

  I think we're past, we're past the point now in the timeline where like you can't dismiss UFOs anymore.

• 2:05:31Speaker 03

  Yeah, and that's exactly my point. We've got to study them in order to make sense of them.

• 2:05:35Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:05:36Speaker 03

  Because the way they're described and the way they behave, hard to explain in terms of conventional physics, right? Clearly, you know, if you use the Occam's razor, it's much more likely to be like a government technology like you're implying that we're not aware of, but they're blaming on aliens because.

• 2:05:57Danny Jones?

  Look, we have a government that likes to keep secrets and likes to lie to the American public.

• 2:06:01Speaker 03

  Yeah, I mean, that entirely feeds.

• 2:06:03Danny Jones?

  Those are two facts.

• 2:06:04Speaker 03

  Entirely feeds the pattern. And I think it's a lot more likely than aliens per se, because we've never seen aliens.

• 2:06:10Danny Jones?

  I've never seen.

• 2:06:11Speaker 03

  Government lie all the time, right? So out of the two, you know, government lying and having, you know, secret technologies far more plausible than, you know, visitors from outer space being here, but could be the other thing too, you know? We don't know and. Uh, I think we need to research and I think we need to publish, publish the uh, the findings because otherwise it's just speculation and we're none the wiser. And government is not going one day just to say, oh, I mean, sorry, we lied.

• 2:06:42Speaker 03

  It's up to us to find it.

• 2:06:44Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:06:45Speaker 03

  So I, I'm all for researching it and I'm all for uh, you know, peer reviewed publications on the, on the topic. And that's what pisses me off when, when this uh, whistleblowers go and they present to Senate or Congress, these hearings and UAPs. How come uh, the Congress or, or any agencies haven't been pressed to release data on these objects because telemetry is available. You know, video footage is available, lots of other, you know, sensors. So these airplanes that detect uh, UAPs, they have a bunch of sensors on them that collect information on these UAPs. So I think we should push for release of that information because that would enable a scientific study.

• 2:07:31Speaker 03

  Because what we're given is pictures. And pictures are like the Plato's cave allegory, you know, you see shadows, shadows on the wall.

• 2:07:40Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:07:40Speaker 03

  You have no idea what that shadow is and, and government has the rest of this information we should not releasing.

• 2:07:46Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:07:47Speaker 03

  And, and that's uh, I think what must happen in order for us to gain understanding. And they say, well, we cannot release it because we've, we are afraid that it's gonna jeopardize like national security. Because you know, the secret sensors or you know, secret contraptions. I think this is bullshit. It's just an excuse not to give us information. So we could never, you know, research these objects and, and figure out what they are. And maybe trace them back to the government or maybe identify them. Is it hitherto unknown natural phenomenon or maybe established, you know?

• 2:08:21Danny Jones?

  Instead, we get documentaries with all the top officials in intelligence and military and, and government all testifying that all this stuff is real, right? Like this age of disclosure documentary, it's insane. How many government, government officials and, and intelligence agency officials are all saying, saying, giving testimony, sworn testimony that this stuff's real, it's hidden, secret, whatever, which any reasonable, reasonable person can sit down and watch and be like, oh my God, this shit's real. Like, holy crap. Yet they will not show any evidence. So it's like they're, it's like uh, the ultimate gaslighting on society.

• 2:08:53Speaker 03

  You know, which exactly, you know? Highlights and emphasizes the point I was trying to drive, you know, throughout our talk, that it's never sufficient to make claims without evidence. So if you have a narration or you're telling a story and you say this or that, this is all unsubstantiated. And for what I care, you invented it, you know, you came up with it. And then the other point is people lie, people lie all the time. And how can you believe anybody without evidence?

• 2:09:26Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:09:27Speaker 03

  Just believe me, I'm telling you, you know, believe me. No, I don't believe you because I know people are lying for multiple reasons. You know, lying on purpose to mislead us, you know, lying to get notoriety, you know, lying to get popularity, you know, lying for material monetary advantage, you know, lying to get laid, you know, you name it.

• 2:09:45Danny Jones?

  And also, you know, to the point of the secret technology stuff, like if we were really testing all that crazy stuff, like we're involved in how many wars right now? And there's been no reporting on any of this stuff being used. It's all, we're all, we're still using helicopters and aircraft carriers.

• 2:10:01Speaker 03

  I think if you just had, you know, some secret tech.

• 2:10:04Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:10:05Speaker 03

  They would have taken out like Iran or like that. And there will be like a radioactive desert.

• 2:10:11Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:10:11Speaker 03

  And.

• 2:10:12Danny Jones?

  Yeah, we're effectively losing a war against a Stone Age civilization.

• 2:10:16Speaker 03

  Right.

• 2:10:17Danny Jones?

  Yet we have all the top secret like anti-gravity.

• 2:10:20Speaker 03

  Where is this? Yes, that's why it doesn't make sense. Yeah, I mean, always like, I don't know for sure, right? I'm just telling you, you know, my personal feeling, right? My personal preference.

• 2:10:32Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:10:32Speaker 03

  Based on my inner experience with engineers and with scientists, you know, I have very few reasons to believe that some super tech exists. It's just because everything I've looked at, I was able either to find a problem or find a mistake and or people who claimed they had something 20 years ago, still at the same base they were, you know, 20 years ago.

• 2:10:55Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:10:56Speaker 03

  So, so how is that if you told me 20 years ago you had a over unity machine? Or you had, you know, something levitating or something producing power? And how come you're not like a multi-trillion dollar company now? If you had that 20 years ago?

• 2:11:10Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:11:10Speaker 03

  And that's kind of the pattern with all of this, you know, crazy scientists, crazy inventors that you hear on and off, somebody invents this, somebody invents that. But twenty, thirty, you know, forty years later, we still don't have flying cars and we still, you know, burn gasoline. So I just think it's people are a lot more than than they should have.

