#2142 - Christopher Dunn
2024-04-30 02:40:14
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan podcast, check it out. The Joe Rogan Experience. Join my day, Joe Rogan podcast, by night, all day.
Alright, thanks for doing this, sir, I appreciate it.
Oh, you're welcome.
I've enjoyed many of your videos online, so I'm fascinated by these theories that you have.
Oh, that's one.
So I'm excited, I'm excited that you're here. Could you please, first of all, could you tell everybody what your background is? What did you start off doing professionally?
I started as an apprentice in an engineering company in Manchester, England.
And worked through the apprenticeship, received my journeyman papers. Worked for a couple more years in England and then I was recruited by an aerospace company in America.
And emigrated to America.
And what did you do for this aerospace company?
Well, I started out as a lathe turner, that was my specialty.
A what?
A lathe turner.
A lathe turner? Yeah.
Right, so I was a lathe hand, right? So I operated, you know, horizontal lathes, vertical lathes. In England, you know, they had what they call them vertical boring mills. And in the States you have to learn a different language right there. The cultural differences between, right?
So you pick up different terminologies for things. Like they call over. here, they call it a vertical turret lathe. In England they call it a vertical boring mill.
And so you're working with machines. And when did you come up with this theory about the pyramid?
Well, actually I had been in the States for a while. I came over in 1969.. And in 1977 I picked up Peter Tompkins' book, Secrets of the Great Pyramid. And I started to examine that book. And one of the things that Tompkins, he asked a very significant question in that book.
And he said, does the Great Pyramid, in trying to loss science, you know, is the Great Pyramid a product of that science? Does it reflect that science? And I took that question very seriously. And that question was in my mind as I read through the book. And then I started to explore some of the references that he provided in the bibliography.
One of them was the work of William Flinders Petrie.
And he described lathes being used in ancient Egypt. He described very large coring drills, up to 18 inches in diameter.
And he also claimed that they were using circular saws.
When he's describing this, what kind of metal would they be using?
Well, that's the thing. The question really demands that you explore all methods that you are able to. when you satisfy the historical record. Say the archaeological record. And you say, okay, I'm going to try this.
Well, that's not going to work. That won't work. So we'll try this. We'll keep improving our methods and tools until we arrive at a solution to explaining the artifact. That's the important thing.
That's basically the demands on a manufacturing engineer, which I eventually became. A customer comes in and they bring a part to the company and say, I want you to make one just like this.
What do we do? Well, we have to know what this is. And to do that, you take measurements. You determine materials, how it was manufactured. You look for tool marks to see what processes may have been involved in it, whether there were dies,
whether there's machining marks in areas. You look at the welds. Did they weld some parts? Did they braze other parts? And then, of course, the geometries.
And basically, that's your model. Let's say, okay, I'm going to make something just like this.
Right. But when you're making something, if you're looking at, say, some of the stonework that was done in the Pyramid, not in the Pyramid, but in some of the quarries where you see these core drill holes.
Right.
How would you reverse engineer that? How would you figure out what could possibly do that?
Well, that's the interesting question. And it's one that's been a huge debate going on about that. And it really goes back to 1984.. And I had published an article called Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt?
And it was published in Analog Science Fiction, Science Fact magazine in August of 1984.
So you've been at this a long time.
Yeah. Was that before you were born?
I was in high school.
Yeah, you were.
Yeah, I was a junior in high school.
I wasn't.
So it was. And, you know, Stanley Schmidt, Dr. Stanley Schmidt, who's the editor of Analog, a very respected editor, selected it for publication. And we went through, you know, the editorial processes, suggested changes and stuff like that. And then it was, it went out.
And so what did you, when you look at, like the core, the drill holes, the vases are another, like very fascinating and real gigantic mystery. Right. As to how those were constructed. And we'll talk about those as well. You mean?
Is that what it looks like? That's a model of one? Yeah. But the core holes itself, we had a debate recently with Graham Hancock and Flint Dibble. And one of the things that Dibble had suggested was that they had done something with sand and that that was how they were able to do this with copper and sand.
And they were able to drill. Does that make sense to you?
Well, I mean, I've heard that theory about how they were done. And I know that there has been work done to prove that that theory is the correct one. But central to explaining at the actual core,
if you go back and you read Petrie, he described a spiral groove around a granite core. And he said that it had like a pitch of 100 thousandths per revolution of the drill. And so that's what I was going on when I claimed, well, what kind of a process would you need to...
Can I stop you there? When you say a pitch of a thousandth per...
Yeah. For every revolution of the drill, it sinks into the granite a hundred thousandths of an inch.
Okay. So because of that, you know that this thing has to be operating at a certain speed?
Not necessarily rotational speed, but the penetration rate.
So with each rotation, it will go. how long? How far?
A hundred thousandths of an inch, which is almost one eighth of an inch.
So that's pretty impressive when you're talking about solid granite, correct?
Yeah.
And that probably wouldn't be possible with copper and sand? No. It seems like sand and copper just are not abrasive enough.
No. I contacted a company that specialized in drilling granite, and I asked them, what is the feed rate? That 100 thousandths of an inch would be the feed rate of the drill. Now, what is the feed rate of your drills when you're drilling into granite? And I got a response from him, and he said, generally, you know, our drills, they're diamond.
They rotate around 900 revolutions per minute, and the penetration rate is about two tenths of an inch per revolution. So two ten thousandths of an inch per revolution.
Oh, two ten thousandths.
Two, ten thousandths. I'm sorry, yeah, I misspoke. So two ten thousandths of an inch is like 500 times smaller than 100 thousandths of an inch.
Wow. So these drills that they used in Egypt were capable of drilling, with each revolution, 500 times more than modern diamond drills that were used by people who cut into granite.
Their penetration rate was 500 times greater.
So it might have been operating at a slower revolution, but when it's going through its full revolution, it's much more effective.
That's what I concluded in the article.
