Latest / UK Column Radio / Ancient Egyptians Might Have Used Nuclear Energy — Max Zamilov | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

Ancient Egyptians Might Have Used Nuclear Energy — Max Zamilov | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

• 0:35
  None. Doctor Max Zamilov, thank you
• 0:40
  for joining me in the trenches. Well, thank you for having me.
• 0:45
  No, listen, it's a great pleasure.
• 0:47
  I saw you on Danny Jones's show and I know that you know, the
• 0:51
  work of Ben van Kirkvic and Chris Dunn and Chris Dunn was,
• 0:56
  well, both of them were on my show also.
• 0:58
  And you, have you been to my side of the pond?
• 1:01
  I'm in, I'm in South Africa. No, I've never been to Africa
• 1:05
  and I really want to go to Egypt obviously, but just haven't
• 1:08
  gotten a lot of it. Egypt is technically Africa, but
• 1:14
  it kind of isn't. Yeah, I, I know what you mean.
• 1:18
  You really need to go like to sub Saharan Africa I think to
• 1:20
  experience Africa for real because you know, Mediterranean
• 1:24
  is more like a Roman, you know, Greek European influence than
• 1:29
  anything else I'd say. What is your background?
• 1:33
  Well, my background is in physics, so physics and computer
• 1:36
  engineering. So I got my master's and PhD
• 1:39
  from Mosque Institute of Electronic Engineering and I
• 1:43
  studied at the University of Tulsa and then I taught at Penn
• 1:47
  State for eight years. I taught software engineering at
• 1:50
  Penn State, but I always was interested in in physics.
• 1:53
  And, you know, that's where my research is concentrated is in
• 1:57
  the physics and engineering side of things.
• 1:59
  And, you know, throughout my life I had, you know, startups
• 2:03
  and I worked on projects, and all of it is either nuclear
• 2:08
  engineering or petroleum engineering or some kind of, you
• 2:11
  know, science slash engineering. And of course, now I'm working
• 2:15
  on nuclear fusion. And that is, you know, my
• 2:16
  interest, my background, I would say, you know, my core
• 2:21
  competency and somehow along the lines I've gotten sucked into
• 2:27
  this, you know, alternative archaeology or alternative
• 2:30
  history community. And of course, you know, once
• 2:33
  you go in, there's no way you can back out of it because it's
• 2:38
  just so interested. I.
• 2:41
  Mean you were building a nuclear reactor in your basement.
• 2:46
  Is that true? Yeah, in fact, you can see it in
• 2:48
  the background of this video. I don't really have a basement
• 2:52
  because of Florida and basements in Florida are would be like
• 2:56
  swimming pools. But this is my lab that you see
• 3:00
  and this is, you know, one of the reactors I'm working on and
• 3:03
  I'm building two more in the garage.
• 3:05
  So I decided to to to move a bit more, let's say adventurous type
• 3:15
  designs into garage where it will be easier to deal if an oil
• 3:21
  spills or fire catches on some ramping up my game.
• 3:27
  But how have the authorities not come off to you?
• 3:31
  Well, they have now that you're asking, but I'm not breaking any
• 3:37
  laws or violating any regulations.
• 3:41
  And I do have some nuclear materials, you know, like this
• 3:45
  one under licence. So you'd be amazed.
• 3:48
  You know what you can do in United States, thank God,
• 3:52
  because I don't like in Europe any kind of radioactive
• 3:56
  material. Oh no, no, you know, you cannot
• 3:58
  have it. But yes, fortunately most
• 4:01
  materials you can possess in small quantities, which is
• 4:05
  called forget the regulation number, but basically it means
• 4:10
  if the quantity is beyond the threshold, it, it is considered
• 4:13
  carmeless. And you can even mail it like in
• 4:16
  a regular envelope, you know, without any wording labels, you
• 4:18
  just put it, you know, that's how I buy them from suppliers.
• 4:21
  I just go to Oakridge lab and I say I need these isotopes and
• 4:24
  they mail them to me. And once the activity goes above
• 4:28
  like certain limit, then you need licence.
• 4:30
  So, so for this guy, I have a licence and once it goes more,
• 4:34
  you know, you get a different kind of licence that requires
• 4:36
  inspection and whatnot. So it's a little bit of
• 4:39
  bureaucracy, but it's not overwhelming.
• 4:41
  So that's why I kind of like it here.
• 4:46
  Yeah, you grew up in the Soviet Union, is that correct?
• 4:49
  That is correct, yes. I was born and raised in Soviet
• 4:53
  Union. So I was born in Smolensk and I
• 4:55
  went to school in Moscow and when I graduated, you know,
• 4:57
  Soviet Union was no more. So I moved to United States
• 5:01
  because I, I couldn't imagine myself living in the country
• 5:05
  that was going through, by all intents and purposes was, you
• 5:09
  know, a civil war. It wasn't like as bad as the
• 5:11
  Balkans, but it was pretty bad as far as crime, corruption and
• 5:15
  economic decay. And it was just unlivable.
• 5:19
  So I moved to yes. Economic decay?
• 5:23
  Oh, you amateurs, you haven't been to Africa.
• 5:28
  Yeah, I mean, you know, excuse me, but that's kind of a joke
• 5:34
  that that, you know, people who left Russia say, oh, you know,
• 5:39
  Putin was trying to turn Russia into Nigeria and darn, you know,
• 5:43
  he succeeded. Or you can argue, you know, he
• 5:46
  didn't. He saw the people arguing
• 5:48
  whether or not he succeeded. But, you know, Nigeria was kind
• 5:50
  of like a benchmark for a lot of, you know, Russian immigrants
• 5:54
  when they were discussing, you know, Russia.
• 5:56
  And I kind of thought that sounded ridiculous.
• 5:59
  But now that I look at it, probably the scale of
• 6:02
  corruption. So like, like Yoda says much to
• 6:05
  learn. You still have, you know, that's
• 6:08
  what you could address to the Russian government in terms of
• 6:11
  how corrupt they could be still. But anyway.
• 6:16
  Yeah, so I mentioned the beginning of our chat that Ben
• 6:19
  van Kirkbach has been on my show and he spoke about history being
• 6:24
  cyclical. And of course, he's he's he's
• 6:26
  done a lot of work on ancient Egyptian vases, which are
• 6:29
  remarkable in terms of the the technology required to produce
• 6:34
  them. And Chris Dunn has also been on
• 6:37
  my show to talk about the pyramids, particularly the Great
• 6:41
  Pyramid itself being a power plant.
• 6:44
  Well, I, I would say I partially align myself with the, you know,
• 6:49
  pieces that they put forth. But I emphasise the word
• 6:53
  partially because I'd like to draw an important distinction.
• 6:57
  You know, what Ben and Chris Dunn are, you know, Speaking of
• 7:01
  publicly is, you know, nothing short of speculation.
• 7:05
  And I would like to be clear in our, you know, discussion that,
• 7:09
  you know, it's OK to be creative and it's OK to fantasise, but we
• 7:14
  kind of have to distinguish what our fantasies are and what are
• 7:20
  the facts that we actually know. So I would say that, you know, a
• 7:24
  lot of alternative, you know, historians or amateur
• 7:28
  archaeologists, they get so lost in this fantasies that they
• 7:33
  start, you know, treating them as facts.
