Exploring Megalithic Mysteries: Lost Knowledge & Alien Visitation | Part 4 | Ralph Ellis (#39)

speaker-0: Hello and welcome, my name is Maddie and this is next episode of Vocation. Once again, I'm pleased to announce I'm joined by the great Ralph Ellis. And today we're going to be doing a little follow up on our previous episode, which cut off a little bit short when we were speaking about the Balbeck Stones in Lebanon. So just to start off, how are you doing this week, Ralph? You're keeping all right?
speaker-1: Yeah, very well. It's a little bit warmer now, which is always good. So we're keeping well this end.
speaker-0: Yeah, super. And so we'll we'll be doing a little Q &A, I guess, today, just going over some of the information from the mystery of the pyramids and where we left off. And maybe just to start us then, we were speaking about these Balbak stones with some of them weighing one thousand five hundred tons. And I was I was looking that up, actually, just to put that in the context for people. That's about a thousand cars. That's the weight of that. A thousand cars, you know, like which is unbelievable for a sort of historic man to be able to pull this off. So. How did ⁓ ancient man pull this off? What was the point of using these massive stones? Why not cut it up into something smaller? I think that was the line of inquiry we were on last time.
speaker-1: Yes, well of course ⁓ we don't know. This is all down to speculation but ⁓ I'm just going to share a screen and just bring up ⁓ the stones which I think we just saw before the end of the last episode. this is the, that's the biggest stone. Let's go for the other stone first. This is the one that people normally go to, the stone of the pregnant woman. are in Baalbek in the quarry. So this one was left in the quarry. It was never used to make the foundations. These stones were for the foundation upon which the temple was built. And you can see three of them here. They call these the Trilithan stones ⁓ on the edge of the temple mount. And you've got one, two, three, which are all in the sort of 800 ton category. rather large stones. These ones, not that one, that one, ⁓ got left in the quarry. They were never used. They were dressed, ⁓ and it's sitting on its plinth. think it was called the stone of the pregnant woman because it is if the earth is giving birth to this stone because it's still sitting on its umbilical. ⁓ and I think that's where it got its name from. This is when they dug it out later. So this is a later image ⁓ after my visit and you can see it's still attached to the ground underneath. But when I was there, it was all covered in dirt and earth and rocks. And that's me sitting on the stone. So that's me with my hat and my waistcoat in Lebanon. This will be about 2000 and well, it had to be before the uprising. ⁓ so call it 2010, 2009, something like that. And this one is the biggest stone, which is in the next quarry down the road. Not many people go to this one. This one's even bigger. This is the one that's more like 1,400 tons, something of that nature. And as you say, you know, why, why would anyone do it? Because it's not like they're And this is actually Jupiter. And temple of then, the temple of temple. then, is And then, this is the Roman temple. are Roman and I think you can see that these are actually made of one, two, three drums. So they're not one pillar, these are made of three drums. I mean, the Romans did the obvious thing, you you divide it up into three drums, it makes it easier. But each of these drums is, I forget what I calculated, there's something like a hundred tons, maybe 70 tons. These pillars, can't get, there's nobody standing there. So you can't get any, um, scale to them, about 2.2 meters, I think in diameter. These are big columns. These are the biggest columns ever used in a Roman temple. Um, and this temple appears to be Roman. doesn't appear to be megalithic as such, but still the Romans were using some hefty stones. You know, you imagine 70 tons. but nothing like the weight of these megaliths that make up ⁓ the platform itself. And you can see this because if you read the guidebooks, they'll say it's all Roman. The whole of Baalbek is Roman. They don't differentiate between the megalithic ⁓ and the Roman architecture above. But if you go into the tunnels underneath, and this is why we think of course there are tunnels down in Jerusalem as well. There are tunnels underneath this platform and here they are. And you can see there is a clear difference. We've got megalithic underneath and then we've got a Roman arch on the top of it. So for whatever reason, the megalithic temple mount had been ⁓ eroded away. stones stolen and robbed ⁓ so that this tunnel was exposed and then the Romans came along and put a Roman arch on the top of it. So there's clearly two eras here, two separate eras. We have the megalithic era and the Roman era. ⁓ We have the megalithic era and the Roman era, two separate eras. So in the megalithic era, they were using these vast stones to build the temple mount and they did the same. Jerusalem. So this is Jerusalem, Temple Mount, and here's the megalithic architecture underneath and then some Roman stonework on the top. So the question was, why do it? Well, the answer to that is it must have been simple. That's the simple answer to it. You would not do this if it was not simple. Why make work so hard for you. It doesn't make the temple mount any stronger to be made of one or two very large stones. ⁓ If you've got good ⁓ cement and concrete, you can bind together just as good a temple mount from smaller blocks as you can from one big block. Why make life so difficult? These stones are so large. that they will barely take ⁓ wooden rollers to actually roll them without crushing the rollers. Obviously you've got to have a roller that is strong enough to hold the weight that's above it. These are on the limits of what a wooden roller would ever, even if you had the strongest of woods, know, using something like ⁓ Lebanese ⁓ cedar or something of that nature. to actually accept a wooden roller to roll it. And then you've got to roll it up hill as well, because you've got to go uphill to the temple mount. it's not nearly, you're not going downhill all the way. ⁓ Absolutely impossible, I would say, especially in an era where they were not supposed to have iron work. I mean, the Romans again, give them their due. They were carting around some big blocks. They took some, ⁓ ⁓ some you call them? The large stelae they took, sort of square base pointed top. They took those into Rome and I think the heaviest of