• 2:11:32Danny Jones?

  I think so too. How much do you know about this, uh, like uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons stuff like that we're talking about?

• 2:11:40Speaker 03

  I know a little bit. I mean, I guess three things I know, and I'm not an expert. I know that Iran's supreme leader, until he was killed, he issued like a fatwa.

• 2:11:53Danny Jones?

  Yeah, yeah, in the early two thousands, yeah.

• 2:11:55Speaker 03

  Nuclear weapons, and that makes sense from the standpoint of of their religion.

• 2:12:02Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:12:02Speaker 03

  So it's not approved, it's not okay. It's like, you know, we have Christian principles and Christian principles, you say you don't kill the innocent, right? So, uh, they, they have the same idea. So I entirely believe that, uh, it's possible that, you know, the, the program, the enrichment program was civilian in this sense that the, uh, Iran is, is working, you know, with Russia on, uh, civilian and nuclear power. And it would think you'd be in a better of just, you know, buying the nuclear secrets from Russia. Because, you know, Russia did help, you know, China get nuclear weapons and probably did help, you know,

• 2:12:45Speaker 03

  North Korea, you know, get nuclear weapons.

• 2:12:48Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:12:49Speaker 03

  So it could have, you know, helped Iran in a heartbeat. So why haven't this happened for decades and decades? Because, you know, Iran has been working on it for how long? And that's another thing, you know.

• 2:13:02Danny Jones?

  Apparently, from my understanding is they've been enriching uranium strictly for, like manufacturing and energy purposes.

• 2:13:12Speaker 03

  Civil and nuclear power, right? You need somewhat enriched in an uranium fuel in order for it to participate, participate in the.

• 2:13:18Danny Jones?

  The question is just like, what's the percentages and like?

• 2:13:21Speaker 03

  Exactly.

• 2:13:22Danny Jones?

  All that stuff is very confusing.

• 2:13:23Speaker 03

  And if you recall, South Africa used to have nuclear weapons, you know.

• 2:13:27Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:13:27Speaker 03

  Right. And then they just, you know, dismantled the program. And Israel has nuclear weapons. So the point is, and North Korea has nuclear weapons, right? And just think how poor the country North Korea is, yet they have nuclear weapons. And Iran is much larger. So clearly, if Iran wanted to have nuclear weapons, they would have had them, you know, 20 or 30 years ago. Because otherwise, you know, how you can explain that, you know, such a great country with such, you know, great, you know, technological potentials still don't have them. And the only explanation is they never really intended to. Otherwise, they would have had it. Right? And many people would argue it was a mistake on their part, you know, because had they had nuclear weapons.

• 2:14:07Danny Jones?

  I'm sure they wish they would have done it.

• 2:14:08Speaker 03

  Immune from the attack. But as I said, I'm not an expert. And I do believe, you know, you need to enrich. I know you need to enrich for this.

• 2:14:18Danny Jones?

  There's this conspiracy theory that I just recently learned about, that is, says nukes are fake. Nukes aren't real. And I think one of the main bases of it is the videos, which is wild. The videos of, that the US released during the nuclear, first nuclear tests. Have you seen them? Of like the houses being blown apart? You know what I'm talking about, Steve? So, how did the cameras survive? If these houses are being literally incinerated by these bombs?

• 2:14:49Speaker 03

  I will, um.

• 2:14:50Danny Jones?

  And how did the film survive?

• 2:14:52Speaker 03

  I will tell you something else. I do believe that nuclear weapons are outdated. Like, when military technology makes progress, it's like every once in a while, old technology is discarded and new technology is brought in. Think about, you know, First World War, for example, right? Tank, you know, was the main thing that changed the static warfare into dynamic warfare. And Germans really perfected it. And that's why they had the upper hand, you know, throughout, you know, early years of the war too. Then, before that, why Napoleon became great? Because he figured out how to use artillery. So before him, nobody,

• 2:15:33Speaker 03

  you know, artillery existed, just nobody knew how to employ it efficiently. And he really took advantage of it. And he was able to, you know, crash and smack his enemies like no tomorrow, because he was an artillery genius. And then, you know, nuclear weapons were developed and now we think, oh, it's an ultimate weapon. And the truth is, it no longer is because now we have high-precision weapons. And that's what you really need to accomplish military objectives, which is war in Iran is clearly showing. And Israel and the United States can bomb and destroy any target anywhere, like within seconds, using conventional weapons, because you don't need a large, a megaton explosive,

• 2:16:17Speaker 03

  you know, to destroy, let's say, a bunker or a launch vehicle or something else.

• 2:16:21Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:16:21Speaker 03

  You need a small but precisely positioned weapon. And that's, you know, what the modern warfare is about. It's about precisely positioning, you know, small explosives where they need to be.

• 2:16:33Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:16:34Speaker 03

  So you will not gain much by deploying nuclear weapons. In fact, all you're gonna gain is, you know, death and destruction of the world. Because, you know, the area is gonna be contaminated.

• 2:16:46Danny Jones?

  Mutual destruction, yeah.

• 2:16:46Speaker 03

  Yes, you know, water, we drink, air we breathe is gonna be contaminated worldwide. You know, these weapons are untouchable, because, you know, the second you start using them, you know, you end life on this planet, as we know it. I mean, not like totally, but, you know, our standard of living and comfort and, you know, will just disappear because of all of the outcomes. So I think for all intents and purposes, nuclear weapons are dead. Because you cannot use them because it destroys the environment at such an uncontrollable rate to where nobody is going to tolerate it. But there is, more importantly, there is no, like, military reason to use them. Because you can, you know, you can do things a lot better and a lot more efficiently

• 2:17:31Speaker 03

  with, you know, precisely delivered conventional weapons, hell, you know, with drones.

• 2:17:36Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:17:37Speaker 03

  So.