• 7:35
  And, you know, when I come in on shows and I usually say, you
• 7:39
  know, I like to fantasise about what could have been in the past
• 7:43
  or what, you know, pyramids could have been.
• 7:45
  But I don't want to present this as a fact because we don't know
• 7:49
  what has been in the past, right?
• 7:52
  We don't know, you know, everything about, about
• 7:55
  pyramids. So with that in mind, I would
• 7:59
  say it's a fascinating hypothesis that our past was
• 8:04
  cyclical because, you know, when you look back, surely I'd like
• 8:10
  to see more than, you know, primitive hairy beasts.
• 8:14
  You know, I'd like to see, you know, something like Atlantis or
• 8:17
  I'd like to see intelligent, you know, creatures like dinosaurs,
• 8:21
  you know, flying in flying sorceries and, you know,
• 8:24
  conquering stars because that is exciting to see.
• 8:26
  What it's not exciting to see is a bunch of naked, hairy beasts,
• 8:31
  you know, chasing the mammoths. You know, that's kind of boring,
• 8:34
  right? That's that's the picture we see
• 8:36
  in every museum. But, you know, whether that was
• 8:40
  the case, you know, I don't know.
• 8:42
  But where I agree with Ben and Dennis Dunn is that we cursed.
• 8:49
  I'm sorry that we have to explore things like this.
• 8:52
  So that's the thing, you know, I don't like about mainstream
• 8:56
  scientific approach, which I learned kind of, you know, the
• 9:00
  hard way. And forgive me for, for taking a
• 9:03
  long time to answer, but, you know, when I was defending my
• 9:06
  dissertation, my father in law, he was my professor and he told
• 9:11
  me your, your defence and your dissertation must be boring
• 9:16
  because the minute it provokes excitement will be, you know,
• 9:20
  the minute you fail at your defence, you will not pass.
• 9:24
  And unfortunately, that's, that's how science, you know,
• 9:27
  carries itself. The research has to be boring
• 9:30
  because if it's not boring, you know, people will argue and you
• 9:32
  will not be able to publish and you will not be able to present
• 9:37
  your work. Because unfortunately, science
• 9:40
  is a, is a competition of egos. It's all about, you know, being
• 9:43
  the smartest person, not about being the one who knows the
• 9:48
  truth. So that's why, you know, I love
• 9:50
  academia because I feel like it's easier for me to pursue my,
• 9:54
  you know, diverse research interests on my own.
• 9:56
  But that's that's the answer. Yeah, but I mean, it sounds like
• 10:00
  you're quite disillusioned with a mainstream science.
• 10:03
  I mean, that's understandable, though it seems like it seems
• 10:06
  like it's completely broken. It is I'm, you know, quite
• 10:10
  disillusioned with everything. In fact, I'm disillusioned with
• 10:12
  mainstream science and alternative science.
• 10:17
  And you know what's common between mainstream science and
• 10:20
  alternative science? The common factor is people.
• 10:22
  You know, people are the same. It's just, you know, you take
• 10:26
  this pie and you cut it in half and you say, you know, this side
• 10:32
  is mainstream and this side is an alternative.
• 10:34
  Then you close your eyes. You turn the pie a few times,
• 10:37
  you look at it and you cannot tell one side from the other.
• 10:39
  You know, none is better. It's, you know, same for people.
• 10:42
  You know, God created as flawed. So however you you partition
• 10:47
  this system, it remains the same.
• 10:48
  And that's why I am, you know, focusing or at least, you know,
• 10:54
  trying to conduct myself in a way, you know, I want everyone
• 10:57
  to conduct themselves in the field, you know, just, you know,
• 11:00
  report your findings truthfully and honestly.
• 11:03
  You know, if you made a mistake, admit it.
• 11:05
  And in science, you know, always make mistakes because, you know,
• 11:08
  we never know the truth. And the only way, you know, to
• 11:11
  make progress is to make a hypothesis, you know, test it.
• 11:14
  If it works, great. If it doesn't, admit it doesn't
• 11:17
  work, you know, formulate another hypothesis.
• 11:19
  And, and in this matter, you know, hopefully we we get closer
• 11:24
  to the truth. But the problem when it comes to
• 11:27
  the pyramids is that it was so long ago that nobody knows
• 11:31
  what's going on. I mean, everything is
• 11:33
  speculation. I would say that's only
• 11:37
  partially true because, you know, there are historical
• 11:39
  records and and once again, I'm not an archaeologist or
• 11:43
  historian, so I cannot speak, you know, with authority on on
• 11:46
  the subject. You know, I started only like a
• 11:48
  tiny, you know, slither of history that pertained it to the
• 11:52
  stone vessels. But from my understanding is,
• 11:55
  you know, there are records pertaining, you know, to
• 11:58
  pyramids. They may not be, you know,
• 11:59
  complete and explicit or maybe, you know, fully understood, you
• 12:05
  know, but but you know, there are historical documents that
• 12:09
  mentioned them. You had mentioned the
• 12:11
  construction process. So I encourage everyone who are
• 12:14
  really, you know, wants to crack the mystery of pyramids, study
• 12:17
  all available archaeological and historical historical evidence.
• 12:21
  So it's not sufficient to go by, you know, what people on YouTube
• 12:24
  are saying because, you know, that's another thing we got to
• 12:27
  understand. The purpose of YouTube is
• 12:29
  entertainment. So people have channels and
• 12:33
  develop following, you know, for the sake of entertainment or you
• 12:36
  know, your show exists for the sake of entertainment.
• 12:39
  You know, all shows are like that.
• 12:40
  And that's fine, you know, But, you know, scientists, let's say
• 12:45
  in theory, you know, work because they want to discover
• 12:48
  the truth. I know that's not the case, but
• 12:50
  at least, you know, the mission is different.
• 12:52
  So you cannot blame, you know, YouTube for, you know, putting
• 12:56
  forth, you know, speculative ideas or, you know, making reels
• 12:59
  that are interesting but not factual.
• 13:01
  But, you know, yet, you know, if you really want to determine the
• 13:05
  truth, you got to see through, you know, the myths and, you
• 13:09
  know, misrepresentations and what not and really get to the
• 13:12
  facts. And if you want to get to the
• 13:14
  facts, you have to study, you know, the academic, you know,
• 13:17
  body of literature, because that goes, you know, down centuries,
• 13:21
  you know, all the way to Herodotus and all of the other
• 13:26
  literature that's that's survived.
• 13:28
  And that's what you really got to study in order to, to know,
• 13:32
  you know, what is known about pyramids.
• 13:34
  You know, I have not done that work.
• 13:36
  So I cannot speak all that because because speculating
• 13:40
  about, you know, pyramids being a power plant is much more fun,
• 13:43
  you know, than studying historical documents.
• 13:47
  But I mean, I mean you, you, you say that, but I was taught in
• 13:51
  school official curriculum that the pyramids were built by
• 13:54
  slaves and they were tombs. Yeah, I would agree with you
• 14:00
  that that sounds like total bullshit and I entirely don't
• 14:04
  buy except that it probably, you know, was built by slaves
• 14:10
  because, you know, back then the slaves were was the only labour
• 14:15
  force available. So I would probably agree that
• 14:18
  it was built by slaves. I don't know how, and they're
• 14:22
  certainly not tombs. Or at least, you know, the Great
• 14:25
  Pyramids of Giza are not tombs. So that I don't agree with, you
• 14:28
  know, some other pyramids somewhere else, you know, might
• 14:30
  have been. But Great Pyramids of Giza, I
• 14:33
  say it's inconsistent with the idea of them being tombs,
• 14:37
  because I see no evidence of that.