But is this in multiple different drill holes, or is it one individual sample that they found that seems to operate at this depth per revolution?
There have been inspections on several different cores.
And have they all yielded similar results?
They have all revealed that the groove is a spiral. In other words, it's a continuous spiral around the core. The most recent examination of those cores was in 2018 by two aerospace engineers, Eric Wilson and Josh Gere. And they asked the Petrie Museum in London permission to examine the cores in their collection. The Petrie Core No.
7, which is the most famous core, and the one that has drawn the most heated kind of debate about.
Can we see what that looks like, Jimmy? Can you find that one? Petrie Core No. 7?.
It's on that, yeah.
Because this to me, and the vases obviously, and of course the construction of the pyramid itself.
Also the symmetry of the faces. There's so many things that are so mind-blowing about whatever they did and how they did it.
Forget about all the mysteries. Just what we know in terms of, okay, so these are these two core samples. These are these two cores.
No, they're the same one. And they're from Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt. And essentially, what happened was, there was a book written, I think it was in 1999.. It was by Chris Ogilvie-Herald and Ian Larson. And it's called Geese of the Truth.
And so what they did is they had contacted, or they had associates that went into the Petrie Museum and examined the core. To see if it was actually a spiral. So they took photographs of it and they examined those photographs. And they said, no, they're horizontal. Now there's a big difference when you talk about a horizontal groove.
And a spiral groove. And so I was like, okay, I suspend all assertions as far as the methods that I proposed to how it may have been done. I need to go and examine that item myself. And so I booked a flight to England. And a friend of mine in Cambridge picked me up at the airport, Nick Annis.
And we went to the Petrie Museum and I examined the core.
The method I used was to just wrap a simple cotton thread around it.
So you just followed the groove with the thread?
With the thread. But I was wearing...
Rubber gloves?
Well, yes, I was wearing rubber gloves. But I was also wearing a visor with lenses in it that go ten times.
Oh, okay, so you could really see where the grooves are?
Yeah, you would find those items in any toolmaker's box.
So if the lines were horizontal, you would go around in a circle, then you'd have to cross over the ridge to get to the next circle. But in this case, it was continuous.
No, it was continuous.
So how did they miss that? That seems like this is such an important piece of history. Such a fascinating thing to examine. Look at this mystery. You have this granite core.
How do they do it? There's lines on it. Are they horizontal or are they a spiral? And then they just go, oh, it's horizontal. And then you come along with string, and you're like, no, it's a spiral.
How does someone screw that up?
Yes, I mean, they would say that I screwed it up, obviously. But the thing is, Joe, is that when you're conducting research, anybody, whether you're a scientist or just a Joe Blow in the tool room, and you say, okay, this is what I found, and these are the methods I use, and these are the results, okay? So you describe your experiment, and you lay it out, and you explain in detail how you did it.
Wouldn't? with today's technology, wouldn't it be really easy to scan it?
Well, it is now, yeah.
So have they done that? Have they definitively proven one way or the other?
I don't think there is a really high-quality scan that would be necessary. I mean, I've learned a little bit about scanning. It was just being introduced into manufacturing when I retired, just before I retired. We started to look into it, and we bought this white light scanning system.
But now the systems now are so advanced.
The systems now are like light years ahead.
And you would feed it through AI, and it would tell you exactly.
Well, yeah. I mean, basically, you could slice it, dice it, examine it any way you wish, but you need to have qualified people to do it. Not anybody that's not qualified could examine that.
Right. So, either way, these cores and those drill holes represent something sensational, something absolutely amazing, some 4,500-year-old drill that somehow or another, was more effective than drills that are being used today.
Yeah, but you know the truth of the matter, though, Joe?
What?
It's probably the most insignificant artifact I've looked at. I'm sure.
You've looked at so much in Egypt. But to me, it's like a corner piece.
Oh, people are freaking out over it. How could you? How dare you?
Well, I'm sure, because it throws everything into flux.
The assumption is they did this through intense labor over long periods of time, and it took forever to do. Right. And if they're operating at a pace that's 500 times more effective than a drill that's used by a modern... Have you talked to other people that go into Granite? Are there more sophisticated drills that work better or more powerful drills that work better than his?
You know that the thing is, in manufacturing, and this is a fact,
you don't know the full scope of what engineers are capable of doing.
Right.
Because you're not in every shop, in every country, in every town in the world. And so nobody knows exactly what all engineers are capable of. There may be somebody actually reproducing the features on that course somewhere using some method.
Right. I don't know.
You just don't know.
But from the person that you talked to, that does it professionally, that uses high-level equipment, his drill was 500 times less effective.
The feed rate was less. The revolution could have been more. I mean, you said it earlier. You said, could it have been rotating slowly? Right.
It didn't have to spin very fast. In fact, it's better when you're machining hard material, grinding hard material, is that you don't. Why not? Because heat is the biggest enemy of a tool.
Oh, that makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
So what do you think, if you had to guess, that they were using?
I actually created my own core just to experiment, right? And I learned a lot doing it. I didn't use the same method as some of the other researchers that are out there that did it. I had a copper tube, and I had corundum.
What's corundum?
Oh, I say a very, very hard grit that you use to grind into hard material.
So the copper tube would be flat at the bottom, and then you'd put the grit in, the grit would act as?
Right, right. And so you'd rotate it, rotate it, rotate it. And, you know, I set up a jig and a tube and just ground it, ground it, ground it, ground it, just so that I could see the results of that. But one thing, they say that copper was the only metal that was available to the ancient Egyptians, but when it came to knocking out the core from the hole, I tried copper, and it wouldn't budge it. So I had to use a steel chisel.
Is it possible that they used something else, like heat?
You know, I'm actually leaning more towards that because of the difference in the finish.
Like if they poured boiling water in it or something, would that loosen things?
I don't think water would be it, but the, if you compare.
The difference in the finish, I'm sorry, what did you mean by that?