• 2:17:37Danny Jones?

  So this is the video I wanted to show you of the, what the United States released when they first did the nuclear weapons tests, right here. Steve, can you play it for us real quick?

• 2:17:48Danny Jones?

  In the 1950s.

• 2:17:52Danny Jones?

  So, how did they film this is the question? If that house literally got incinerated like that, vaporized, how is this camera?

• 2:18:04Danny Jones?

  Not only how is the camera surviving, but how is the film inside of the, because this is shot on film, obviously. How does the film survive? If a film, if film gets damaged going through airport x-ray scanners? Or airport security? How the hell does it survive this?

• 2:18:21Speaker 03

  Well, I can have a plausible explanation. So clearly, you know, the camera must have been positioned in explosion-proof enclosure. So it could have been a concrete bunker that is also screened with lead and whatnot to protect the film. Because radiation is directional. So when you explode a nuclear ordinance, the radiation is directional. So you know where it's coming from. And the shockwave is directional too. It's coming from the epicenter of the explosion.

• 2:18:48Danny Jones?

  But it also, it also does like a sucking too, right? Not only does it explode out, but that it sucks back in.

• 2:18:54Speaker 03

  Right. But so, so in principle, you can have a concrete bunker that is with an opening, you know, for the camera and the opening for the camera is on the side opposite to the side from where the shockwave is approaching.

• 2:19:11Speaker 03

  So I think you can, in principle, protect the camera from radiation from the shockwave.

• 2:19:17Danny Jones?

  Interesting. I wonder if you can ask, ask.

• 2:19:20Speaker 03

  Once again, I'm not an expert. I just ventured an opinion.

• 2:19:24Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:19:25Speaker 03

  Could come up with, you know, on the spot.

• 2:19:30Danny Jones?

  Huh. Right.

• 2:19:35Speaker 03

  But I know from, from geology, you know, Trinitite, Israel, you know, Trinitite, the rock that was formed when they blew up, you know, the first nuclear weapon.

• 2:19:46Danny Jones?

  What is it called?

• 2:19:47Speaker 03

  Trinitite.

• 2:19:47Danny Jones?

  Trinitite?

• 2:19:48Speaker 03

  Yes, it's when they set off, you know, the Trinity. The.

• 2:19:54Speaker 03

  Glass was formed on the surface of the desert.

• 2:19:56Danny Jones?

  Oh, yeah.

• 2:19:58Speaker 03

  And that became like a collectible rock. Because it's radioactive, it has this glassification and vitrification from the heat of the nuclear explosion. And it circulates like all over the place. A lot of it, you know, was collected and then given away. I don't think you can find it anymore, but, you know, it exists, it's real. It's radioactive from that explosion, yes, trinitite, so.

• 2:20:23Danny Jones?

  That's the only way it can be created.

• 2:20:25Speaker 03

  I cannot say it's the only way, but, you know, to me, it's a tangible evidence of the explosion of the forced nuclear weapon.

• 2:20:35Danny Jones?

  What was the other, there was another element that was found on Earth that was also found on Mars?

• 2:20:41Speaker 03

  Xenon, that's very interesting, yeah. That's very interesting, so I don't know how to explain it. And that's uninteresting because it's a radioactive isotope that is not, we don't know of a process that forms it naturally.

• 2:20:52Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:20:53Speaker 03

  So we know a process that forms it as a part of nuclear explosion, but we don't know if it can, of any other ways it can be formed. Therefore, it's a viable hypothesis. So you cannot dismiss it offhand. And in order to dismiss it offhand, you need to find another way that isotope could be synthesized. And then you can, you know, challenge the nuclear war explanation. So I'm saying you have to be consistent in your logic and application of your logic, right?

• 2:21:24Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:21:24Speaker 03

  So when you dismiss hypotheses, you don't dismiss them because they're crazy sounding, right? You need to dismiss them only when they lack evidence.

• 2:21:33Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:21:34Speaker 03

  And we don't have evidence for this xenon isotope forming in any other ways, then this is the only explanation. But in the future, it could be different, you know, as we learn more, you know, who knows? We don't know, but for the time being, I'd say it's the only explanation.

• 2:21:51Danny Jones?

  Right. Yeah, the nuclear question is certainly interesting because that's, that's true, that's.

• 2:21:57Speaker 03

  Or that Oklahoma natural reactor in, I think in Gabon. You familiar with that?

• 2:22:02Danny Jones?

  No.

• 2:22:03Speaker 03

  There is a natural.

• 2:22:09Speaker 03

  Fission reactor that was discovered in Gabon, I believe. It's called Oklo natural nuclear reactor.

• 2:22:17Danny Jones?

  Oh, I do remember that. I think you mentioned this last time.

• 2:22:20Speaker 03

  Yeah. So to me, it's, and once again, you know, I'm not an expert on the subject. But whatever little I know, it's very difficult to explain that naturally. Because the premise there is this uranium is depleted. So whenever you mine uranium, uranium has certain proportion of fissile isotopes versus non-fissile. So you have uranium-235 and uranium-238. And 235 is what goes into nuclear weapons and what goes into nuclear power plants. And 238, nobody cares about. Yeah. So.

• 2:23:01Danny Jones?

  Earth's two billion year old natural nuclear reactor.

• 2:23:05Speaker 03

  And I find this very hard to believe because the idea goes like this. In order for uranium ore there to be depleted to the extent it is, that reactor must have operated for many millions of years. And for reactor to operate for many millions of years, you need to have the conditions just right for many millions of years. And nuclear reactor is a very complex thing in the sense that.

• 2:23:37Danny Jones?

  You built one in your garage.

• 2:23:38Speaker 03

  Right. In the sense that, let's say, if if the fuel is not sufficiently pure, you can have some poisons to develop in it. And those poisons basically would absorb your nutrients and extinguish your nuclear reaction. Or if your proportion of isotopes is not just right, your reaction will either fizzle out.