• 14:41
  But what do you see evidence of? Well.
• 14:46
  I will speak of it as an engineer.
• 14:48
  And once again, you know, I have not studied the scientific
• 14:53
  literature pertaining to the history of pyramids.
• 14:56
  So I could be, you know, making misstatements or what not.
• 14:59
  But you know, when I look at pyramids and to me as an
• 15:02
  engineer, you know, they look like engineering or industrial
• 15:07
  fixtures. And I'm talking about, you know,
• 15:09
  the great Pyramids of Giza, obviously.
• 15:11
  And I'm talking about, you know, the other, you know, 3 or 4
• 15:14
  prominent pyramids like, you know, the Red Pyramid or the the
• 15:19
  step pyramid of Joser. And there is like one more.
• 15:22
  So there is a like a shortlist of, you know, pyramids that are
• 15:27
  unique and exhibit this, you know, industrial qualities to
• 15:32
  them as opposed to, you know, the greater body or greater
• 15:36
  variety of pyramids. You know, many either already
• 15:40
  decayed completely or appear a lot more primitive than than
• 15:45
  this, like fine examples. So to me as an engineer, you
• 15:49
  know, that looked like some engineering facilities.
• 15:51
  And we can speculate whether it was a power plant or a chemical
• 15:54
  plant. And the principal problem that I
• 15:57
  see is because so much time has passed and so much looting took
• 16:03
  place, it's next to impossible to figure out what that was
• 16:09
  because what we see is just a shell of what once was.
• 16:13
  And I'll give you an example. You know, I buy and sell a lot
• 16:15
  of equipment on eBay. And sometimes I buy a scientific
• 16:19
  instrument and when it arrives is just an enclosure.
• 16:26
  You know, it's just an enclosure of the instrument.
• 16:28
  And you know, when you look at it, it looks like the
• 16:31
  instrument. But you know, you when you open
• 16:33
  it up, it's like all hollow and you see this compartments and
• 16:38
  openings and holes and whatnot and nothing in it.
• 16:44
  And of course, because I bought the instrument, I know what it
• 16:47
  was and I know what was inside. But in the case of Pyramid of
• 16:52
  the Great Pyramids, I think what we see is this enclosure that's,
• 16:57
  you know, through the millennia, millennia was stripped of its
• 17:00
  content and we have no idea what was in it.
• 17:05
  So let me turn this off. Sorry.
• 17:08
  Is there any that's so that that's I think the principal
• 17:13
  challenge. I think it's kind of silly to
• 17:15
  assume that the pyramids we see today were that that's all to
• 17:23
  it. You know, there was nothing else
• 17:24
  inside. You know, there was a lot more
• 17:26
  stuff inside them. Yeah.
• 17:28
  And we know that for a fact because excavations, they
• 17:32
  document, you know, how things were removed, certain blocks,
• 17:36
  they were removed and broken down and carried away.
• 17:39
  But even beyond that, they must have been, you know, something
• 17:41
  else in them to make them function as you know, whatever
• 17:47
  would think it was. You've proposed that they knew
• 17:52
  about nuclear energy. Yeah.
• 17:55
  I mean, I have a couple ideas and one idea that pumped into my
• 18:02
  head. If we are seriously, you know,
• 18:04
  considering a hypothesis that there was an advanced
• 18:07
  civilization back then, it is clear to me that such an
• 18:11
  advanced civilization would have mastered nuclear energy.
• 18:15
  You know, we've mastered it. So and nuclei energy has a lot
• 18:19
  more power density than chemical energy.
• 18:22
  So gallon of, you know, gasoline is a pretty big chunk of fluid,
• 18:28
  right? So, so in terms of nuclear
• 18:30
  energy, it would be just a grain of sand that that packs that
• 18:33
  much energy. So it's like 10,000 times, if
• 18:38
  not like million times higher power density than than chemical
• 18:41
  power. So I, I do think if an ancient
• 18:45
  civilization existed, it would have used nuclear energy.
• 18:49
  And therefore, because I'm a nuclear scientist, I know what
• 18:51
  traces to look for. And that's why I'm very
• 18:54
  interested in going to Egypt in conducting on site radiological
• 19:00
  surveys because I'll be able to tell if there are any
• 19:03
  technogenic, you know, isotopes at present on sites, be that,
• 19:07
  you know, pyramids or seriapium or anywhere else because they
• 19:12
  have very, you know, characteristic spectrum that I
• 19:14
  can detect. Do you think you will find that?
• 19:19
  I think I will find it if I'm allowed to go, but that that's
• 19:24
  my hope. Of course, it could be.
• 19:27
  I conduct the survey and all I see is natural radioactive
• 19:29
  background because, you know, we are surrounded in the sea of
• 19:32
  natural radioactivity. You know, the radon gas seeps
• 19:35
  through the ground. You know, uranium and thorium is
• 19:38
  present in earth crust. But you know, we know how that
• 19:43
  looks like. So we can tell normal background
• 19:47
  apart from background that's been contaminated by some
• 19:50
  nuclear processes. And that's why I'm also very
• 19:53
  interested in collecting, you know, surface samples.
• 19:55
  And that's, you know, one thing I've done with Ben and with Matt
• 20:00
  Bell. So Ben brought some samples that
• 20:03
  I put in my electron microscopes and we were looking for
• 20:06
  contaminants, didn't find anything notable.
• 20:10
  Then I borrowed a bunch of vases from Matt Bell and was studying
• 20:15
  their radiological signature and using my germanium detectors.
• 20:20
  And initially I thought I was seeing something, but, you know,
• 20:22
  later I realised that, you know, what I was seeing is the
• 20:25
  activity in, you know, natural in thorium that's naturally
• 20:29
  found in minerals. And the most interesting
• 20:33
  observation I made at the Petri Museum.
• 20:35
  So I took one of my detectors to the Petri Museum and I captured
• 20:39
  A reactive background from it. And I noticed a lot of lead in
• 20:45
  that radiation. And I was excited about it
• 20:47
  initially because lead is a product of radioactive decay.
• 20:51
  Everything eventually decays down to lead or bismol.
• 20:54
  You know, there is a decay chain is rather long, but let's say
• 20:56
  you started uranium and then it decays, decays, decays, and it
• 21:00
  ends up with lead. So when you see a lot of lead,
• 21:04
  you know, a nuclear scientist inside me gets excited because
• 21:07
  that could have been the byproduct of decay.
• 21:09
  But later I learned that in Egyptians were using a coal as
• 21:13
  an eye shadow, and coal is based on Galena, and Galena is
• 21:17
  basically lead oxide. So what I was seeing is, you
• 21:21
  know, residual fluorescence, X ray fluorescence from coal that
• 21:27
  was stored in this jar, you know, at some time.