Yeah, that I don't think has been discussed enough or recognized to be important enough is that when you use an abrasive like sand or like emery or anything to grind out a hole or do whatever, you leave a sanded finish, naturally.
Polished?
Not polished.
Sanded? Sanded. Smoother? Is that what you mean?
It could be smooth, but it's definitely got a sanded finish.
And what is the difference between a sanded finish and the finish of a diamond bit?
Well, we don't know if they were using the diamond bit, but that's the other thing.
But that's what they do today, right?
That's what they do today.
So what is the difference between a sanded finish?
Well,
you still have the same thing. You're using an abrasive.
Right.
You're keeping the abrasive as cool as possible as you're grinding away, but you're still grinding it. And so your finish is not going to be polished. Unless you have a secondary process where you go in and polish it with a finer grit. You don't start with a very, very fine grit, because you won't get anywhere with it.
Let's take a look at some of those holes. Jimmy, can you show us some of those holes, the drill holes in granite in ancient Egypt? So here we can see, right here, which is absolutely wild. Some of these images, I mean, that is absolutely wild. Right.
I mean, how the hell did they do that?
Well, that's what just about, this is like an engineer's playground over there. They go through there.
Right. And as an engineer, you must be just like scratching your head.
Yeah. Fascinating stuff. Yeah, definitely.
Jamie, click on that. Well, yeah, there we go. That's a good one. I mean, that one's wild. That is just absolutely crazy.
That is it. It looks like it's an abgarab and it's in an alabaster.
Have you ever measured the circumference of these things?
No.
Have you measured the diameters? Have you measured whether or not they're equal circles?
Well, they are definitely round.
They're perfect?
Yeah.
Perfectly round?
I wouldn't say perfect, no.
So absolutely a drill was used.
You can't say perfect. Right, right, right. Of course. There's no such thing as perfect. Right.
But they're round.
Close enough too. And so this, these, wow, look at that. That is amazing. So these circle, circular holes were definitely cut by some kind of a drill. That's agreed upon?
Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
So if you couldn't do it with the copper, like when you tried to do it with copper, how, how long did it take and how much, how much results did you get? Look at those circular marks, man. That is crazy.
It was a few days.
That spiral right there is absolutely nuts. I mean, it just clearly looks like a drill hole.
Yeah. I think that's my photograph. actually. Is it? I took that one.
So how long did it take you to drill a hole?
Probably a day and a half, two days. Day and a half, two days.
And how deep was the hole?
The hole was probably two inches, two and a half inches deep.
Well, that seems like it's doable. then, right? If you could just keep doing it day after day, week after week, you'd get a big core.
Yeah. And that, I mean, and that's basically the, uh, what everybody concludes, uh, the Egyptologists will conclude that they had all the time in the world to, to do these things.
But wasn't, uh, the Pyramid of Giza, the Great Pyramid, wasn't that supposed to be completed inside of 30 years? in that, the hypothesis?
I've heard anything between 10 years and a hundred years.
Yeah.
Yeah. Nobody knows.
It's just guesswork, right? Yeah. I mean, there's, uh, what is it? 2,300,000 stones. Right.
And the heaviest ones in the base, like what, what are the heaviest ones?
Well, the ones that we know of in the Great Pyramid, uh, way up to 70 tons. And those are the, uh, the granite ones in the King's Chamber.
So, so there's that. Um, so there's the, the, the drill holes, which are just absolutely fascinating. And then this pottery we'll talk about before we get to the whole, uh, what you think the pyramid is. So the pottery, like these vases that you're seeing, I shouldn't say pottery. No, they're not pottery.
I'm wrong. Um, they're, they're actually solid, carved. Right. And they're carved out of very hard stone, right? What is it?
they're carved out of?
Oh, granite, diorite.
Diorite, granite, diorite. And, um.
Igneous rock.
Mm-hmm. And the crazy thing is how well they're done. And if you show it. Could you pick that thing up to show everybody? Mm-hmm.
The crazy thing is that it's not only perfectly symmetrical. Again, don't use the word perfect, right? Because it's within. What, what width of a human hair?
Well, you go. Uh.
It's some crazy.
Yeah, like two and a half thousandths or something like that.
Two and a half thousandths of a human hair.
Have you ever used one of these?
Yes, I have.
All right, so measure. Measure the lip there, right? See that?
Yes, sir.
Measure that and then turn it 90 degrees and measure it. Okay. And tell me what you get.
This obviously is not a real one. You wouldn't let me hold it.
No, that is actually a 3D print.
Right, 3D print.
Yeah, not a real one. From the STL file. Right, but it's not a real one. No, obviously not. Okay.
But it's a copy of the original.
And so.
So basically.
So I'm measuring it here. And then I'm going to measure it here. So it's essentially exactly the same everywhere, right? Is that the idea?
It's within about a thou, thou and a half.
It's got a little bit of a chip in the top.
Yeah, well, you don't.
Because that's how it was, right?
Don't measure that.
And. So it's perfect. Except up to what percentage of human hair again?
I would say in shop talk it's perfect.
In shop talk. it's perfect.
Yeah. But the. But it's. Yeah. A human hair.
Two and a half thou, three thou.
So this is how you measured it all with this equipment.
Well, this was a different.
But the thing is, it's like you couldn't spin this on a potter's wheel. No. This is where it gets really crazy. No. Because of these handles.
Right. Now these handles are also carved into the vase. Right. And people would say, well, what's the big deal about a vase? No.
The big deal is these goddamn handles.
That's the big deal.
Because even if you just slowly and meticulously, with the finest of craftsmanship, spun this to a perfect accuracy. Just with like high grit sandpaper. You know, slowly over time. Made it perfectly round. And you got so good at it that you get it within.
How much of a human hair again?
About a human hair. Okay. Two and a half thou.
Okay, let's say it's a human hair. Which is pretty small. How the hell are you going to do these handles? How are you going to make these perfect too?