those weighed 300 tons and they had to erect it. They actually had to swing it into the vertical position, which they actually did with block and tackle and wood and horses and whatever. They were managed to get it standing upright. that was quite a feat because that's, that's pretty big, but they had iron work, which, and they had pulleys, which obviously in the, in the megalithic era, they're not supposed to have had. They're supposed to be back in, in, in almost in the stone age, perhaps in the copper age, because they keep saying for Egypt that they were using copper to drill the holes because there are many holes in Egypt which have obviously been drilled with a tubular drill. So what sort of tube drill were they using to drill those holes? And they were also using circular saws and straight saws again to hard rock sometimes granite but circular saws of a huge diameter to cut these rocks. And they're saying, well, you know, the only metal they had is copper. You're not going to do it with copper. You're really not. The Romans barely could do it when they had invented iron, let alone doing it with copper. So the speculation has to be that there has to be something novel in order to move these stones. And this is where you have to put the old tinfoil hat back on again. ⁓ Because I forgot to make mine up today, but anyway, I'm sure I've got one somewhere. Because it's, it's so difficult to explain ⁓ the motivation and the methodology. They're both difficult to explain why bother doing it when it's almost impossible. And how do you do it? Even if you decided that you wanted to do it.
speaker-0: I'll edit one in.
speaker-1: ⁓ Only a few ⁓ possible explanations. You have to go down either the of Graham Hancock route, which several people have taken up recently that there was a previous technical civilization that had ⁓ technical superiority, greater than we would expect. This is sort of borne out by the ⁓ The jugs, let me quickly do a screen share. Yes, I should have got this up before. ⁓ I'm wondering what I called it. Did I call it a jug? What would you call it? ⁓
speaker-0: What?
speaker-1: The Americans call it a vein. It's not a vase, it's a vase. ⁓ I see. I shall just open these. There we go. ⁓ we have a screen share coming up and we have these ⁓ vases which were highlighted by Ben Kirkwick or something with a foreign sort of Eastern name and they were investigated by the Duns because Christopher Dunn is an engineer, worked in stone and ⁓ engineering, metal engineering mostly for the aerospace industries. And so they had the equipment in order to do the measurements on these vases. And they turned out to be remarkably accurate. ⁓ in imperial terms to a couple of thou. We're talking microns here, both in their circularity, their roundness and their regularity in the form they are taking. So here we've got a couple of these and these are in granite. These are very difficult. Remember if you're putting a blade, because it's fairly obvious that these were made on a lathe. They couldn't really have been done any other way. ⁓ But if you put a bit onto ⁓ granite, it's likely to fracture and have splinters coming out of it and all sorts of things. But these are what in Italy they used to call Sincere, which is why we have letters and you sign it sincerely. ⁓ Sincere means without wax. So if you buy a sculpture in marble, What they used to do is fill in all the little holes with wax. If you're not a very good sculptor and you make a mistake and take a chip out, you fill up the little hole you've just made with a bit of wax. So a very good sculpture is sincere. It's without wax. And these are without filler. They didn't find any filler. So during the manufacturing process, they didn't chip out any little lumps, which often happens with trying to ⁓ put granite onto a lathe, which sort of suggests that they were made with a rotary bit, you know, a grindstone. So a grindstone that is turning and is grinding the material rather than just using a bit to take out the material. ⁓ And they're superbly made, you know, very, very accurate. And what I said, and they've not really taken up very well. did a, ⁓ I did a talk on this with, ⁓ the Matt Beale talks. ⁓ so, you know, do have a look at some of his because he's got a lot of this material on these, ⁓ vases. What I said, which makes them even more interesting is they're not just accurate in their roundness, but they are accurate to precise numbers of. Royal Fingers. So they're using the Royal Cubit system. The Royal Cubit system ⁓ that we've been looking at is the Royal Cubit, which is seven hands, four fingers per hand. So you're talking about 28 fingers in a cubit. And some of these are made to... So... Yes. So, and this is why you've got to measure these vases in cubits, not in inches, which is what the Duns were doing. They were measuring it in inches because they're in America. Inches and thou, which is great. You know, you can measure it in inches and you can see it's, you know, within two thou tolerances of being perfectly circular. But that doesn't tell you anything about what the designer was trying to do. measure it in Egyptian units and suddenly you find it's 5.47 royal fingers or you might say five and a half royal fingers. ⁓ That one is probably not so good. Let's look at this one. It's probably the same one from above. So we get in Royal Fingers, 3.16 Royal Fingers, 3.35 Royal Fingers and 3.67 Royal Fingers for the various points on the rim of this particular vase. And you might think, well, that really doesn't mean anything, you know. What sort of measurement is that? Well, again, they didn't use decimals in Egypt. used fractions and it comes out to three and one sixth, three and two sixths and three and four sixths of a royal finger. Now that's interesting because what we didn't know previously is what was the standard subunit of a finger. Now, if you're using an inch, we tend to use eighths of an inch. Sometimes they use tenths, but mostly eighths of an inch is the standard subdivision of an inch. Well, in Egypt, it looks like they were using sixths of the finger system. And suddenly we get precise units of Royal fingers. So whoever was making these vases was not only making something that was perfectly round. but they were also making it to a very precise number of royal fingers. Now, if you're trying to do that by hand by some sort of grinding mechanism or even putting it onto a some sort of ⁓ flywheel or ⁓ some sort of machine, rotary machine to grind them down. If you're doing that by hand, you're not necessarily going to end up with a precise number of royal fingers.