• 21:30
  You see what I mean? You've done what's the term
• 21:35
  metrological studies on pre dynastic Egyptian stone vessels
• 21:42
  and you've concluded and I think it's fair to say that the the
• 21:46
  technology that they would have used is on par or if not better
• 21:51
  than what we have today. I can correct that qualification
• 21:57
  a little bit. So yes, I was instantly drawn to
• 22:01
  the idea that there's pretty, pretty gymnastic stone vessels
• 22:06
  are precisely and finely made for two reasons.
• 22:11
  You know, the pictures that Ben showed and other people showed
• 22:15
  and, and some of the specimen that I've seen at museums, they
• 22:18
  do like, like they, they were exceptionally well made.
• 22:21
  You know, they're round and, and nice and whatnot.
• 22:24
  And then I borrowed a few objects from Matt's bell
• 22:27
  collection and examined them personally and they look
• 22:31
  phenomenal. And Matt, to his credit, he
• 22:35
  commissioned CAT scanning, you know, which is X rays.
• 22:38
  So he commissioned 3D scanning using X rays of his entire
• 22:43
  collection. And he shared his scans with me
• 22:45
  and I wrote some software to analyse those scans.
• 22:49
  And the first thing I've done, I've defined the quality metric.
• 22:52
  So whenever you want to examine how well something is made, you
• 22:58
  have to define what that you know well means.
• 23:02
  Like we know when you build a house, a well constructed house
• 23:04
  is plumbing square, for example, right?
• 23:08
  If you order a machine part at a machine shop, how well the part
• 23:13
  made is determined by tolerances.
• 23:14
  So you tell them I I need a disc that's 10 inches in diameter and
• 23:19
  five inches thick. And then you know the make of
• 23:22
  the disc and you measure it. And the deviation from that must
• 23:26
  be, you know, within the tolerances that you specify.
• 23:29
  So that's how we go about determining whether something is
• 23:33
  well made when it's like machined on an industrial scale.
• 23:37
  But in the case of this ancient artefacts, it was difficult to
• 23:40
  come up with a measure of, you know, goodness.
• 23:43
  And that's, you know, what I spent the effort on.
• 23:46
  And I said, OK, well, I'm going to choose a metric of
• 23:50
  concentricity and circularity to, to evaluate how well you
• 23:54
  know, the vessel is made because we don't know what the blueprint
• 23:57
  was. You know, the, the reasons like
• 23:59
  a blueprint, A papyrus was the drawing with the dimensional
• 24:03
  drawing of the vase, right? That we can measure against.
• 24:06
  But it's evidence that they were trying to make a round and
• 24:09
  symmetrical shape. And that's, that's what I
• 24:13
  assumed. So the assumption is, you know,
• 24:15
  the artist or the machinist or whoever was making it reptilian
• 24:21
  alien, maybe. I don't know that they, they,
• 24:24
  they tried to produce a symmetrical and a round object.
• 24:31
  And that's, you know, the measure that I expressed
• 24:33
  mathematically in terms of, if I slice this 3D scan in circular
• 24:38
  slices, each slice will be characterised by a measure of
• 24:42
  circularity of how round it is. And overall the slices will be
• 24:47
  characterised by how concentric they are, is, you know, how well
• 24:50
  do they line up on the same axis.
• 24:54
  And that's the software I developed.
• 24:56
  And I crunched through Matt Bell's scans.
• 24:58
  And it took me a while to comprehend, you know, the
• 25:01
  results. It took me a year to complete
• 25:04
  the project, to be precise. So it was, you know, some
• 25:07
  serious effort on my part. And what I saw that the objects
• 25:11
  in Matt Bell's collection fall into two categories, the, you
• 25:14
  know, quote unquote precise and the rest were like, not precise.
• 25:18
  So when I plot the results, I get a chart and that chart has
• 25:23
  like 2 areas where where the objects congregate together.
• 25:29
  So one is at the bottom of the chart, I call it.
• 25:32
  You know the precise group and and the rest of them are not
• 25:35
  precise. And then of course, all
• 25:38
  scientific work is comparative in nature in the sense that if
• 25:44
  you get a result, the result by itself does not mean anything.
• 25:48
  You need to compare it to something.
• 25:50
  So it took me at Bell's collection and I compared it to
• 25:53
  a sample of modern vases. So I bought a bunch of vases on
• 25:57
  Internet, like gift shop quality vases made from different
• 26:00
  materials from, you know, alabaster and marble all the way
• 26:06
  to granite. So you can, we can buy, you
• 26:10
  know, granite vases no problem. They are typically made for
• 26:14
  outdoor use, for funerals, for graves and, and things of that
• 26:19
  nature. But anyway, I bought, I don't
• 26:22
  know, 20-30 of them a lot big sample.
• 26:26
  And I bought a scanner. So I scanned them to see how
• 26:29
  they stack up against Matt's valve collection.
• 26:32
  And I was surprised to see that all the modern vases I
• 26:36
  purchased, obviously, you know, they were made on, on a machine.
• 26:39
  They were turned on the legs. You know, when you look at them,
• 26:41
  you see the tool marks, but all of them, you know, match the
• 26:46
  high precision, you know, vases from Matt Bell's collection.
• 26:49
  And I said, well, you know, that is interesting.
• 26:52
  But how do how do museum vases really look like?
• 26:57
  Because the problem with objects in private collections, you
• 27:02
  don't know the provenance, you don't know whether those objects
• 27:05
  are genuine or whether they are forgeries or fakes or replicas.
• 27:10
  And that's a well known problem in Egyptology, I think, as
• 27:14
  modern art aside, I think Egyptian artefacts are the most
• 27:18
  forged objects in human history. And the peak of the forgery was
• 27:24
  the dawn of the 20th century, because that's when, you know,
• 27:28
  Egyptian exploration really peaked.
• 27:30
  And a bunch of in the prominent figures went down there and did
• 27:34
  their digs and reported their fines.
• 27:37
  And the interest was huge. So the artefacts for, you know,
• 27:42
  manufactured, it's all left and right and that's in a very well
• 27:46
  known and very well established facts with books and and papers
• 27:50
  written about it. So, so that's kind of the
• 27:53
  problem dealing, you know, with private collectors.
• 27:56
  You don't know where those objects came from.
• 27:58
  There is no history. So it was important to me to go
• 28:01
  to a museum. So I went to the Petri Museum in
• 28:04
  London and I took my huge and heavy scanner with me and I got
• 28:09
  a permission to scan about 20 of their objects and I analysed
• 28:15
  them also. And when I analysed them and I
• 28:19
  plotted, you know, the museum objects on, on my chart, on my
• 28:24
  quality chart, and I was astonished to see that all of
• 28:29
  them clump in the same area that matches the quote unquote
• 28:33
  unprecised area from Matt Bell's collection.
• 28:36
  So the conclusion of the museum visit was that there were no
• 28:41
  precise object to the museum. Even when a vase, when a basil
• 28:44
  vase looked exceptionally well made to an eye when you scan it
• 28:49
  and when you analyse the scan, it's still consistent with, with
• 28:54
  the hand labour. And that was, you know, a
• 28:56
  disheartening result for me to realise.
• 29:00
  And it took me a while, you know, to process it and for
• 29:03
  everything to sink in. Because the only conclusion that
• 29:07
  I can draw from this experience is that, you know, the so called
• 29:11
  precise objects in private collections are of modern origin
• 29:16
  as opposed to of ancient origin. So I cannot really say when they
• 29:21
  were made. Maybe, you know, this century,
• 29:24
  maybe last century, but their workmanship is inconsistent with
• 29:28
  the genuine ancient Egyptian artefacts that I've seen and
• 29:32
  scanned at the museum. You know, their workmanship on
• 29:35
  the other hand, is 100% consistent with the, you know,
• 29:39
  modern machining technology. And that was, you know, the, the
• 29:43
  biggest take away from my research.