There's another question that you need to ask too.
How do you get the inside out?
No.
What?
How do you measure to be sure that you're within that human hair? Right.
What kind of equipment are you using?
What kind of instruments do you use?
Yeah, it seems like this would be a problem. Like, I don't think they had this. And if they did have this, they didn't have this part.
How do you know?
I don't know. I'm guessing.
I don't know either. No.
No. But we're thinking about what they had. We're not thinking about things like this. No. We really don't know.
Well, obviously we don't know. We can't locate that drill. If you can't locate that drill. Like, the drill's real. The hole's real.
If you can't locate an ancient Egyptian drill. So there's a bunch of pieces of pottery.
Yeah.
And all of them have the same sort of similar measurement to them? In terms of their perfection?
Actually, some of them. There's one. I think it's more precise than that one. Really? The original, yeah.
They call it the spinner. I think it's that one at the front there. And we rotated that on the rotor at Danville Metal Stamping. And we staged it so that we were checking concentricity or runout all around. So we put an indicator in various places.
And then spun the rotary table to check the runout. And that one spinner vase blew me away. You know, when you're measuring a diameter, right? Just a straight diameter. And you're checking the runout on a straight diameter.
And, you know, you have it. Okay, that's within two thousandths. You only have that one axis that is actually affecting the movement of that indicator that you're using. On this bowl, when you're on the side of it, on the crown, not right to the top, but just below it, you're at a place where the movement in two axes, two axes, is affecting the indicator reading. So any error that you have vertically or horizontally.
They meet at the top.
Yeah, you're going to get an accumulation of error in runout.
And how accurate is that one, the spinner?
Probably within a thousand and a half.
What does that mean?
About half the thickness of a human hair.
Half the thickness of a human hair. And one of the vases that's incredibly impressive is this one with a longer neck and a lip on the top, and then it bowls out of the bottom. Yeah, right. And it's, again, all carved out of granite somehow.
Right, right.
And how? What did they do to do that?
Well, that's the thing.
There's some other ones, Jamie. There's one of them that has a longer neck. See if you can find it online, maybe.
Yeah, we seem to be stuck in a time warp where we're trying to come to terms with how the pyramids were built, with how all these artifacts were built.
Oh, okay.
It's a nice posh cup. Can I keep this?
Yes, sir. It's all yours.
Cheers, mate. Thank you for being here.
So, continue.
So we're lost in history.
So, yeah, I mean, so. we have competing forces. We've got, on one side, you have practical engineers, practical scientists, and they want to measure everything exactly. And, regardless of what current theories prescribe how they were made, they want to explore other methods. However, on the other side, on the side of scientists, I mean, archaeologists or Egyptologists,
they believe that if you're examining an ancient artifact and you're a modern engineer, that you have to work under the guidance of an archaeologist or an Egyptologist. Otherwise, your work would not be recognized.
That's weird.
And that is happening. I mean, that's the fact. And they admit it. So that is the situation. I think it's a systemic problem, because it is certainly not a way to do science.
Well, and also, they're not educated in those disciplines, supposedly.
Well, bingo, yes. I mean, absolutely.
So they wouldn't be able to understand what's required to do that. Now, the conventional explanation being some sort of copper and sand, if that's the conventional explanation, there's no evidence of any copper drills, correct?
If you go to the Cairo Museum, they have a, I think there's a tube that they describe, a small tube that they describe as a….
But nothing that can carve those large holes out of grit.
Yeah, they're just going on the assumption that only copper existed during that period, and so that was the metal that was available to them, that was the metal that they used.
The tubes that they have in the museum, are these tubes authentic tubes that were used on the site for something?
I would have to go back and refresh my memory on that, because it was quite a while before I looked.
But the point is, like, they don't, you know, like they have a replica of an ancient boat. They know they have boats, they know what the boats look like. They don't have the actual drill. So whether it's something exotic that we didn't know, that they had capability to create, or whether it's what they think it is, neither one of those exist.
They don't exist. Okay. No, I mean, nothing exists. Everything right now is theory. And so we're stuck in a bit of a time walk, and we're stuck, it's between two disciplines.
So what is the reluctance of the archaeologists to accept the findings of the engineers if the goal is the truth? So if the goal is to figure out, instead of just having assumptions that you're going to cling to as dogma, as to what was done, wouldn't the goal be, let's find out what the truth is, what's capable of doing this, if they talk to enough engineers, and especially enough people that actually carve into granite, then you would get an understanding of what we know today. This is the only thing that can do this. This is how it's possible.
Yeah, and then you would try and reproduce the artifacts that the ancient Egyptians produced, and then compare the results.
Right.
That's what you have to do. You have to...
So the reluctance is they don't believe that the Egyptians had any more advanced technology than what we assume they had, which is pulleys and ropes and copper tools and sand and the like.
Yeah, one would assume that you'd have to ask an Egyptologist, and you may get a different answer depending on who you ask.
I'm sure. I'm sure. There's probably a lot more open-minded people coming up now.
Yes, particularly in Egypt.
Yeah.
There's a tremendous kind of quiet revolution going on in Egypt, because you go where you feel like you're going to be welcome. If you're not welcome somewhere, you find someone. So when I put my work out, and I was talking to people in the 90s on message boards, and I could see that I wasn't getting anywhere there. And I thought, well, okay, who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose by opening this up and exposing everything, and getting it out in the open? Who has the most to gain if they come down on my side, and who has the most to lose?
And obviously, those who have the most to lose are the Western institutions, who have written the history of the world, and written the history of Egypt. And so I decided, well, I have to appeal to Egyptian engineers. And so in my second book, Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt, I appeal, I put out a challenge to modern Egyptian engineers to go out and check the artifacts for themselves.
And that's what they did. One man, one engineer, I don't know how many other engineers were involved, but also I'm talking to Egyptologist tour guides, and the message I'm getting is that the Pyramid of Tomb theory is pretty much on the way out.