speaker-0: Yeah, impossible.
speaker-1: have something so accurate in Royal Fingers rather suggests you've got a machine that can be programmed either mechanically or electronically to a certain ⁓ dimension and then grinding down to that. Like we would, even mechanically back in the 20s and 30s up to the 60s when electronics came in, you would have a vernier scale on your machine, on your lathe. And you would set the actual size you wanted to go to and your machine would machine down to that particular size. That looks like what they were doing here. But of course that's all outside the presumed capability of the Egyptians because these are supposed to be old kingdom. Yeah. 4,500 years ago, this machinery was not available at that time. And this has been the whole conundrum. are with these vases and everyone's saying, ⁓ well, you don't know if the vase is really ancient. Maybe they're all fakes, produced recently on CNC machines or something. these vases, most of have a pedigree that goes back to the 1930s when they were discovered. They came out of Saqqara in Egypt in one of the digs there. where they found something like 40,000 vases all buried under Saqqara. So most of these have a pedigree that goes back a long, long way. And they were not sold on this basis. So if you were making a fake vase, and of course there is a big industry out in the East of making fake arm, antiquities. I mean, I've seen them in Damascus myself, when I went to Damascus and you went around the souq and in one corner of the souq, there was a guy making coins. He was making ancient coins, copper, simple ones to sell to the tourists. But you could say, you could see they were fake. He was making them in front of you. Yes, they would go perhaps onto the antiquities market, but it was relatively Obviously they were fakes and everyone coming out from that die would be the same. Now, when you're buying coins on the antiquities market, you don't buy coins which all look the same, that have come off the same because the chances of getting an ancient coin that has come off the same die is pretty remote. So every coin you find will be different. that doesn't happen with the fake antiquity market because no one was going to change the die for every single coin they make. So they make several thousand out of the same die and they will come out looking exactly the same. ⁓ So these, don't think would be modern fakes, you know, even back from the 1930s fakes, because they were not sold on the basis of being highly accurate. They were sold as being old, but they were sold as being original out of Sicara. But if someone had gone to the trouble of making fakes, they wouldn't need to make them accurate. They just need to some make something that looks old and sell it. Why make something highly accurate, which takes, you know, 10 times as long as it would to make a simple one and then not advertise that in the sale. If you were making a false one, you would say, look, here's this ancient vase and it's supremely accurate in order to bump up the price a little bit. But not only that, now we find out that whoever was supposedly making these fakes was also making them to a precise number of royal fingers and still not advertising that fact. Just selling them on the antiquities market as being an old vase. which happens to be highly accurate and happens to be made to a precise number of royal fingers. So no, I don't think these are fakes because no one would go to all that trouble. ⁓ a, because it's too difficult B because if you're going to do it, you're going to advertise it and say, Hey, look at this. But they didn't. ⁓ so we get things like this. ⁓ this is the spinner and these spinners, I love these spinners because they have no bottom and, but they stand perfectly upright. on a point. They're perfectly stable on the very pinnacle of the base as it were, if you can have a pinnacle of the base, because that's the way up. But there we go. And you can spin them and they just carry on spinning. Hence they're called the spinners. So if you look at the measurements here on the mouth for the opening, it's 3.49 Royal fingers. Yeah, three and a half. 2.33 Royal fingers for the opening. Yeah, two and one third. 2 1 1 3rd again is 2 2 6th. We're back to the 6th again. Same with 1 3 1 and 3 6th. And then across the middle 5.99 which is obviously 6 royal fingers. That's spinner 1. So yeah, that's the same one with the same unit. So I think this reinforces the argument that these have been made by technical machinery in the ancient era. I don't know why the people who are pushing these things like Ben, like the Duns and so on, are not mentioning this more often, that these are not only precise vases made to incredible accuracy, but they're also made in precise units of royal fingers. So someone had a machine that could actually ⁓ grind or mill or whatever they're doing with these things. A vase into a precise number of royal fingers and they are stupendous ⁓ items.
speaker-0: Hello, if you've been enjoying this content once again, would really appreciate it if you would consider subscribing and liking the video as well too. It'll really help me keep this journey going. Thank you again for your time. I'm back to the show. Yeah. And when we say precise, we're talking about it's pretty much perfection. The beyond pretty much any human hands could ever make. This is why we're speaking about machinery there. The truly perfection. People should look these up and in different types of angles. And we're saying about this spinner on the apex of it. It is really, really astonishing to see and to be able to do this so many thousands of years ago. It's just another one of these. Here you go. Here's something to slow you off again about your idea of what the past was like. You'd mentioned Christopher Dunne a few times. I'd come across his name recently. I think he has a theory of the pyramids regarding he sees them as a type of battery or something like that with it. Would you mind speaking a little bit about his thought on it and what your opinion is regarding that?