• 29:46
  And now I've published a paper on it at the Nature Heritage
• 29:52
  Sciences that, you know, was just made public like a few
• 29:57
  weeks ago where I report all of my findings.
• 30:00
  And, and one thing I'm also doing, I published all of my
• 30:04
  scans, you know, I published all of my source data so that if
• 30:08
  anybody could go in and conduct your own analysis, you know, I
• 30:11
  disclosed how I, you know, wrote the code, how I calculated
• 30:15
  everything. So it's extremely transparent
• 30:19
  for anyone else to see and analyse.
• 30:23
  And in fact, Stina Igurdis, you know, she used this opportunity
• 30:26
  to independently examine my skins and independently in a
• 30:31
  verify my analytical technique. And she arrived at the same
• 30:35
  conclusion. She also used, you know, her own
• 30:38
  technique. So she has her own quality
• 30:40
  metrics that she derived. So she used both hers and mine
• 30:45
  and the conclusions are similar. So we do believe now that the
• 30:50
  most precise visas that are privately owned are of modern
• 30:54
  origin as opposed to of ancient Egyptian origin.
• 30:58
  And one more thing I'm going to add, ever since I visited Peter
• 31:03
  Museum, you know, one more time. So I scanned another set of
• 31:06
  foreign objects and I went to Manchester Museum where I
• 31:10
  scanned another, you know, 15 or so.
• 31:13
  And the results are the same. So I haven't seen like ultra
• 31:18
  precise vessel and so when I report my findings, I say I
• 31:25
  haven't seen all of the vases, right.
• 31:27
  So there are about 2000 known stone vessels of pre dynastic
• 31:32
  origin that's been catalogued. So there is actually a book, a
• 31:36
  couple of books written about them and every vase has been
• 31:39
  catalogued. And so there are about like 2000
• 31:44
  of them or so of pretty dynastic, not like overall, but
• 31:48
  you know, the ones that are attributed to pretty dynastic
• 31:51
  period. And when you even look at
• 31:53
  pictures of them, there is a website, you know, one guy put a
• 31:56
  catalogue together, you know, they all look similar.
• 31:59
  And when you look at them for a while, you you kind of start
• 32:03
  spotting imperfections. So they don't look as shiny or
• 32:07
  as symmetrical as the vases in in a private collections.
• 32:12
  So once again, I haven't scanned all of them, but I have looked
• 32:16
  pretty much at majority of them. And you know, I don't see any
• 32:24
  evidence of this space tech precision in them.
• 32:28
  And that's kind of the disheartening outcome of, of my
• 32:34
  research that it took me a while to digest them.
• 32:38
  I know a lot of people are still disagreeing and arguing.
• 32:41
  And I do get a lot of hate about this result, which people say,
• 32:47
  you know, I sold my soul to academia or Zaki Khawas paid me
• 32:51
  or, you know, Flynn Dibble paid me or somebody else.
• 32:55
  But my answer is no. That's, that's how you conduct
• 32:58
  scientific research. You know, you speak your mind
• 33:01
  truthfully. You do your work honestly.
• 33:04
  And I will change my opinion, you know, if I find a vase with
• 33:08
  Providence that you know, is traced to a tomb or to a known
• 33:13
  excavation, and if it possesses, you know, this unusual qualities
• 33:18
  consistent with modern machining, you know that that
• 33:22
  will change everything. You know that will, you know,
• 33:24
  change history. But I haven't seen a base like
• 33:26
  that. But the pre dynastic period was
• 33:29
  very very long time ago and you would expect chronologically
• 33:34
  those vases would be very primitive nonetheless.
• 33:40
  You, you're partially correct. And that's another thing that I
• 33:43
  need to, I guess correct is when we speak about artefacts that
• 33:51
  have been, you know, produced in the past, they usually not just
• 33:56
  like one group of artefacts, but you know, multiple groups of
• 34:00
  artefacts. Because like in modern day, you
• 34:03
  know, back thousands of years ago, there were different tiers
• 34:06
  of quality. Like you can go to Walmart and
• 34:10
  you can buy a handbag, right? Or you can go to a mall and buy
• 34:13
  a Louis Vuitton bag, right? And that those will be in a
• 34:17
  different quality tiers. You know, 1 is a luxury good,
• 34:21
  high quality, super expensive. The other is a like run of the
• 34:25
  mill consumer item. You know, cheaply made,
• 34:29
  inexpensive cars are the same way.
• 34:32
  You can buy a supercar Lamborghini and you can marvel
• 34:36
  at at how well it's made or you can buy, you know, cheap Russian
• 34:39
  junker that barely drives. So so prehistory was exactly the
• 34:47
  same way. They were goods that were made
• 34:50
  for the elite. And this is like very well
• 34:53
  established in the case of pretty dynastic stone vessels
• 34:57
  because they are only found in the burials of royalty.
• 35:02
  So if you excavate a burial and it's a royal Bureau, you will
• 35:06
  surely find, you know, a stone vessel in it.
• 35:11
  Whereas you know, if you find a Bureau of a common man, you'll
• 35:14
  find like a clay pot or or something like that.
• 35:18
  So these stone vessels, they were luxury goods and when so
• 35:25
  the, the, their manufacturing quality was different from
• 35:30
  everything else. It's kind of like a Faberge egg,
• 35:33
  you know, Faberge egg was, you know, such a fine thing made for
• 35:36
  the Tsar family that you wouldn't find like in a
• 35:40
  graveyard where common peasants were buried.
• 35:43
  So it's not surprising for me to see, you know, high quality of
• 35:49
  work because it was a luxury item.
• 35:52
  You know, the question becomes, you know, why was it a luxury
• 35:54
  item? And I have a theory about it,
• 35:58
  but it, it, it is, it's entirely explicable, you know, why it was
• 36:03
  well made because it was made, you know, for a purpose.
• 36:06
  It was a luxury good that for whatever reason, you know,
• 36:10
  Egyptians wanted. But if you would allow me to
• 36:13
  speculate, I would say that a lot of these Basel razors, they
• 36:19
  look like machine parts. And you, of course, you're
• 36:23
  familiar with the cargo cult theory, right?
• 36:27
  When primitive people are emulating, you know, higher
• 36:31
  technology of visiting people with a good illustration being
• 36:38
  when Americans dropped cargo on a Pacific island and the natives
• 36:43
  have never been in contact with, you know, advanced people.
• 36:47
  So they treated Americans as gods and they started emulating,
• 36:51
  you know, the earphones and the building, you know, strong stick
• 36:53
  aeroplanes and even, you know, conducting the drills just like
• 36:57
  the Americans did. So it's an excellent
• 37:00
  illustration of, of how, you know, rituals and and religion
• 37:04
  and imitations develop. So when I look at at some of
• 37:08
  this, you know, pre dynastic basil vessels, what strikes me
• 37:13
  what, you know, why choose basil?
• 37:14
  Because basil is black. It's not particular particularly
• 37:17
  pretty stone, but it does look like, you know, anodized steel a
• 37:22
  lot. Yeah.