The young people are being energized and looking at their artifacts in a different way. So the engineer that took up the challenge is called Ahmed Adly.
And he followed my path. He went into the Serapeum and checked those huge granite boxes. He did a study of the statues. He presented the Giza power plant theory to a physicist at Cairo University. And it's like, wow, times are changing.
So the Egyptian youth are taking hold of the reins, and they're excited about their future. You know, just recently, there was like a STEM class. It was put on by Nama, American University. It was held at the Grand Egyptian Museum.
And there were over 200 students. that took place. And the professors and teachers of these students got Ahmed Adly involved to design experiments, to talk about pyramids as energy sources, talk about the statues, symmetry, design projects that the kids could do. And even to the point of taking a slab of copper and trying to cut a brick using the old method, just so that they could get a hands-on feel for what it was like. It's all very well to sit at home in your armchair and come up with a theory.
But, you know, if you don't go out and test it, then, you know, are you just going to buy it, rope? Okay, okay, a respected professor tells me that this was done with copper chisels or copper slabs. Well, if he says it, then he's got to be right, because that's what he's paid for. He's paid to teach the truth.
What is the oldest known iron that we are aware of?
In terms of steel.
Yeah, that's a little outside my wheelhouse. I don't know. I won't be able to answer that accurately.
Right, but they don't think that the Egyptians had it.
Well, there was metal, iron found in the Great Pyramid.
There was? Yeah.
I think it was during Petra's time, an engineer called Perring discovered an iron plate that was lodged near one of the shafts.
Wasn't there? also, didn't one of the pharaohs have a dagger that was made from a meteorite?
Supposedly, yeah, a meteoric iron, yeah. So how old is that? I don't know. And really, when you talk about the smelting of iron, I think you had that discussion on with Graham.
Did we talk about that, Jeremy?
It could have been. Let's find out, what is the conventional date that they use today for the smelting of iron? When did they start doing that?
I think the discussion was the appearance of lead in these ice cores that were drilled.
Oh, that's right.
Industrial activity, basically, what they were looking for.
So, 1200 BC.
Okay, the history of ferrous, how do you say that word? Ferrous. Ferrous metallurgy began far back in prehistory, most likely with the use of iron from meteors. Ah, there you go. The smelting of iron bloomeries, is that it?
Bloomeries, is that what you said? Began in the 12th century BC in India, Anatolia, or the Caucasus. Iron used in smelting and forging for tools appeared in sub-Saharan Africa by 1200 BC. So, it could be that these ferrous, the one that had the iron dagger, made out of a meteorite, maybe that was later.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, Tutankhamen, okay, so for sure it was. Look at that, meteoric iron dagger. Wow. So that's 1334 to 1325 BC. Interesting.
Well, that's earlier.
That's earlier than they said people were smelting. Yeah, but they found it, they don't know when they made it.
Yeah, but that's different.
But if it's Tutankhamen, that's his time.
Yeah, but that iron came from outer space.
Right, so they could have hammered it into that position? Yeah. So they didn't have to smelt it.
Pretty much.
So we know they're aware of it, at least, at least at this, at 1300 BC. We know they're aware of iron, but there's just no evidence of tools.
Yeah, I mean, I can't, I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I don't know if they knew the metallurgy of these materials that they found. But they had a material that they could shape, and they shaped it into a dagger.
But we don't know if they shaped it into tools or shaped it into some other things. This piece says that the iron plate right here says it was unlikely that it was the byproduct of copper smelting operations. It was badly corroded. The outer layer of the iron had been badly corroded and now formed expanded iron oxide. Significant proportions of gold were found in one of the oxidized layers, and the plate may originally have been gold-plated.
New data coupled with the original archaeological information strongly suggests the iron plate is contemporary with the building of the pyramid, and that it is, therefore, one of the oldest known pieces of iron.
Yeah, I think Petrie described it as having pneumolites that had somehow been deposited on the surface.
So at least that's some evidence of iron in the Great Pyramid.
Right, but, you know, as far as what iron was, it smelted?
Right.
You know, that's the question.
Did they have the capability of doing that?
And when.
Right, and when. Right.
So it's just pure speculation as to what they used for the core. What is the conventional thought as to how they made these vases?
I mean, there are demonstrations of crafting ancient vases. But I think this recent research and the discovery of the precision of them, which had always been a question mark until just recently, you know, people would go through the Cairo Museum, or, you know, any museum in the world, and they'd see these beautiful, finely crafted artifacts made out of igneous rock, and they looked extraordinarily precise. And I've done that the same. I mean, I look at them and it's like, wow, I'd like to get one of those in my shop and just check it out. You know, quality inspection.
And so for years, that was, for me, it was like always a question. I'd love to know how precise those vases are. And then, in 2018, the owner of that original vase, Adam Young,
he came on the tour, and he befriended my son, Alex, and they were talking about the vases. And Alex was a quality inspector, quality engineer, for the company that I worked at. And since he worked at another company in Indianapolis, and now I think he's working in the metrology lab at Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis. And so he's like, well, we should scan them or do an inspection. So Adam brought his vase down to Indianapolis, to where Alex was working, and he got permission from the managers at the shop to do an inspection of them.
And it seems like, you know, you talk to people, shop, people, right? People who are actually out there every day, making quality parts that people's lives depend on. You know, if you fly on an airplane, and I told one of the owners, there's another owner of vases, he's got a lot of them. And I told him, you know, I said, you know, you're carrying in your hand an artifact that is more precise than some of the parts that were installed in the engine that was on the plane that you flew with. And he's like, wow.
Okay. I mean, that's where you bring it home. And so all these guys who are making these artifacts, right? And they're held to exacting standards every day. They can't slip up.
They can't make mistakes. You know, there's no fudging or faking anything. Otherwise, you'd be out on your ear, or people would be falling out the skies. Right.
So that's for those parts. And these artifacts are more precise than that, which is just insane.