speaker-1: I will just one last thing with these vases is you have this superb accuracy, this superb machining. for something that is basic utilitarian. We're not making an aero engine here. You don't need tolerances to two thou for a jar that's going to hold some milk.
speaker-0: Yeah.
speaker-1: Again, this is what we've seen with ⁓ the Megaliths making the ⁓ temple mount. You don't need to make a temple mount with Megaliths. You don't need to make a utilitarian vase down to nearest two thou. Again, it suggests that this must have been easy for them to spend all of this time making this vase to the nearest two thou when all it's going to do is hold some oranges or hold some milk or something, you know? ⁓ We don't do that now. If we're making a joke, it's molded plastic or if it's China, it's not accurate to a few thousand. So again, it's meaning they've got technology which was so easy to use and so superior that they could make utilitarian ⁓ items down to very fine accuracies. ⁓ With regard to Dunn, I depart. from Dunn in his, he made the book called the Giza Power Plant, as you're saying, saying that the Great Pyramid was some sort of power system and it contained chemicals which were mixed in the various chambers in order to produce some sort of energy. There is zero ⁓ evidence for any of that. and his idea that you could put chemicals, because I think he was putting acid in the, you know, we were talking about the shafts that ran out from the main chambers. He was filling those shafts with something like hydrochloric acid or something in order that they would be mixed in the chamber. You cannot put an acid into a limestone.
speaker-0: I was just thinking this.
speaker-1: ⁓ yeah. And those shafts are not sealed anyway. There's so many gaps and holes and whatever all the way down. The joins between the blocks are not that accurate. They're not watertight. They're not fluid tight at all. You cannot store any fluids in any of those ⁓ shafts or chambers. They're just not watertight in any sort of shape or fashion. And the acid would react with the limestone and all the rest of it. ⁓ it's not possible. And there is simply no evidence to back it up whatsoever. It's a speculation beyond speculations. So I completely, ⁓ depart from done on that speculation. My speculation is bad enough, but all I'm saying is that they've carved a shape, which looks like a map. which has been built out of Megalith simply to make it last for thousands of years so that you can find this design in thousands of years time and say, look, this is what they were doing in those times. The only reason for making it out of Megalith is to make it last a long time. And it's just a simple diagram when seen in cross-section, nothing more complicated. Well, it's complicated because you've got to decide what that cross section actually means and refers to. So there is some complexity there. ⁓ But it's not a machine. It's not doing anything. It's just sitting in the sands there. It is, as we discussed before, Kilroy was here, written on a wall. A message for the future. Now they could have written pi r squared.
speaker-0: Yeah.
speaker-1: or E equals MC squared. We might have understood, but of course the characters would change. You know, the symbology we use is not universal. ⁓ So they chose cartography. They chose to draw maps and latitudes and longitudes. So I think my solution is much more simple. Even if it is just as complex in the end because you still cannot explain how they managed to do that and how they understood all of the things that they were supposed to understand in order to draw and manufacture that. yeah, that's the Duns idea. It became very popular. Gita the Power Plant was a very popular book, but I don't regard it as being in any way factual, unfortunately. cause he's a nice chap, him and his son and they, you know, they're both doing these jobs. ⁓ they're both engineers. His son's an engineer as well. ⁓ they are. intelligent people and they've come out with their idea but I don't agree with the solution they came up
speaker-0: Yeah, no worries. And so just when we're on this sort of topic, there was recent, I believe ⁓ there was recent surveying done underneath the pyramids with some sort of, know, LIDAR technology, some laser technology that has recently come out and it seems to be a big sort of thing on the internet now. Have you any opinion what's underneath the pyramids or what's underneath the Sphinx? This is something that has been mentioned.
speaker-1: I profoundly disagree with that new research. However, I don't want to. I don't want to pour scorn on it too much because I may have been wrong with the other one that they came out with. The first one they came out with was the cosmic ray experiment, which was looking for cavities inside the pyramid. They had these plates which they put in the lower chamber, which were collecting cosmic rays. which they couldn't. the way the plates were arranged underneath, they could actually calculate where the cosmic ray had come from. And so as these cosmic rays come through the pyramid, cosmic rays are not rays by the way, they are highly energetic particles, but they've got so much energy, they can actually pass through solid rock. And ⁓ then they get detected by these detectors. And if you collect enough of these, I mean, these plates were sitting there for, I don't know, a couple of months maybe. to collect enough cosmic rays. You can find and calculate where there are more cosmic rays coming through than there should be. And if there are more cosmic rays coming through, then there must be a void in that position. And so they did this experiment and came out with two voids inside the pyramid. And I was thinking, how on earth with... There aren't many cosmic rays. mean, this is not like X-rays coming down and you're collecting millions. With the small number of cosmic rays and so on, how on earth can you calculate that there is a void in that position? And I was very skeptical of this and they had one void above the grand gallery and one void at the entrance. And lo and behold, when they stuck a ⁓ a camera through a, I think they actually drilled a hole, but they said they put it through a crack. They found the void on the entrance. So the cosmic ray experiment predicted a void and a void was found. They found a chamber, an entrance chamber, which nobody had ever seen before, ever before. So that prediction was true. And so
speaker-0: you
speaker-1: prediction that there might be a void above the grand gallery might also be true. So I was highly skeptical of that particular methodology and it turns out that it didn't actually predict something. I shouldn't be too skeptical. However, what they're doing with this new methodology, ⁓ I still profoundly disagree with it. They're using ⁓ satellites to measure. So they're doing like seismology. So seismology, you put all these detectors out along the ground and you smack the ground with a ⁓ sledgehammer or maybe a small explosion and you detect the seismic waves that as it were like the sound waves coming back to your sensors from all of the different layers in the ground. So you have a concentrated unit of energy from the sledgehammer or the explosion, which is then reflected back to your senses. And that's how you see something underground where you're not allowed to do that out on the Giza Plateau. For all that zahi hawas, we'll have a heart attack if you started doing that. If you see this guy with this big sledgehammer smacking.