• 37:23
  And some of the vases, they look more like, what's the term, like
• 37:30
  machine parts? Like if you take a machine
• 37:32
  apart, like industrial machine, there will be those, you know,
• 37:35
  black and cylindrical parts with phages and, and some of the, you
• 37:40
  know, pretty dynastic vases look that way.
• 37:42
  So if I am allowed to speculate, I would say that, you know,
• 37:45
  pretty dynastic Egyptians were in touch or in contact with an
• 37:49
  advanced civilization, and they saw some of the artefacts and
• 37:53
  they wanted to emulate them. And Basel Stone, you know, was
• 37:56
  the closest thing they could find to anodize steel.
• 37:59
  And then they shaped and machine, you know, those vessels
• 38:03
  and vases according to the memory of this strange object
• 38:09
  that they've seen. And that's why we have this
• 38:12
  flanged and cylindrical shapes. And because those original
• 38:18
  objects were associated with gods, I think royalty wanted to
• 38:21
  have a peace of God, you know, wisdom.
• 38:23
  And that's why, you know, they were made, you know, for the
• 38:27
  royalty because everybody wanted to say, Oh yeah, you know, your
• 38:29
  great, great grandfather walked with God.
• 38:32
  So here, here is the artefact. So that's, you know, my
• 38:36
  speculative theory that, you know, kind of makes sense to me.
• 38:42
  But I do think that, you know, the quality of workmanship is
• 38:47
  entirely explicable with with the grinding.
• 38:54
  And the grinding technology they used was not primitive by any
• 38:59
  stretch of imagination. It was very ingenious.
• 39:02
  And that's what we got to understand about the ancient
• 39:05
  people. We, it's incorrect to view them
• 39:08
  as primitive savages because they were not, you know, granted
• 39:13
  some tribes were primitive savages, just like in modern
• 39:16
  days, you go to Africa or to Amazon and you find people that
• 39:20
  still run naked, you know, with the spear.
• 39:23
  But it doesn't mean everyone is like that.
• 39:25
  So in prehistory, this was more the case.
• 39:28
  There were a lot more wild tribes compared to, let's call
• 39:32
  it, you know, civilised tribes or they're called cultures in
• 39:35
  archaeology. So in Egyptian prehistory there
• 39:40
  were probably more wild uncivilised tribes than they
• 39:43
  were civilised. But the civilised tribes that
• 39:46
  built the Kingdom, you know, they were developed.
• 39:49
  They were not, you know, primitive.
• 39:51
  They were not savages. And we know few things about
• 39:55
  them. We don't know everything.
• 39:58
  But where the pre dynastic period is and dynastic period
• 40:02
  begins is basically, excuse me, the unification of Egypt,
• 40:06
  meaning each. Northern and southern portions
• 40:10
  of upper and lower of Egypt, you know, were countries in their
• 40:13
  own rights. They just, you know, unified,
• 40:15
  became one state and their cultures and industrial
• 40:21
  techniques merged, but each was developed.
• 40:23
  It wasn't like 2 undeveloped pieces came together.
• 40:26
  We're talking like 2 developed pieces joined in county common
• 40:30
  history starting from them from that moment on.
• 40:35
  What about excess thorium 232? Yeah, that's an interesting
• 40:42
  question. So when I conducted measurements
• 40:46
  on the samples, it appeared to me that there was an excess of
• 40:49
  Thorium 232. Later, because I published that
• 40:53
  work on my website, I was approached by a geologist and
• 40:57
  the geologist point out to a systematic flaw in my
• 41:01
  measurements. And that's a thing that what's
• 41:08
  the, what's the word? Every measurement has a quirk to
• 41:10
  it. So the way I was conducting my
• 41:14
  radiological survey of the of Mad Bells vessels, vessels did
• 41:20
  not properly account for the geometry of the vessel and how
• 41:25
  it was positioned with respect to the detector.
• 41:27
  So I thought it was unimportant. I thought, you know, let's say
• 41:31
  here is the vessel and here is the detector, and this is good.
• 41:36
  And what the geologist explained to me is different vessels have
• 41:43
  different quantity of material. So bigger vessel would have more
• 41:46
  rock in it than a smaller one. And that matters.
• 41:50
  The vessel shape matters too. And how you position the vessel
• 41:55
  with respect to the detector affects your readings.
• 41:59
  You know, I knew all of that. I just underestimated the
• 42:03
  effect. I thought the effect would be
• 42:05
  small. And he told me, no, the effect
• 42:07
  would be large. And what you need to do properly
• 42:10
  is to buy a special kind of software that you know can be
• 42:13
  ourselves where you input the 3D model of the object, you input
• 42:18
  the characteristics of the detector and you basically
• 42:20
  recreate, you know, your measurement setup.
• 42:23
  So here's your part, here's your detector.
• 42:25
  And, and this is the properties of the detector you used.
• 42:29
  Yeah, it will compensate for geometry, will compensate for
• 42:31
  the difference in mass, compensate for the difference of
• 42:34
  an orientation, and we'll give you a result that's proper.
• 42:39
  And he was pretty sure that the difference in peak height I got
• 42:44
  was because of that. And I tend to agree with him.
• 42:49
  I never got to buy the software though because it's like 3000
• 42:53
  bucks another, you know, 3000 bucks I get to spend.
• 42:57
  And so I kind of left it at that.
• 42:59
  So the conclusion was incorrect. There wasn't an excess of
• 43:04
  fluorine was just an error in measurement methodology.
• 43:08
  And and that's, you know, a common thing in science,
• 43:11
  unfortunately taking accurate measurements is difficult.
• 43:16
  So there isn't an excess of fluorine to authority,
• 43:20
  unfortunately. Other than this being a
• 43:24
  fascinating topic, what are the implications?
• 43:28
  Oh boy. I mean, obviously, I think where
• 43:34
  I agree with, let's say people on YouTube or alternative
• 43:40
  historians and archaeologists, I think our past is a lot more
• 43:44
  fascinated, fascinating and a lot more interesting that let's
• 43:48
  say the mainstream version of it would make us believe.
• 43:54
  So I think, you know, this talk about Atlantis and aliens or
• 43:58
  ancient gods or extraterrestrial gods.
• 44:01
  I don't think it's just talk. I I think it's seriously
• 44:04
  because, you know, to me, every hypothesis is worth testing.
• 44:08
  And I don't care whether it sounds crazy.
• 44:10
  In fact, I like it to sound crazy because then it's
• 44:13
  interesting to explore. It's never interesting to
• 44:16
  explore like a boring topic. It's interesting to look for,
• 44:21
  you know, ancient reptilian beings and maybe find a
• 44:23
  sarcophagus, you know, with both of them.
• 44:26
  That's that's like really cool. So I don't understand why
• 44:28
  scientists aren't so interested in in doing it.
• 44:32
  Well, I know the reasons, but it's another story anyway.
• 44:36
  Money. I think you know money Well,
• 44:39
  yes, obviously. Obviously money, of course
• 44:42
  corrupts everything. So the short answer is there is
• 44:45
  more. I think there is more to our
• 44:47
  past than, you know, we're led to believe.