• 2:24:06Speaker 03

  Or it will result in into an explosion. And there are many considerations like that, that students and engineers study in the field of nuclear engineering. So in order to build a functional nuclear reactor that operates for a meaningful amount of time.

• 2:24:25Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:24:25Speaker 03

  Let's say ten, twenty years, a lot of conditions need to be just right. And if any of the conditions are not met, the reactor will either stop working or explode.

• 2:24:36Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:24:38Speaker 03

  And now you're telling me that by chance in nature, you know, the conditions were just right for millions of years. I just find it impossible to believe.

• 2:24:50Danny Jones?

  I find a lot of things impossible to believe.

• 2:24:52Speaker 03

  It's far easier to believe it was a remnant of an ancient, you know, nuclear reactor.

• 2:24:56Danny Jones?

  I mean, what about the sun? What about the moon? What about the universe? All of this shit's impossible.

• 2:25:00Speaker 03

  Yeah, but you know, with the sun, you have advantage of scale. And that's what makes it work, you know, sun, where we believe that the sun is the large natural thermonuclear fusion reactor.

• 2:25:14Danny Jones?

  Thermonuclear.

• 2:25:15Speaker 03

  Thermonuclear, right. And the reason it works is because, you know, sun is so large and the gravity contains the plasma. So it doesn't fly apart, you know, does not become a cloud just because gla- gravity holds us all back.

• 2:25:27Danny Jones?

  Oh.

• 2:25:28Speaker 03

  And when we're doing, when we're trying to scale the sun down to, let's say, to this. And put it in a car, the problem is, you know, how do you contain sun in in this small form? And and that's the containment problem. And the best solution, well, it's magnetic field. And then it's difficult, it's expensive, it requires large, complex engineering. Because you don't have, you know, this massive force of gravity to keep it all together. But in the case of the sun, you have the scale and the gravity holds it together naturally. But in the case of of the Okla fusion reactor, it's not thermonuclear fusion. It's it's fission. So we're uranium fission. It's I'm saying is so many conditions need to be just right.

• 2:26:13Speaker 03

  So I could believe it happened like for a few seconds and then it blew up or fizzled out. But for it to be right for millions of years, I think other explanations are more likely.

• 2:26:24Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:26:25Speaker 03

  But, you know, I'm not an expert on that topic, so I can't really argue it. You know, with scientists unless I study it. But just from what I know, I'd say easier to believe aliens built it or Atlanteans built it. Because it makes a lot more sense. So we know this is possible. So we know that, you know, aliens could have visited and built it or.

• 2:26:45Danny Jones?

  Well, we also, we also know what we don't know. And we, we, what is also true is that we keep finding evidence that human beings at least were on this earth way before we knew previously. There, there, evidence keeps coming out that makes us older and older and older. There is this, this article that came out about a year ago about the skull found in China. Human skull that's over a million years old. So, you know, it's certainly possible that we existed or some version of us, some multiple versions of us have existed on this earth.

• 2:27:26Danny Jones?

  Millions, possibly billions of years ago that we would have no evidence for.

• 2:27:31Speaker 03

  Yeah, besides, it doesn't have to be people, right? Could have been reptilian billion beings for what.

• 2:27:37Danny Jones?

  So less than a year ago, this was published. A million year old skull rewrites human evolution, scientists claim. And then a million year old human skull found in China suggests the Homo sapiens began to emerge at least half a million years earlier than we thought.

• 2:27:53Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:27:53Danny Jones?

  Insane.

• 2:27:54Speaker 03

  It's absolutely right. So much we don't know.

• 2:27:57Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 2:27:58Speaker 03

  You think Earth history is billions of years old. So maybe intelligent beings evolved in the times of dinosaurs, or maybe, you know, many times since. And this is actually a legitimate topic for a scientific discussion publication, where people discuss what traces of technological advanced civilization, you know, you can find in, in, in human geological record.

• 2:28:21Danny Jones?

  Or maybe it's just us and we, we like lost the plot along the way. You know, like right now, if, if, if there was a, a thermonuclear, global thermonuclear war went down, they'll probably, you know, one of the only groups of people to survive would be, you know, indigenous tribes in the Amazon or like, uh, people who are current day hunter gatherers. Uh, that would be, become like cargo cults that would, civilization would have to restart, but it would still be us. It just wouldn't be how we think of us.

• 2:28:52Speaker 03

  Yeah. Besides this, this happened in the past for sure, because if you read about human genome, it's not diverse.

• 2:29:00Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:29:01Speaker 03

  When you compare human genome to, let's say chimps genome. So chimps a lot more genetically diverse than humans. And the way it is explained is at some point in the past and not so distant past, like entire human population came through bottleneck of only like a few hundred individuals.

• 2:29:19Danny Jones?

  Right. Yeah. I think, uh, we had a genome expert on the show, Kevin McKernan, and he was saying that every human on earth came from like 20,000 humans.

• 2:29:27Speaker 03

  Right. Yeah.

• 2:29:28Danny Jones?

  That's the variation.

• 2:29:29Speaker 03

  Yes. So, you know, clearly this speaks of some kind of catastrophe that happened or.

• 2:29:35Danny Jones?

  When did that bottleneck happen? Find that. See, see, find out when the, the bottleneck in the human genome was, uh, dated to.

• 2:29:43Speaker 03

  So that's why I wanna chisel my poetry on a slab of granite.

• 2:29:47Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:29:48Speaker 03

  To where if.

• 2:29:48Danny Jones?

  Let them, let them all know that you made it all.

• 2:29:50Speaker 03

  What happens, all the paper and discs will burn out, but they'll find this rock with my words chiseled on it.

• 2:29:57Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 2:29:57Speaker 03

  And there will be the only tangible.