Well, not all of them. I mean, there are parts in an airplane engine or aircraft engine that are more precise.
Features of the parts are more precise. And that's where I want to explain something here, because I think it's a very, very important point. And it has confused a lot of people. It really confused a lot of people.
The part, any part that you have, you know, whether it's something for your car, you know, say, a crankshaft or something like that. Right. Take a crankshaft. It's got very precise features on it. And then there are features that are not so precise because they don't need to be.
It all depends on what the customer requirements are. So they don't build precision or require precision in a product where it's not needed. That's just a waste of time. It just makes it more expensive. But now you have, you know, people who are looking at some of these artifacts, like the boxes in the Serapion, and they're finding imprecise areas of the boxes.
The photograph of me inside one of those boxes with a toolmaker's precision square. I mean, there's nothing, nothing simpler, right? You take a square, you stick it out and you check, check to see if it's square, if the surface is flat. Is it square? Yeah, that's fine.
And now you've got guys going around on the outside of the box and finding inaccuracies. Some areas inside boxes that have inaccuracies. And now they're calling me a liar. They say that I faked and forged measurements.
It's like, I don't know, the cancel culture they want to get away from.
What is their beef? Like, you used a square and you measured things and you found them to be precise.
And I said, holy shit, look at this.
And what are they using?
Before me. What equipment are they using? that's showing that your equipment, what your measurements are, were inaccurate?
They are not. They don't go to the area and show that the area that I was checking is imprecise. They will find some other area that is less precise, point to that, and lead the viewer to believe that that defines everything.
Right, so everything is not precise, but much of it is.
Yes. Okay.
And the areas that aren't necessary to be precise, like the outside of the box, are not as precise as the inside? Is that what you're saying?
They don't have to be.
Right, they don't have to be. Right. So, when it comes to precision, like the precision of the faces, for instance. Yeah. And some of the sculptures.
Right. What is the conventional explanation for how precise they are? Because these are massive faces that were supposedly carved by hand, but the accuracy on either side of the face is so phenomenal.
Yeah.
Like, bizarrely, so. Like, how accurate?
Well, exactly, we don't know. But, I mean, as far as the methods that I used, which is like 2D photography, and then comparing features in the computer for symmetry, you know, and some geometric features. Nobody had done that before. And so, I come along, you know, I say, wow, this is, actually, it kind of hit me. The first time I went to Egypt, and I was at Saqqara, and I was looking down the length of the statue of Ramses at the open-air museum there.
And I said, well, those, the nostrils are extraordinarily symmetrical. I mean, they match, right? And most people's nostrils are different, if you look at them. And so, yeah, that's my fault.
There's the measurements on each side. They're exact.
Yeah, they're as exact as I could make them. But, you know, I qualify the work that I did by saying, this is not the final answer. There needs to be more sophisticated measurements taken, more accurate measurements taken. They need to be scanned. And then, they need to be analyzed.
where you have a precise scan, where you're not trusting your eyes. You're actually trusting, you know, the tried-and-true development of laser scanners.
But at the very least, the amount of symmetry that exists in these massive statues is spectacular.
It's mind-blowing. I can't even express it. It's absolutely mind-blowing. I mean, you look at the one with the...
How large are these that we're talking about?
Well, the one that I measured was.
. The first one was at the Luxor Museum, and it's outside. I would say it's probably four feet, something.
But there's very large ones, too, right?
Just like the face and the headdress.
There are larger ones, yes. I think the one that was taken from the Ramesseum and is now in the British Museum was a large statue.
How big was that?
Well, they say that the statues at the Ramesseum weigh up to a thousand tons. I'm not sure. But they're really big, really big.
A thousand tons.
Well, I wouldn't want to say, yeah, they're a thousand tons, but I would say they were extremely heavy.
Now, what is the conventional speculation as to how the symmetry was achieved?
I've heard different ideas where you take a mirror and then you kind of match it when you guide your hand. And another one where you take a pointer and you set a depth and then you transfer that from one side to the other.
I don't know anybody who is a precision manufacturer who would accept such an explanation. And really, at the end of the day, you have to say, OK, well, show me and we'll check yours and compare it to the original. That's the only way to solve the problem.
And so this is just one example of one of the mind-blowing mysteries involved in this culture. That they had some kind of capability of not just doing that and not just making the vases, but also making the pyramids themselves, which are beyond comprehension.
They're huge. I mean, you know, the thing is, is that you have, I don't think, I wouldn't say, not all engineers think alike, right? But I don't, I've never been with an engineer who has examined this subject and been to Egypt.
That is not absolutely blown away by what they're seeing.
And I was saying, no, you can't do it by hand. You can't hold those kind of tolerances by hand. You look at the Ramsey statue and you look at the symmetry. It's not two-dimensional symmetry. I mean, I was just measuring a two-dimensional photograph.
It's not two-dimensional. It's three-dimensional. So that radius that you see going around the jawline is moving in three axes, right? X, Y, Z. And you're still coming up with a radius, perfect radius.
Crazy.
Nuts.
Yeah.
So let's go to the pyramid itself. So you have a very fascinating hypothesis as to what the pyramid, or theory, as to what the pyramid actually was. And it's based on where the supposed king's chamber is, where those passages go through into it. And what do you think that thing was?
Well, my first book pretty much describes what I thought it was in 1998, which was a power plant. The book is entitled Geyser Power Plant. My second book has evolved, and I describe it as an electron harvester. So, you know, it's kind of like, you could describe it as both. And today, when you do, or, you know, people in any decade, they think of a power plant, and then they see these huge chimneys with, you know, smokestacks.
Or a new plant.
Yeah, or a new plant, you know, or a power plant, dirty, nasty, unclean.
But an electron harvester, clean, pollution-free, not a problem.
Has that been achieved? conventionally, I mean, today?
Is there a thing called an electron harvester?