• 44:50
  And I, I think the reason I want to know the truth about the past
• 44:56
  is because it helps us understand, you know, the
• 44:58
  present better and navigate through present, you know, with
• 45:02
  the knowledge that's more accurate.
• 45:05
  And, you know, 1 implication is if you know, like Chris Dunn and
• 45:09
  Denman Kirkrick say that the history is cyclical, it's, it's
• 45:13
  very well might be. So, you know, are we at the end
• 45:16
  of our cycle or when that the end might come?
• 45:20
  You know, can we do anything about it?
• 45:21
  You know, should we do anything about it?
• 45:24
  Or maybe it's cyclical for a reason.
• 45:28
  Like really just people like Christians believe in in the
• 45:32
  judgement day. And what is a judgement day?
• 45:35
  It's the end of the cycle, right?
• 45:37
  So everything is wiped in the words he has saved.
• 45:40
  And you know, life goes on, but in a different realm.
• 45:46
  You know, maybe that's how is nature is structured and maybe
• 45:49
  that's what we want to find out. You know, the idea of cyclical
• 45:53
  history, you know, does appeal to me immensely.
• 45:56
  And, you know, I have my own hypothesis on how that, you
• 46:00
  know, might come in into being. And I do believe that Arctic,
• 46:07
  like Greenland ice sheet, the Antarctic ice sheet play an
• 46:11
  important role because they kind of pin Earth's crust to mantle
• 46:17
  because this is enormous weight. And it's not a controversial
• 46:21
  fact or anything. Geologists are well aware that
• 46:25
  the crust of Earth under Antarctic has been like pushed
• 46:31
  down by the weight of ice. So it, you know, the ice,
• 46:34
  there's a lot of ice that really weighs down on it.
• 46:37
  It really pins Earth's crust to the mantle.
• 46:41
  And then, you know, some other scientists, I forget his name
• 46:44
  now, back in the 50s or 60s, I think put forth I had possibly
• 46:49
  is that the Earth crust might slip.
• 46:52
  And when it slips, you know, you'll have this enormous tidal
• 46:56
  wave that goes on and, you know, watches everything.
• 47:01
  Yeah. And you don't like need like a
• 47:03
  total slip. You just need like a hiccup
• 47:05
  because there is a a lot of inertia in the rotation of the
• 47:09
  Earth. So you have like a tiny hiccup
• 47:12
  and all of a sudden, like for a fraction over a second, over a
• 47:14
  second, you know, the crust isn't spinning at the same rate
• 47:17
  as the rest of the planet. You'll have this, you know,
• 47:20
  enormous tidal wave of the ocean in a rolling across the land
• 47:25
  mass and the wiping everything clean.
• 47:27
  And then when you look at Google Photos on Earth, you know, you
• 47:31
  find evidence of a massive floods.
• 47:34
  Even Joe Rogan, you know, noticed when he was looking at
• 47:37
  the map of Sakura. You know, there is evidence of,
• 47:41
  you know, giant flows that you know would be explicable by a
• 47:45
  notion or a tidal wave, you know, going and and wiping
• 47:49
  everything. So it's not out of the realm of
• 47:53
  impossible, especially in view of recent publications where
• 47:59
  scientists claim that the Earth's core experiencing like
• 48:01
  irregularity in rotation. So if that is possible, you
• 48:05
  know, then maybe crushed to, you know, may slip, especially if
• 48:11
  another celestial body, maybe like a straight comet or a
• 48:14
  wandering star, a wandering planet is coming nearby and an
• 48:20
  Earth is experiencing unusual like gravitational pull of this
• 48:23
  interlow part that's travelling through the solar system kind of
• 48:27
  like, you know, through I Atlas we've experienced maybe that is
• 48:30
  the trigger. But I think the real trigger is
• 48:32
  if you have an advanced civilization, then it will
• 48:36
  inevitably result in the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.
• 48:41
  And then all of your extra ice will melt and there is nothing
• 48:47
  pinning the Earth's crust to the mantle anymore.
• 48:50
  And therefore the this external event that might trigger the
• 48:56
  crust slippage becomes potentially more potent because
• 49:00
  previously the ice was a safeguard.
• 49:04
  It was keeping us safe because it was pushing the crust down.
• 49:08
  And now we've melted the ice, the safeguard is gone.
• 49:12
  And maybe this comet or asteroid or planet that's passing by
• 49:17
  through the solar system periodically, maybe I like
• 49:20
  Sichuan hypothesised, creates enough of gravitational
• 49:25
  influence to where the Earth's crust spins or skips a bit and
• 49:30
  the tidal wave rolls over and, and we start fresh.
• 49:34
  You know, that's kind of the idea that's appealing to me, and
• 49:38
  I think I see some evidence of that, like here in Florida.
• 49:44
  Max, who do you think the pre dynastic Egyptians were?
• 49:51
  Good question. I don't really know.
• 49:54
  I think it's pretty much, you know, the same people who
• 49:58
  inhabit in Egypt now. I'm not aware of any like
• 50:03
  migrations or extinctions that that took place.
• 50:09
  I can only uninformedly say that I do believe it's the same
• 50:15
  people that inhabit Egypt now, but I don't really know.
• 50:20
  I I don't think they were special in that sense.
• 50:25
  Like we know Baracus people in Peru were special because of
• 50:29
  their elongated skulls and they're red hair, but to my
• 50:33
  knowledge predomastic Egyptians aren't particularly special for
• 50:37
  the region. The reason why I'm asking is
• 50:42
  because you were mentioning the potential parallel of an
• 50:47
  advanced civilization influencing them.
• 50:53
  Yeah. Well, I would say that the idea
• 50:57
  that appeals to me is the idea that there has been a visitation
• 51:02
  in the past, either like an ancient alien hypothesis or
• 51:07
  extraterrestrial, you know, visitors interacted with the
• 51:11
  ancient Egyptians or maybe people who inhabited the region
• 51:16
  before them. But I think, you know, the key
• 51:19
  visited and they're gone. I, I, I think they truly left
• 51:23
  this place because, see, every myth on this planet goes like
• 51:28
  this. Gods came from heaven.
• 51:30
  You know, they taught people agriculture, taught people
• 51:33
  metalwork, this and that. And then they left and ever
• 51:37
  since were waiting for their return.
• 51:39
  You know, the story of Jesus is kind of the same, right?
• 51:42
  He came, got crucified, left, and we're waiting for his
• 51:45
  return. So why is this, you know, the
• 51:47
  same story came and left and we're waiting for their return.
• 51:51
  So I think because that's what really happened.
• 51:54
  So they visited, they taught us stuff, and then they're left and
• 51:59
  they're not here anymore. And that's why it's difficult to
• 52:02
  reconcile this seemingly high tech things or imitations of
• 52:06
  high tech with what you would expect from primitive people
• 52:11
  just because they they got exposure to to something they
• 52:15
  shouldn't have. And that's what makes it
• 52:18
  confusing because I think mainstream archaeology is trying
• 52:22
  to explain it in terms of, oh, it's just, you know, primitive
• 52:26
  stuff And where you say, no, no, no, it is high tech.
• 52:30
  Well, in fact, it's both. It's the imitation of high tech.