speaker-0: Yeah
speaker-1: So that's out. So what they did is they had satellites above and they took the data from the satellites, was using, I think it was using LIDAR type ⁓ detection. So the satellite wasn't made for this in the first place. It was made for another purpose entirely. And they were taking the data and reusing it for doing these measurements and measuring the pyramids and the surrounding area with this LIDAR. Now the vibration, because you've got to some vibration to make a difference, which you're going to detect is by the traffic in Cairo. and by the wind passing over the pyramids. So we're talking extremely faint vibrations from the traffic in Cairo ⁓ to try and shake the pyramid. So you can measure the responding resonance of the pyramid and the ground beneath the pyramid. So the input is very, very faint. and the measurement system is not very accurate. Between the two of those, there is plenty of room for noise making all sorts of problems ⁓ which you are going to detect or not detect. It could be just something within your interpolation within the program you're using to try and interpret this data, ⁓ which can spiral out of control. If you've done anything with computing, you'll know how ⁓ it's easy for a computer to over exaggerate what it's discovered. I don't think this proves anything. They were saying that the Great Pyramid, is it the Great or the Second Pyramid, is sitting on six pillars that go down 300 meters or something in the ground. The pyramids are sitting on a Giza plateau, which is made of limestone strata. And as far as we know, because there have been, mean, there are shafts that go down, ancient shafts made by the Egyptians that go straight down near the pyramids. And all you can see all the way through them is strata, standard limestone strata all the way through. And then you might have some sort of cavern at the bottom that they've made, you know, for some sort of burial or wherever they're making these vertical shafts. and there've been various drilling and nobody has found anything other than what you would normally find. And of course it, this limestone is difficult. if you're doing seismic work, because there are so many layers and so many voids within the limestone, because limestone dissolves. You've got any water going through limestone, it will dissolve. And so you end up with voids underneath and all of those might look like chambers and various other things. And yet it's only a small void, natural void. ⁓ I don't think they've discovered these pillars underneath the pyramids whatsoever. I think this is all noise. the computer in their program because they haven't. If you're doing an investigation like this, it needs duplication. That's the whole idea of the scientific method. You put out your thesis, this is what we think, this is what we discovered, this is how we did it. And the first thing you look for is duplication. Someone else to come along and use your same methodology ⁓ in order to produce the same results. That has not been done. And then you need openness. So you actually publish the software that you're using in order to make that discovery that has not been done either. ⁓ so no, I don't think that is true whatsoever. ⁓ I don't think they've discovered anything. ⁓ and there'll be no, what would be the reason of making these huge, great pillars and sticking a pyramid on pop?
speaker-0: Fascinating.
speaker-1: ⁓ When you can just place the pyramid on the plateau.
speaker-0: Yeah, I think it's the conspiracy hat on again. There's some other ancient structure underneath where there's hidden secrets that you can go into and the library down there or, you know, that's this is where the aliens live.
speaker-1: Yeah, but the only chamber that's underneath within the bedrock, of course, is the primary chamber below the Great Pyramid is just in bedrock. It's not in anything else. It's not in a pillar or anything. ⁓
speaker-0: Is there something under the Sphinx by the way? Did I hear something around that?