• 2:30:00Danny Jones?

  We need to go put it on the moon. We need to go put a bunch of hard drives on the moon. Major severe human ancestral bottleneck is dated between 930,000 to 813,000 years ago.

• 2:30:11Danny Jones?

  The bottleneck lasted approximately 117,000 years, reducing the breeding population to roughly, oh, 1,200 individuals and bringing, uh, human ancestors close to extinction.

• 2:30:22Danny Jones?

  Hmm. I thought it was way more. I didn't know it was that low. 1,200 individuals.

• 2:30:26Speaker 03

  I thought it was more recent than that.

• 2:30:28Danny Jones?

  Yeah, I also thought so.

• 2:30:29Speaker 03

  Maybe there is more than one.

• 2:30:30Danny Jones?

  There might have been another bottleneck. Yeah. Find out the most recent bottleneck, Stephen.

• 2:30:36Danny Jones?

  When is the most recent bottleneck in the human genome? Put that in there.

• 2:30:46Danny Jones?

  Oh, it just says the same thing.

• 2:30:51Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 2:30:53Danny Jones?

  Find out what Kevin McKeon said on our podcast, if you can.

• 2:30:58Danny Jones?

  But, um, yeah, certainly. I mean, written history only goes back, what? Like 800 B.C. Something like that, or no, when, it would be Sumerian stuff, right?

• 2:31:06Speaker 03

  That's what I was going to mention. If you're reading Sumerian's tablets or Sumerian's legends, you know, they say we were created. You know, the story of human race being created by gods. I think we should take it seriously. You know, why not make it a topic of scientific exploration? Because there are a lot of abnormalities, let's say, in human physiology. Like everyone's back hurts.

• 2:31:33Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:31:34Speaker 03

  You know, why is that, right? Then, you know, reproductive cycle, why all animals reproduce only in spring and human beings reproduce all the time? And that doesn't make sense.

• 2:31:45Danny Jones?

  And also, we're one of the few, we're one of the few species on Earth, maybe one of the only species on Earth, that our offspring is completely helpless for years from starting at birth.

• 2:31:59Speaker 03

  Yes. But there is even more fascinating subject. You know, the

• 2:32:06Speaker 03

  human growth hormone and what's the organ in our brain that's producing it?

• 2:32:11Danny Jones?

  Pituitary?

• 2:32:11Speaker 03

  Pituitary. Thank you. Yeah, and you're a professor at Penn State who was studying pituitary gland all his life, doing experiments in space on NASA's space stations, International Space Station.

• 2:32:27Speaker 03

  Turns out pituitary doesn't work in space. So if human beings go in zero gravity.

• 2:32:32Danny Jones?

  They go into, yeah.

• 2:32:34Speaker 03

  Body falls apart extremely quickly and one of the reasons is pituitary doesn't work. And he studied it in all his life.

• 2:32:40Danny Jones?

  It's called pregnenolone steal syndrome, I believe. Google that.

• 2:32:44Speaker 03

  And they didn't find the answer and they were joking, oh, there must be a switch in your hill.

• 2:32:51Danny Jones?

  A switch where?

• 2:32:52Speaker 03

  In your heel, like a pressure switch. Yeah, I mean, it's a joke. But that was, you know, after 40 years of researching the topic, the best answer they could give was a joke, there is a switch in your heel.

• 2:33:04Danny Jones?

  Pregnenalone Steel Syndrome is a theory suggesting that chronic stress causes the body to divert pregnenolone, a human, a precursor hormone, away from producing sex hormones like progesterone and testosterone. Type in pregnenolone steel system syndrome astronauts. Because I think they studied this actually.

• 2:33:29Danny Jones?

  Astronauts and chronic, so they're saying it's related to high cortisol.

• 2:33:35Danny Jones?

  And creating low sex hormones from DHEA to progesterone and testosterone.

• 2:33:44Danny Jones?

  Yeah, also, you know, another crazy thing is that, you know, when you're in space and you're around all that stuff, you're not getting any light, you're not getting any sunlight on you. And I know it's like really unhealthy to not get like UV light and full spectrum sunlight on you. That's why people get so sick when they are constantly inside under fluorescent lights.

• 2:34:06Speaker 03

  So you can make a good point and argue that humans were somehow engineered from more primitive beings that existed on Earth, because anomalies don't make sense. But if you consider them as a whole, it becomes a byproduct of genetic engineering or maybe unintended outcome of it.

• 2:34:28Danny Jones?

  Also, pretty much every species, plant, every plant and animal on Earth is locked into this coherent symbiosis with nature. Except for us, we're like the one that doesn't really fit. You know, like even down to like phytoplankton and everything, it works in this, this synergistic stream within nature, right?

• 2:34:53Speaker 03

  Yeah, I would take it even further. Why is the idea of gods so infectious, you know? Why we believe in God and we are servants to the God? It's as if it's ingrained in us by design.

• 2:35:03Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 2:35:04Speaker 03

  We want to serve gods that have been built. Born, created, we have been created by God to be its servants. That's like the highest aspiration in in human spirituality, to be with God, to serve God. Why is this, you know, I'm a scientist and I cannot escape the same thoughts. You know, they permeate through my poetry, through my feelings. And I'm thinking, why is this, I am so driven? You know, to be with God, to serve God. Well, makes no sense unless, of course, you know, you've been built. Well, biological slave to another species.

• 2:35:42Danny Jones?

  Well, just by the fact that human beings are are the only species on earth that are able to reason. Right? We have to, we know that we came from someone. I came from my dad, he came from his dad. But if you extrapolate that all the way to the beginning of time, where did the first one come from?

• 2:35:59Speaker 03

  Yeah, I mean, you can argue that elephants and dolphins can. And apes can reason to some extent.

• 2:36:06Danny Jones?