I think that actually, when you look at a generator, that's an electron harvester. Because we don't create electrons, we just harvest them. It's just how we do it. And so, you know, when you say an electron harvester, you could say that, you know, say a wind generator. You have a windmill, you have a generator inside it, and then you're collecting electrons off the commutator in the generator.
And that's where the electricity comes from.
And that's where, that's your electricity.
Right, or hydroelectric, you'd use the flow of the water.
Yeah, you don't create the electrons, you just release them.
You harvest them from a process.
You harvest them through a process.
And the process that you think they used in the Great Pyramid involved those shafts?
It involves a lot of things, yeah. It's not just one single thing, it's the system. Not a single thing.
Can we show a photo of that? Do we have a photo of the pyramids and the shafts and where the King's Chamber is? I know you've described this before. Mm-hmm. Do you have a photo?
I do. I was trying to figure out which one you wanted. Okay, this is perfect. This works.
Yeah, that works.
So these names, the King's Chamber and the Queen's Chamber, you don't think that that's actually a King's Chamber or a Queen's Chamber? You think it's something else?
Well, out of respect to the Egyptians, I call it what they say. it is. Yeah. But I do have a different terminology for them as they function.
Now, the initial surface of the Great Pyramid is covered in smooth limestone, right? So it's polished and shiny, and apparently it would collect insane amounts of light.
Well, the outer surface of the Great Pyramid mostly is missing. Right. But it has been described as, if it was finished, and, depending on the polish that it received, yeah, it could reflect a lot of light.
Do you think that that had something to do with the design of this power plant?
I don't think there's any part of that pyramid that did not serve a practical function.
Okay, so this is the image that you have here, and what this image shows us is the King's Chamber, the various shafts, the southern shaft, the northern shaft, and these shafts have been described as portals to stars, because people have looked up through there and you go through the shaft, you see stars. But what you're saying is something entirely different. What do you think these shafts were for?
Well, I think they serve two different purposes.
Actually, four different purposes, if you will, because in the theory that I propose, which is, I don't know, it's a speculation, the whole process is kind of like a heuristic process where you're grabbing information, you're moving it, it doesn't matter what source you're getting it from. Because when you are looking for answers, you know, you look everywhere. You try and find, you know, you look everywhere. So when I was going through the process of trying to figure it out, I was collecting information from everywhere.
You know, for the southern shaft and the northern shaft of the Queen's Chamber, that was a huge mystery to me. And I tried to fit it into,
what were they doing? I mean, if you look at the details, the facts of their design and what the ancient Egyptians were doing, why they designed them that way, you have two conduits coming into a chamber, but they're not connected to the chamber.
And we didn't even know they existed until 1872. or, uh, Wayman Dixon.
Can you show me that image again, please?
So they're coming into the chamber, but they don't enter into the chamber, so they stop.
Their original design had the shaft ending five inches before coming into the chamber. So you had like five inches of limestone that was left in the block.
So did someone remove that limestone?
Yes.
Why did they do that?
Wayman Dixon, because they were examining the chamber and they were poking around. And Wayman Dixon, it is reported, so the legend goes, noticed a crack in the wall. And so he took a rod and pushed it through the crack. And the rod, it didn't meet any resistors, it kept going. So he had his worker come in, Bill Grundy, with a hammer and chisel, and say, chisel, the limestone around that.
God, people were stupid.
Well, yeah, they didn't have ultrasonic thickness.
No, but still, god damn, to have the arrogance to go and chip away at the pyramid.
I don't care for revisionist historians, because, you know, you have to consider what people were doing, their mindset in the day. And then I try to look on the bright side. I don't look at it as a negative thing, because if somebody hadn't opened up those shafts, we wouldn't know about them. And it's the same with the chambers above the king's chamber. Without Howard Wise and his military expedition blasting his way up into the pyramid, we wouldn't know about them either.
You won't be able to, I mean, there's a lot there. I think there's a lot there right now. And it's being investigated now. But there's things that have been revealed through scanning, like muography, the scam pyramid project. And they found that large void above the grand gallery.
Right. Which is larger than the king's chamber, correct?
It's longer than the king's chamber, yeah.
And so that's not even represented here on this.
It's about the size of the cabin on a Boeing 707.
. Wow.
So if these shafts came through and then they met limestone at the end, what do you think was going on?
In order to answer that question, I had to look at the rest of the pyramid. Okay. What was it doing? And how was it functioning? And so one of the key pieces of evidence that I used to propose a process that was going on is the northern shaft.
And the northern shaft has dimensions and has an appearance that is similar to a waveguide that you would use for microwaves. And the dimensions of it would approximate the wavelength of hydrogen.
Explain a waveguide. How does that work?
Yeah. It's like a waveguide is to transmit microwaves, electromagnetic energy, you know, in the microwave region. And it is passed more efficiently through like a tube or waveguide. That's what they use. I mean, they're very complicated systems, you know.
And so how did this represent in your mind what a waveguide looks like?
Actually, you know, the idea of a waveguide came to me from a guy.
We were talking about the pyramids. And I used to carry a schematic of the Great Pyramid in my back pocket. And I meet an engineer and I go, hey, hey, come here. I start going through. So what do you think about this?
Because, you know, I was looking for answers, suggestions, brainstorming, anything, right? And he's like, so these shafts right here. And he looks at it. And he was into electronics, electronic engineering. And he's like, hmm, they look like waveguides to me.
And I thought, well, that's interesting. They look like waveguides. Okay. What if they are waveguides? How do they function?
I mean, what were they used for? What were they using waveguides for in, you know, ancient Egypt?
And so I started to go down that rabbit hole. And that led me to the Queen's Chamber. And I said, okay, waveguides, you need a medium. You need, you know, microwaves to go through a waveguide.
What frequency of microwave was it, right? And you look at the dimensions and you come up with a match for hydrogen.
How do you do that? How do you come up with a match for hydrogen through the dimensions?