speaker-1: There's lots of tunnels because people have been tunneling under these Sphinx and even tunneling through the head and through the tail and all sorts. There has been a lot of tunneling trying to find things because I mean, treasure hunters are going left, right and center, of course, looking for things. And not only do we have treasure hunters, but we have the original Egyptians themselves making ⁓ tombs for various people and putting sarcophagi down there. back in ancient times, because everything around the Great Pyramid is one great necropolis. Now, I've been saying in previous episodes that, of course, no mummy has ever been found in a pyramid. The pyramids are not tombs. No, they're not. But the surrounding area is nothing but tombs. Everybody wanted to be buried near the pyramids. And so they make all of these mastabas all the way around the pyramid. And lots of people drilling shafts so they can put sarcophagi in small chambers and so on, tombs underneath the one underneath the pyramid, but near the pyramid. It's like our churches. You go to a church and you've got a whole graveyard. The whole of the church is packed full of sarcophagi and burials. And then the whole of the ⁓ area around the cathedral or church is full of burials left, right and center. Cause everyone wanted to be buried. near the church. If you go into St Paul's Cathedral in London, It's a temple to the military. It is a temple of war. Every tomb inside St Paul's Cathedral is of some army captain or navy captain involved in all of the adventures and wars that Britain was having in the sort of 19th century, 18th It's just covered in tombs and the keys of pyramids are exactly the same. So it's not surprising that there are a huge number of, in fact, it's a wonder that the whole of the plateau hasn't collapsed into a big hole at present because there are so many shafts underneath it that people have been digging. But there's no evidence of anything. as it were supernatural, nothing particularly special that I've seen. ⁓
speaker-0: Is there anything else that jumps out at you from ⁓ studying Egypt here, ancient Egypt, that makes you maybe pause and go, there is maybe something supernatural here again. Of course, we have this architectural time capsule off the pyramids. have these vases or vases as we were going through. That are maybe another kind of design. Here's our measurements for people in posterity to come across then. ⁓ Thousands of years are not going to decay over time. What else jumps out at you from studying ancient Egypt that you go,
speaker-1: There are many, you come across them all the time. You've got the huge great granite sarcophagi that are in the ⁓ place that I always forget its name. ⁓ Anyway, there's an underground section with, I don't know, 20, 24 maybe of these huge great granite sarcophagi, which are like three meters by five meters by three meters. I mean, they're absolutely huge, made of granite. Yeah. And very precisely made of granite, course, you know, as if they had been made by circular saws and various things like that. ⁓ They are very difficult to explain. ⁓ Underneath, Sakara. Now I was taken down, there's a mastaba there and you're taken down by this guy, these guides, course, Bakshis, Bakshis, Bakshis. And ⁓ he was saying underneath this mastaba. Because this area is not Tura limestone. You know, if you go around Egypt, most of the limestone is pretty rancid limestone, just like it is on the Giza Plateau. You don't get Tura type limestone just in the middle of nowhere. But underneath this mastaba, we were in Tura limestone in this chamber. And he was saying, one stone, one stone. The chamber we were in, which was fairly large, had been carved out of one piece of stone. So we were inside a stone of Tura limestone. It was perfect, you know, white. How big was that stone? So I went around looking at the edges to see whether it was actually made up of individual blocks or whether we were in a single, and I couldn't see any joints in this arm. in this chamber we were in. And I know we had come through, the tunnel was roughly cut through perfectly aligned Tura limestone blocks, which had perfect joins between them. Underground, so we were underground at this time. But someone had bodily... dug a tunnel through these churro limestone blocks to get to this chamber. And apparently we were inside one stone, which means that one stone was absolutely huge, probably bigger than the Baalbek stones. ⁓ It would be nice to know if that guy was correct, because you can never fully trust these guides. But I couldn't see any joins on this particular stone. So there are lots of anomalous ⁓ things like that all over Egypt where people have been playing around with stones in a fashion that they shouldn't have been able to do so. ⁓ and again, you have to, you know, start speculating as to how that was, was actually achieved. even the kiosk, I found these interesting. ⁓ wonder if I can very quickly find this. So this is the granite kiosk. ⁓ And by kiosk, it looks like a telephone box, basically, which was a shrine that held the image of the god. And what was interesting is the accuracy, because this is made of granite. You can see it's made of rose granite from Aswan. ⁓ The internal and external dimensions were perfect on this. Now, how do you do that in granite? You can see holding up a set square and it perfectly aligns to a 90 degree angle. This is the inside of the kiosk. They were doing this because the kiosk has a complicated sort of entrance as it were to it with many different thicknesses of granite. And trying to get into to these 90 degree corners to actually take out the material is extremely difficult. You imagine trying to get some sort of ⁓ instrument in there to make a precise 90 degree ⁓ corner. That was happening all over this kiosk. And the door ⁓ hinges were holes and the holes were drilled so close to the edge. of the kiosk that you would never be able to get a drill bit in to make that hole. So even today you have to have a very specialist piece of machinery in order to drill a hole so close to the edge of the box. So there were lots of interesting things about this kiosk. This is the outside of the kiosk. Again, you can see it's in perfectly ⁓ made granite. And the thing I liked about this bit is you've got a pyramid shape of course on the top of the kiosk and ⁓ the pyramid is unfinished on the top. Now this is supposed to be sort of old kingdom, this kiosk. So we're going back to the pyramid supposed era. And I think they're indicating here at the top that the great pyramid always had a platform on the top. So this is an imitation of the great pyramid and it had this platform on the top because there was a flight of stairs that used to go up to the top of the pyramid. so they could use it as an astronomical platform for viewing the heavens above. So this would have been the stairway to heaven that went up the side of Mount Sinai, the Great Pyramid, to the viewing platform on the top where they ⁓ perform their rites and their roast sacrifice and whatever else they were doing and observe the cosmos. above all the smoke from the fires from Cairo. ⁓ So yeah, that was rather interesting. Sorry, I don't have an image of the front of this kiosk. ⁓