  Right. But we're the only ones that can communicate it to our, you know, coherently and and write it down and study it. Try to figure it out. And there's no reasonable, there's no like. It's it's like a gap in our understanding of where did the first one come from? You know, there must be some sort of creator. And I think it kind of, it fills a spot in the human psyche that kind of gives us a sense of purpose.

• 2:36:30Speaker 03

  Yes, yes, you know, why do we need the sense of purpose? And I'm, I was thinking, you know, about this philosophically for the longest time. And I would say, you know, what is the difference between man and God? So God does not need a sense of purpose because he is the purpose. And we need a sense of purpose because we're not gods. Without the sense of purpose, our life is useless. So why do we feel that way?

• 2:36:54Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:36:55Speaker 03

  And it's in such a universal, you know, human thing is to have a purpose, to be helpful. You're not a person if you're selfish. And and then it brings a blasphemous point. Then is God, you know, selfish? Is God evil because it doesn't need a purpose? It serves only itself or himself, you know, however you want to refer to it. Because everything that's good, that's human is, you know, you serve somebody. But God does not need to serve.

• 2:37:25Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:37:26Speaker 03

  It's a thing in itself, so.

• 2:37:28Danny Jones?

  Also, if there is this all seeing, all omnipotent God.

• 2:37:34Danny Jones?

  That means he knows everything that's gonna happen in the future already, which means the future's already written.

• 2:37:39Speaker 03

  Right.

• 2:37:39Danny Jones?

  Which means there's no free will.

• 2:37:41Speaker 03

  Right, yeah. And which brings another interesting point, you know, how in quantum mechanics, everything is indeterminate, that everything is probabilistic. And there is a Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics where there is no deeper truth to what probabilities tell you. So you can never predict what an electron would do. And many scientists find this idea uncomfortable because we're used to determinism, right? So, and the idea was, well, maybe if you include additional parameters, you'll figure out what the electron will do. You just don't have the enough data to make that, you know, decision.

• 2:38:22Speaker 03

  And Niels Bohr was vehemently opposed to this point of view because he believed on philosophical grounds in free will. And he believed that electron was in a sort of, as a quantum of free will. It was a fool's errand to try to figure out why electron goes this way or that way. Because he fundamentally believed it was free to do however it pleased. And it was stupid trying to question why did it turn left or why did it turn right? It's like trying to understand in the human psyche.

• 2:38:56Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:38:56Speaker 03

  It was that fundamental to him. And that's why he fought nail and tooth, like, what's the word? Deterministic explanations of quantum mechanics.

• 2:39:12Danny Jones?

  Oh, Steve found more bottleneck info. Neolithic Y chromosome bottleneck, 5,000 BCE. Estimated ratio diversity dropped to approximately one reproducing male for every 17 reproducing females. What does it say? Does it say like how many individuals? Breeding survivors, estimated between 1,000 to 10,000 individuals.

• 2:39:31Speaker 00

  Yes, so this is the total.

• 2:39:33Danny Jones?

  Oh, these are different catastrophes. Okay, I see.

• 2:39:35Speaker 00

  This is the most recent one, 5,000 years. There's no number because it's so random.

• 2:39:39Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:39:40Speaker 00

  Next one was the, out of Africa, which is what. Kevin was talking about. That's one of the three thousand breeding individuals that made it through.

• 2:39:48Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:39:48Speaker 00

  Around fifty thousand years ago.

• 2:39:50Danny Jones?

  Wow. It's pretty wild. And those are the, I know, those are the ones that that we know about. And Earth is so many billions of years old. There's got to be so much we we just don't know.

• 2:40:02Speaker 03

  Yeah, that's why exploration is fascinating. You know, we are curious.

• 2:40:06Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 2:40:07Speaker 03

  Like Einstein said, I don't have any special talents. I'm only passionately curious.

• 2:40:12Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 2:40:12Speaker 03

  That's what we gotta do. Gotta dig, analyze.

• 2:40:16Danny Jones?

  I think if aliens are real, they're probably time traveling humans.

• 2:40:21Speaker 03

  I'd like to think that aliens are real because, you know, you watch Star Wars, you see all of this species and the life finds a way. You just refuse to believe we're alone. In fact, I think probably George Lucas got it right. You know, maybe that's how.

• 2:40:36Danny Jones?

  Who got it right? George Lucas?

• 2:40:37Speaker 03

  Yeah. That's how universe is, you know, countless aliens everywhere because life takes it with easily. So I don't believe we're exceptional.

• 2:40:47Danny Jones?

  Yeah, I just think all the accounts, all the accounts that people have given that have experienced these things or allegedly seen these things, these like gray aliens that have two arms, two legs, upright, walking hominids. I I think that it's most likely they evolved here and not anywhere else because of other Goldilocks planets that we know of don't have the same atmosphere. They don't have the same gravity. They're mostly water worlds. So.

• 2:41:10Speaker 03

  Actually, Veronica, my lovely wife, Veronica makes a good point. You know, we have all cell phones and cameras everywhere.

• 2:41:17Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:41:17Speaker 03

  How come there isn't a good picture of any alien that they claim to have seen here or there or craft, you know?

• 2:41:27Speaker 03

  It's always blurry, always grainy.

• 2:41:29Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 2:41:29Speaker 03

  Yet, you know, in every pocket, there is a cell phone with a camera. What's up with that?

• 2:41:33Danny Jones?

  Right. It's a good question.

• 2:41:35Speaker 03

  And it just makes no sense. And, you know, when you look at it at this perspective, yeah, sure. I mean, I think it's far more likely that government is doing some sinister stuff that they do.

• 2:41:45Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 2:41:46Speaker 03

  And blaming it on aliens because then there is no accountability. And we know that American government has done, you know, terrible things to Americans, you know, like LSD testing in California and enforced sterilization of African Americans and, you know, wiping out of Native American population.