• 52:34
  You know, it was primitive tools, primitive technology,
• 52:38
  it's cargo cult. You know, that's that's what I
• 52:41
  believe it is. So what's the moral of the story
• 52:46
  is that to to realise that we have a completely impoverished
• 52:51
  understanding of history and that we should approach it with
• 52:54
  nuance? Yes, I think the moral of the
• 53:00
  story, I would have like 2-2 outcomes, you know, one for
• 53:04
  academic scientists and one for amateur scientists.
• 53:07
  So what I really would like to see in academic science is to
• 53:12
  take the amateur ideas seriously in.
• 53:15
  In fact, if we have a publicly funded science, I think publicly
• 53:19
  funded science is obligated to address public interest.
• 53:23
  And the public interest is we want to explore this wild ideas.
• 53:28
  You know, we want to look for ancient aliens.
• 53:30
  We want to look for Atlantis. We want to look for this, you
• 53:33
  know, crazy, fascinating stuff. And who can blame us, the
• 53:37
  public? And if this is our interest, you
• 53:40
  know, darn, this is what you ought to be doing, you know, put
• 53:44
  on your Indiana Jones hat and go dig, you know, look for alien
• 53:47
  bones, look for very fine saucers because that's what we
• 53:52
  really want, you know, mainstream scientists to do.
• 53:56
  Yeah. And if they've done it, I think
• 53:57
  it would be no problem finding funding for science because
• 54:02
  everybody, you know, wants that that done.
• 54:06
  But it's not happening, unfortunately.
• 54:09
  And, you know, most academic science tend to dismiss and
• 54:11
  laugh at the ideas that we discuss here.
• 54:15
  And so it's not happening at the same time.
• 54:18
  You know, my message to the amateur researchers and
• 54:21
  alternative researchers is, you know, research is a difficult
• 54:25
  process and research amounts to reading literature.
• 54:30
  So if you if you want to speak of pyramids with authority, you
• 54:34
  know, do bother to read the available scientific literature
• 54:37
  on the topic because you'll learn a lot.
• 54:39
  You know, people studied it for hundreds of years, for thousands
• 54:44
  of years. You know, going back to
• 54:45
  Herodotus, you know, the first officially recognised his story.
• 54:49
  So you got to study all of that because there is a lot of said
• 54:53
  and written. And then, you know, if you
• 54:56
  conduct experiments, you got to learn your protocols, you got to
• 55:00
  learn how to measure, and you got to present your findings
• 55:05
  truthfully and you got to publish them.
• 55:07
  So everybody, you know, could critique your findings.
• 55:10
  And that's, you know, the only way we can make progress.
• 55:13
  In fact, if I am allowed to draw a historical parallel, in the
• 55:17
  past, all science was conducted by amateurs.
• 55:20
  There was no such thing as professional scientists or
• 55:23
  academic scientists. You know, Newton had a job, so
• 55:28
  science was a hobby to him. Even Einstein had a job as a
• 55:32
  patent clerk when he developed his special theory of relativity
• 55:36
  and and published a paper on the photo effect.
• 55:40
  So for hundreds of years, basically until recently,
• 55:43
  science was conducted by amateurs.
• 55:45
  And the only reason we made progress is because, you know,
• 55:48
  those amateurs were true scientists.
• 55:51
  You know, they conducted their work diligently.
• 55:53
  They reported their findings truthfully, and they published
• 55:56
  their results. And that's why when the next
• 55:58
  person comes in, he reads what the previous person wrote and
• 56:03
  builds on that. And that's, you know, an
• 56:05
  important process that we must maintain.
• 56:09
  It's not enough just to sit and talk and, and bullshit.
• 56:14
  At the end of the day, you know, we need to write something and
• 56:17
  we need to write something, you know, publish it to.
• 56:20
  Because by writing it, you are sharing the knowledge.
• 56:24
  You are pushing the knowledge forward.
• 56:27
  You're allowing others to read your writing and build and
• 56:31
  improve upon it. So that's my message.
• 56:34
  But I mean, one of the major issues with amateur science is
• 56:38
  that they just don't have the funding, so it would take them
• 56:41
  10/20/30 times longer to research.
• 56:47
  That is correct. I am an amateur scientist
• 56:49
  myself. I don't have the funding.
• 56:51
  You know, Newton, who was a scientist, she didn't have the
• 56:54
  funding. I think that's, that's the truth
• 56:57
  about science. We don't need too much money.
• 57:03
  You know, we need some, but we don't need too much.
• 57:05
  We don't need like hundreds of thousands of dollars.
• 57:08
  And where, where is curiosity? There is always a way.
• 57:12
  You know, I found money somehow. I mean, I chose to spend my
• 57:16
  money because that's what scientists do.
• 57:18
  You know, Newton spent his money, Einstein spent his money.
• 57:21
  Everybody, you know, Ampere, you know, Volta spend their money.
• 57:25
  That's what we do when we really want to know.
• 57:29
  You know, you're waiting for somebody to give you a handout.
• 57:31
  You know, your curiosity just, you know, wouldn't let you
• 57:34
  sleep. And you say, heck, you know, I,
• 57:36
  I don't have to buy a new car this year.
• 57:39
  My car is fine. How about I use this money, you
• 57:42
  know, to go to Egypt or buy some equipment or conduct some
• 57:45
  measurements? So yeah, it will take money.
• 57:48
  It will take time. And that's why it took 300 years
• 57:51
  to develop a theory of electrodynamics because every
• 57:55
  scientist, you know, did a little bit of work.
• 57:58
  And in the end, you know, 300 years later, we have Maxwell's
• 58:01
  equations. And I think this is about the
• 58:04
  only way to conduct science because, you know, money
• 58:08
  corrupts everything. And if you throw too much money
• 58:10
  into the process, it becomes about money.
• 58:13
  It sees as being about the truth.
• 58:15
  It sees as being about fact finding.
• 58:17
  It becomes, oh, I have PhDs that I need to employ.
• 58:21
  Oh, I have, you know, lab technicians that I need to
• 58:24
  employ. Oh, I have, you know, grant
• 58:28
  sponsors that I need to report to because I want to get another
• 58:31
  grant. So it becomes about money.
• 58:33
  So that's why I'm actually conducting my research in public
• 58:36
  domain. And, you know, if you would like
• 58:39
  to donate or contribute, I'll take a donation.
• 58:41
  But we don't need a lot of money to fund this.
• 58:48
  You know, it's just, you know, the time and the money that we
• 58:51
  can commit to it that makes the difference.
• 58:55
  OK, well, where can my audience go?
• 59:00
  Yes, my website is Maximus dot Energy, and if you go there,
• 59:05
  you'll find my blog on ancient Egypt, and that's where I post
• 59:09
  my findings. And that's, you know, where I
• 59:12
  solicit the nations when I need them.
• 59:14
  And this is where I report my results.
• 59:16
  So Maximus dot Energy is, you know, the website I encourage
• 59:21
  you to visit. And of course, you can leave
• 59:23
  your comment there and you can critique my work.
• 59:26
  I'm always happy to hear constructive criticism.
• 59:29
  If you find the flaw or suggest an improvement, I'd like to hear
• 59:34
  it because I don't know everything.
• 59:36
  And of course I could be mistaken.
• 59:38
  That's kind of the whole point of publication, peer review.
• 59:41
  I'd like to know what you think. I could be full of shit, you
• 59:45
  could tell me. All right.
• 59:47
  Well, Doctor Max Zamolov, thank you for joining me in the
• 59:51
  trenches.