speaker-0: And so in terms of these two main types of speculation, so there's the Hancock sort of line that there was an ancient civilization, they had this lost knowledge and these techniques and you maybe have this other ⁓ string of thought that it's maybe some sort of alien visitation, you know, the UFO thing is something that's coming much more into the public consciousness and taking over the online sphere. ⁓ I'm sure there's other strings of thought you can go down as well too. Where do you sort of sit in that sort of spectrum or what are your sort of I general ideas on a-
speaker-1: It's nice and easy to say previous technical civilization, but there is no evidence for that. All we have is these anomalous artifacts. ⁓ As we said, I think in the last episode, ⁓ if there was a previous technical civilization, we would be coming across it every time we drill something, every time we make a quarry, every time we make a mine, every time we start probing the earth, we would come across, even if it was 100 foot, 200 foot down. ⁓ we would come across it. mean, the mine I used to work in, I trained in geology and so on. ⁓ we were going down 1500 foot into a coal mine in Britain. ⁓ and then all over the place, you know, mean, coal mines were too a penny in, in sort of, ⁓ Northern Britain, ⁓ back in the day. And nobody has found a previous technical civilization while making all of these ⁓ shafts going down into the deep earth. ⁓ All you find is strata and what they were looking for, which is coal. These were all coal mines. No, I went down a salt mine as well. That wasn't quite so deep. But in Cheshire, it's built on salt and you've got these big salt mines. Same in Yorkshire as well. You've got these huge, great salt mines, ⁓ which are now used for They used for road salt. They used to be used for the chemical industry when we had a chemical industry. ⁓ And now they're used for storage because they're extremely dry. So all of the artifacts from the British museum and things like that, all of the records from parliament and other, they're all stored in these salt mines. Because although, yeah, you might think salt is gonna... ⁓ rust away anything that you put in there, but no, it's so dry that they are preserved. And so we've got all of these storage centers down in these salt mines. But none of these mines have ever found any previous technical civilizations. Now, Hancock has offset that by saying, you know, ⁓ the sea was ⁓ lower then than now. So during the last ice age, it was 140 meters lower, which means that we had much larger coastlines ⁓ out along the continental shelf and so on. so maybe all of the ancient technical civilizations were out there on the continental shelf and they're now covered in sea. But that's not true either because all of the megaliths we have are on high ground. So if you've got a geyser, if you've got a Stonehenge, There would be a city, a technical civilization associated with that large temple complex, same in Central America, Teotihuacan or whatever in Mexico. And yet we don't come across a super technical civilization anywhere near these large monuments. So I don't think there was a previous technical civilization, but there might've been a previous technical visitation. Because only that would explain what we see, which is not, we don't see a major metropolis, technical metropolis. We see technical artifacts, one or two of them, anomalous, one or two scattered around. The alien visitation would explain that because you would have, going back to the 2001, a space Odyssey. So this image. So going back to 2001, which I think is the basis, because some Masonic lodges think 2001 is an explanation, historical explanation for the foundation of civilization. And this is what they proposed was an alien visitation. So well worth seeing this film because you've got to remember when you're watching it, this is 1967. Wow. This is like 60 years ago.
speaker-0: Did you say there, this is spoken about in the free Masonic log?
speaker-1: Yes,
speaker-0: teacher by alien visitation, is that right?
speaker-1: Not all lodges. This is just some lodges. This was a lodge in Australia that I came across that was talking about this ⁓ as an explanation for the foundation of civilization. Because that's something that Masons are interested in because they're looking at history and this is one of the historical things that they are ⁓ interested in. so this ⁓ is the beginning of the film where
speaker-0: Yeah.
speaker-1: ancient man here in the image of apes, because they were still apes at this point in this film, was failing. Man was going to die out completely because these aliens have a non-interference policy that they're not supposed to ⁓ interfere with the development of cultures on other planets. However, if that intelligence is going to fail, then they have a sort primary duty to try and assist them. And so they assist these apes on how to survive so they don't die out. And they do so by putting this monolith down on earth, which has the ability to instruct the apes, which it does. teaches them how to survive, how to kill. And from there they leave another monolith on the moon. which is identified by a strong magnetic ⁓ signature. So you would only find this monolith if you had gone to the moon. If you're now a space-faring civilization, you've gone to the moon and you can actually uncover this monolith. And when you uncover the monolith, then it phones home and says, this particular world has reached the space age, ⁓ technical civilization. Up until that, are, you might consider the aliens to be the divine watchmaker. The divine watchmaker makes his watch and sets it in motion, but then doesn't care about it and goes off to make another watch. And so the divine watchmaker is not overseeing his creation every minute of the day. So praying to the divine watchmaker is absolutely absurd and useless because the watchmaker is not looking. The watchmaker only looks when you tell him you've arrived into the space age. So this phone's home, it sends a signal home and they trace where the signal goes to and the signal goes to Jupiter. are where there is a, yeah, sort of like a base. There is another monolith out there, which is supposed to be like a ⁓ train station for an international hub for interstellar transport. And you can go through this hub into various other galaxies or wherever these people came from. So that's the basis of 2001.
speaker-0: another bass or...