• 2:42:04Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:42:05Speaker 03

  We know that, they've done it. So it's so easy to dress somebody funny and do some sinister stuff and blame it on aliens. Then, look, it's not us, it's aliens.

• 2:42:15Danny Jones?

  Mm-hmm. Yeah, we've done some of the most sinister stuff and regarding nuclear weapons in general, like not just, not, not even just dropping nukes on civilian populations, but some of the experiments that we did with nuclear weapons here in the United States on our own people, our own citizens and our own soldiers. Have you seen the nuclear soldiers?

• 2:42:37Speaker 09

  Purchase new carpet from The Home Depot and get it installed for free right now. Shop the stylish choices and simple pricing of carpet from Home Decorator's Collection, Traffic Master, or Life Proof with Pet Proof Technology, and see for yourself why nobody beats our prices. Enjoy new carpet with free installation right now at The Home Depot. Offer valid October 15th through November 1st, 2026. Exclusions apply. For licenses, see homedepot.com/license numbers.

• 2:43:07Speaker 06

  I get so many headaches every month. It could be chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more.

• 2:43:15Speaker 08

  Botox, onabotulinum toxin A, prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for those who have 14 or fewer headache days a month. Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, myasthenia gravis or Lambert-Eaton syndrome, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.

• 2:44:00Speaker 06

  Why wait? Ask your doctor. Visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

• 2:44:08Danny Jones?

  The the US soldiers, there's a great Vice documentary on this. It's called, it's called, I think it's just called Nuclear Soldiers, where they took US servicemen and women, put them on aircraft carriers or ships in the ocean and detonated nuclear weapons way off in the horizon and purposely had them stare at the nuclear weapons to see what their reaction would be, what the long-term effects, what the short-term effects would be. Some of these folks are still alive and had to have to deal with all kinds of cancers, sterilization. They said, "We were guinea pigs." Soldier explained what the nuclear bomb blasts feel like. There's a, yeah, there's a video on this on YouTube where they interviewed a bunch

• 2:44:46Danny Jones?

  of them. They have yearly meetups that they go to. And it's crazy. And not only, not only did we do that kind of testing on our own people, but we also did where these things, experiments on the East Coast of the United States, we've looked this up before, where we took disabled children and experimented with injecting them with uranium and different nuclear materials to see what would happen to them. And I think Bill Clinton, like, exposed all this when he was president. He came out and did some sort of a public thing,

• 2:45:27Danny Jones?

  where it was either like reparations for these families or something like that, but this, this all came out under Bill Clinton. Remember when we talked about this?

• 2:45:39Danny Jones?

  Crazy. It's just, it's crazy, the stuff that the government has done.

• 2:45:43Speaker 03

  Yeah, I guess the evil has no limit. So here's the point I want to make. I think the purpose of life of every good person is to fight evil. That's the only, you know, true purpose that we have in our life. There is so much evil all around. We all have to fight it collectively, or else it will proliferate. And evil starts unfortunately with lying. You know, you lie, that's the smallest evil you commit. And then it goes from there, you know, violence.

• 2:46:14Speaker 03

  Grows from it.

• 2:46:16Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 2:46:16Speaker 03

  So I think that's the fundamental purpose of life.

• 2:46:19Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 2:46:20Speaker 03

  Fight and combat evil and you start just by being honest.

• 2:46:24Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:46:26Danny Jones?

  I think you got a great point there. I think you're right about that.

• 2:46:31Danny Jones?

  All right, well, so to wrap this up, what are your plans for the future when it comes to setting these ancient bases? And some of this ancient, some of this stone stuff? And you obviously got your paper published about the bases. What are your next goals?

• 2:46:45Speaker 03

  I do have some plans.

• 2:46:49Speaker 03

  Two things I'm doing. If anyone, you know, wants a vase like this, you know, just contact me and you can donate money to research and I'll make you a vase. And this is important because we're starting a new project. I have a partner now, Rico Horta, and we're gonna go to Peru to take some 3D scans of Peruvian megaliths, the polygonal blocks. And I want to subject to the same, you know, rigor of study where we can determine, hopefully know better how they were made and what they look like

• 2:47:31Speaker 03

  by producing the data sets, the analyzable data sets of how the stones, you know, look in 3D. So 3D scanning and he might call the project Scan Civilization or whatnot. I think it's important that we acquire and share data. So one person cannot discover all of the truth, but one person can help others by documenting carefully and by publishing, you know, what, what one finds.

• 2:47:58Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:47:58Speaker 03

  And that's what we would like to do. We would like to scan, you know, as many, you know, stones and artifacts as we possibly can over a period of time and put all of that in a public domain, publish all of that, you know, for other researchers to do their own investigation. Because, you know, we need brilliant minds looking at the data and making sense of the data. So, you know, the least I can do is capture the data, you know, provide you with, you know, high quality of data. But young minds and capable minds will see so much more in it. And that's how I believe, you know, we can move closer to, you know, learning the truth about our past.

• 2:48:35Danny Jones?

  Some of the stuff in Peru is astonishing, the way it looks like it was melted together. They look like melted marshmallows, right? And it's like, it, it looks like, even with some of the stuff in Egypt as well, like in the Osirion, it looks like this stuff was just heated up and molded together. Would there be a way of testing that to see if it was ever heated up?

• 2:48:55Speaker 03

  That's a second motivation. I'd like to be able to collect some of the samples from those rocks, stones, and put them into my electron microscope. And I'll be able to tell if the surface was modified, you know, what elements it contains, and whether it looks different from a virgin rock. Yes. So I think it's very important to be able to sample in some of this, in a polygonal, in a masonry blocks, and subject them to microscopy to see how it was made. Because you will see if the surface was melted, or if it was chemically altered, or if some chemicals were used, you will see all of that under electron microscope. And that's what I also intend to do. And, you know, of course, I'm very interested in scanning, you know, sarcophagy in Egypt.