Yeah. Yeah, the wavelength of hydrogen is 8.309 inches. And the width of the northern shaft is 8.4 inches. And a waveguide generally has the wavelength and then about half of the wavelength in height. So it's a rectangular shaft.
Just like all the shafts are. Yeah.
And the, well, yeah, the Queen's Chamber shaft is a little more square than the King's Chamber shaft.
So they're a different function?
Different function, yeah.
So these waveguides, you believe, what are they collecting and where are they getting it from?
Good question, Joe.
They had, we are bombarded with microwaves every day. I mean, it's the signal from, they say, the Big Bang. And, you know, it comes from atomic hydrogen out in the universe, out in space.
So we're being bombarded and you believe that these passages were collecting this.
Yeah. So anyway, so then you say, okay, if we build a device and we say, okay, and we want to energize hydrogen, we bring it to a higher energy state. And, just like, you know, in a laser where you have microwave amplification through stimulated emission. So if we want to collect energy that is in a gaseous medium, say that is hydrogen medium, and the electrons in the hydrogen are pumped up to a higher energy state, and we want to collect the energy in that, introduce a microwave signal, direct it through that gas, and stimulate the emission of the energy, collect that energy, and shoot it up the southern shaft. And so that was like, okay, that might work.
So what kind of gas?
Hydrogen.
And so where are you getting the hydrogen from?
Queen's Chamber.
So there's hydrogen in the Queen's Chamber, and how does it get in there?
The shafts. But it doesn't come in as hydrogen. That's a part of the theory. in the Giza power plant was, you know, there are two chemicals that are introduced into the chamber, and the chemicals mix and they boil off hydrogen.
And these chemicals are just coming from the radioactive waves of space?
No, no, no. The chemicals, I believe, are manufactured and delivered to those shafts and coming.
Okay. So they add some sort of chemicals to it. And what function does the limestone have at the end? that keeps it from going into the King's Chamber? It keeps it blocked off.
Well, to answer that question, I was having a chat with a civil engineer who was putting in a septic system for me with a leach field, and he was doing a percolation test, right? This is in Indiana, and Indiana is known for its fine limestone. His name was Roland Dove, a city engineer, and I asked him, I said, well, what do you do? How does this function if you are in an area where there's not much topsoil? You know, you scrape away maybe a foot of topsoil and then you're on the bedrock.
What do you do then? And he said, well, if your limestone is permeable, and basically you follow the same steps that you would, as if you were digging into earth. You know, just dirt. You dig a hole, you cut a hole in the limestone, and you determine how quickly the water would disperse or would actually seep out. And I was like, wow, okay.
So the limestone acts as a filter?
Well, I mean, it would a filter, yes, but definitely the water would not just stay there.
Right, it would go through it.
It would go through it. But it would go through it at a certain rate. And I said, okay, let me ask you this.
How do you determine the flow rate? Of a column of water, right? Going through limestone. And he said, well, that would depend on the head pressure. How much pressure?
What weight is pushing against the limestone?
Right.
And I go, aha, okay. That's interesting. So then I go back to the drawing boards. I go back to my blueprints of the Great Pyramid, and I'm looking at the southern-northern shaft of the Queen's Chamber, and I see that both of these shafts go up to an area that nobody knows where it goes. At that time, when I was doing research, nobody knew where they ended.
But I was thinking, well, if they are feeding a chemical, they would need to be assured that they can maintain a particular head pressure. That would be calculated, the weight of the column of fluid. And essentially, as these are on an angle, your calculations may get a little more complicated, but you would figure it out, or you could do it by trial and error.
But not all the evidence was in to really kind of solidify that theory, right? It's like, okay, I've got this much data. This is what I'm working with. There's a lot of unknowns. I don't know.
So what do we do? And then, in 1993,?
a German engineer, Rudolf Gantenbrink, he was invited to Egypt. He was working under the German mission in Cairo, and he had permission to... Oh, they wanted him to actually examine, get a robot, examine all those shafts, both the king's chamber and the queen's chamber.
Actually, no, mostly the king's chamber. They wanted to ventilate the pyramid, and so they wanted to make sure that the shafts were clear and that when they install their fans, that there won't be any obstruction. So he built a robot to go through these, clean the shafts out, and then install fans in the king's chamber. But it had always been a mystery. as far as the queen's chamber shafts.
Where did they end? Nobody knew. Nobody had explored them that far. So he proposed that they allow him to build another robot and examine the shafts in the queen's chamber, which he did that. He had a robot, they called it Oupoitu, which means the opening of the ways.
And so with his robot, he had a tether behind it, and a camera, lights, and it crawled its way. It was like a track vehicle, and there was a mechanism for the upper track that caused it to grip the ceiling, and it was able to climb up the shaft. And they were looking for where it ended.
And they found where it ended, after a few kind of obstacles, one being what he called a tank trap, which was like a depression in the floor of the shaft, a drop of about two inches, which is another story entirely. I don't think the full truth of why that is there has been figured out yet, or explained, but they're working on it. And so his robot got so far up the shaft, and they discovered that there was a block at the end of the shaft, and through the block are two metal fittings.
Metal? What kind of metal?
We don't, I don't know.
So a person hasn't gone over there and gotten a sample of it, so they don't really know, it's just speculation.
I don't know.
So some kind of metal fittings.
They assumed that they were copper.
And how far is it from the outside edge of the pyramid?
You do ask some awkward questions. I don't have that information in front of me. But I would say that if you are wanting to reach the end of the, where that southern shaft is, the shortest route that you could take would be through a horizontal passage that goes directly out to the outer surface of the Great Pyramid. Just a horizontal passage.
Okay.
Going up, going down.
Can I see the image again, please?
So what we're looking at, when you're seeing the shafts. Hold on a second. No worries.
I want to see what it looks like on the outside. Yeah, that one.
Yeah.
So say it again. What would be the best way to access it?
v1.0.0.260408-1-a910ba6_os