• 2:49:39Speaker 03

  But I realize that that requires, you know, permits and applications for permits. And that, one of the motivators for me to keep publishing papers, because, you know, the more papers you publish, the higher your credibility in scientific community is, and that's what you need in order for, you know, to obtain a permit.

• 2:49:57Danny Jones?

  Yeah, but then you join the dark side.

• 2:49:59Speaker 03

  Not necessarily. I don't believe that. And I could be naive, and who knows? But the best thing, you know, we can do is try, right?

• 2:50:09Danny Jones?

  Yeah, you should. You should try, you should try, you should try to have one foot on both sides of the fence and try to look at things objectively with nuance and not try to look at it tribally.

• 2:50:17Speaker 03

  And if, you know, if the journals refuse to publish my findings, you know, I'll publish them on my blog, on my website. But it's important to capture high-quality data. And I don't know how to do it in Egypt, you know, without getting permits. You know, in Peru might be easier. We hope it's easier because, you know, there are lots of sites that are not restricted and... In the sense that we should be able to scan it.

• 2:50:41Danny Jones?

  Mm hmm.

• 2:50:42Speaker 03

  But yeah.

• 2:50:42Danny Jones?

  Have you looked at this Egypt scan thing with the big things that go underneath the pyramids?

• 2:50:46Speaker 03

  Yeah, that's like freaking fascinating. I, I, but if you.

• 2:50:52Danny Jones?

  There's a lot of issues with it.

• 2:50:53Speaker 03

  If you're talking about the, um, what they like determine from space.

• 2:50:57Danny Jones?

  Yeah, well, the, the, what, what are they calling it aperture radar?

• 2:51:00Speaker 03

  Yeah, I don't believe that. So that as a scientist and after reading the paper, I think it's utter and complete.

• 2:51:06Danny Jones?

  Jeffrey Drum did a beautiful breakdown for us on this podcast of all of that stuff and all of the stuff, all the evidence they gave and all the scanned.

• 2:51:16Speaker 03

  He debunked it.

• 2:51:16Danny Jones?

  All the technology and essentially, oh yeah, he found gaping holes.

• 2:51:21Speaker 03

  Yeah, it's absolutely bullshit, so.

• 2:51:23Danny Jones?

  Yeah. Like, one of the craziest things was their scans showed giant King's Chamber sized chambers in the central Kafra Pyramid. And we know that there's, they're not in there. And there's, there's just lots of inconsistencies in that stuff. And Jeffrey Drum does a really good job.

• 2:51:40Speaker 03

  That's why I said, you know, all evil begins with lying. So don't lie, you know, be honest.

• 2:51:46Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:51:46Speaker 03

  And, you know, in your own research, the easiest person to fool is yourself. If you don't have integrity, you know, you'll fool yourself very quickly. So I may not deliver a sensation, but I'll deliver, you know, a good data set that you can analyze.

• 2:52:00Danny Jones?

  Yep.

• 2:52:00Speaker 03

  So if there are any listeners listening in to this podcast, and if you want to help with this project, you can help us, you know, getting permits to scan or just getting introductions to various, you know, museums or sites, you know, we could use that because, you know, we don't want to be breaking laws or violating regulations, whatnot. So it will, it will take, I think, a collective effort of people who are really, you know, genuinely interested in learning truth about the past, you know, to pull our resources together in one capacity or the other. So we get the necessary permits, collect and publish the data and let everyone analyze and make sense of it. Because it may be different from what we believe now.

• 2:52:46Speaker 03

  Maybe, you know, more interesting and more fascinating than we could ever imagine. But, you know, we need to be truthful and honest about it.

• 2:52:54Danny Jones?

  Yeah, I agree.

• 2:52:55Speaker 03

  To.

• 2:52:56Danny Jones?

  Well, super impressive stuff, man. The, I'm really impressed by, uh, by how, how far you're, you're going to produce some of this evidence and replicate some of these results and, and. You know, call balls and strikes with this stuff because it's, uh, it's refreshing in today's day and age.

• 2:53:10Speaker 03

  Thank you. It's very kind for you to say.

• 2:53:12Danny Jones?

  Um, so, uh, we'll obviously link everything below, but are there any specific links people should be aware of to find your work and find you online or anything like that?

• 2:53:20Speaker 03

  Yeah. Maximus dot energy is my website and that's your best, uh, you know, starting point. Because on my website, there is a blog dedicated to Egyptology and to my fusion research and to general physics. And this is where you can read more about, uh, you know, my ideas and my findings and all the links and references to the papers. So Maximus dot energy and I'm not much of a YouTuber, you know, I do have a YouTube channel and then the link is on, on my website. So it's either you do a research or you produce content. So I kind of focus on research and I'll let you produce the content.

• 2:53:55Danny Jones?

  Cool, man. Well, thanks again. Steve, we have Patreon questions? We do. We have a couple Patreon questions we'll do. All right. That's the end of the podcast. Good night, folks.

• 2:54:04Speaker 09

  Purchase new carpet from The Home Depot and get it installed for free right now. Shop the stylish choices and simple pricing of carpet from Home Decorator's Collection, Traffic Master, or Life Proof with Pet Proof Technology and see for yourself why nobody beats our prices. Enjoy new carpet with free installation right now at The Home Depot. Offer valid October 15th through November 1st, 2026. Exclusions apply. For licenses, see homedepot.com/license numbers.

• 2:54:34Speaker 10

  Now streaming on Paramount Plus. I'm Dexter Morgan. I've been killing killers for half my life. It gets to you. You're having a midlife crisis. I'm not ready for this. He's back. I'm older. I'm wiser. And sharper than ever. Things are gonna get messy, but if I can't believe in myself, I can't believe in anything. Dexter Resurrection, new season now streaming on the Paramount Plus Premium Plan.