speaker-1: a space odyssey and it is a really well-made film, the likes of which we did not see again for years and years. ⁓ I'm just trying to see an image of the space station because I'm not seeing very good images of it, but anyway, they have the spaceship and the space station are extremely well done because it was all done with models. And they were saying that some of the exposures to get the quality they wanted took four seconds per frame to make the film. And if you're running a normal film, you know, I don't know what they use 50 frames a second or something. 30 frames a second. Yeah. So 30 frames times four seconds for each frame shows you how long it was taking to make these, to make these images of the space station moving along in space and turning and whatever. And then just the foresight they had the people who made it. So in the space station.
speaker-0: 30 or 60.
speaker-1: in the spaceship that goes across to Jupiter. have Dave, think his name is one of the astronauts, is using an iPad. in 1967.
speaker-0: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
speaker-1: The spaceship has all flat screen displays for the guidance system. know, everything that we are using today, they had that in 2001 Space Odyssey. So they were really forward looking and all of the imagery for space is true. So there is no sound in space, unlike some of the modern films where, you know, you can hear it.
speaker-0: Just going by.
speaker-1: Yeah, all that sort of stuff. No, this was accurate to how space is. So it was extremely well made. And it was informative if you believe in the possibility of alien intervention. Now people will scoff at alien intervention, but if you ask scientists in general, educated people in general. Out of the, because there are a hundred billion galaxies in the universe, probably more now because they've discovered more. Let's call it a hundred billion. Each galaxy having a hundred billion planets, a hundred billion stars. There are billions and billions of planets out there that are sort of earth type planets. ⁓ And so if you ask people the possibility, is there intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy or the universe? Most scientists will say, yes, of course. The probability is that there is intelligent life out there in the universe. So the only question is, has that intelligent life ever visited earth? That's the only question. for which we don't have a good answer. However, the anomalous artifacts that we can see out there would be evidence of that visitation. But most people previously have only been looking at the difficulty of making, which is what we were talking about just earlier on. How can you move these stones? How can you do this architecture, this construction? That's what people were looking at. But as we saw in the last episodes, never mind the construction, how do we do latitude and longitude? How do we know islands in the South Atlantic? ⁓ How do we know the motions and form of the earth? How do we know the continents of the earth and the lines of latitude on Africa? How do we know that K2 looks like the Great Pyramid? Suddenly we have a whole raft of other questions which are very difficult to explain without having alien intervention. Besides all the mathematics we looked at, the Pythagorean and everything else, ⁓ suddenly we have a lot more questions which would point towards alien intervention because they're beyond the realms of what ancient man could have been doing. And so I think the possibility is quite high. And the reason why you don't see anything positive like images of the aliens or an ancient craft or something of that nature is because of the non-interference policy. So we have the non-interference policy, which suggests that ⁓ assistance is approved, but you're not supposed to leave any evidence of your visitation. So everything that they used was taken away. So all of the machinery that was used for making huge stones and constructing them and putting them into place, transporting them, all of that machinery was taken away because of the non-interference policy. It's not up to the aliens to leave ⁓ technology on earth, which could be misused, you know, if they just left it. So all of the artifacts, sorry, all of the machinery and technology was taken away. leaving us with anomalous artifacts, which we cannot easily explain. So that would explain what we see. It wasn't a technical civilization. It was a technical visitation. They came, they went, and they left very little trace apart from the megalithic architecture, which was left as a quest. Well, two reasons for having it. I think we discussed this in one of the episodes that construction of ⁓ a megalithic temple involves all of the aspects you need to make a culture, to make a civilization. All of the administration, the farming, the manufacturing, the shipbuilding, the stonework, everything you need to make a civilization is involved in making a large megalithic enterprise. And so these were educational projects. And hopefully after making this great project, whatever you were making, Stonehenge, Avery, Giza Pyramids, that education will be passed on down through the generations and you would end up with a civilization and maybe even later a technical civilization. And you would have to do it in several places around the world because not every single one of those would be successful. Yes. You know, if you did 12 around the planet, maybe six, maybe eight of those might perish and not produce anything. And so you end up with just anomalous artifacts in the middle of nowhere in the desert somewhere. But some of those projects might actually work and you might get a technical civilization from it. And from one of those, Avery and Stonehenge, we ended up with the industrial revolution. It happened not to be the big one, you know, it wasn't Giza that gave us the industrial revolution. ⁓ It was one of the small ones. was Stonehenge and Avbray, which actually brought technical civilization to the world. ⁓ So that does explain what we see. Whether people believe that or not is another matter. ⁓ I think there is sufficient evidence to believe that. If you take yourself away from the consensus, because the consensus will always say, no, that's not possible. Actually, it is possible. You've got a tinfoil hat. No, I don't have a tinfoil hat. I'm just looking at the evidence. ⁓ It is certainly possible.
speaker-0: Yeah, we took a lot more time than you think.
speaker-1: Yeah, but it's possible.
speaker-0: Yes. Yes. Yeah. One maybe contrary thread to the non-interventionist style is you hear these stories about maybe alien interbreeding with humans. Again, there's this thing from the Bible, the Elohim and whatnot. I can't remember. think maybe Zacharias Sitchin might have mentioned it as well also in his work. Maybe I'm confusing that. Have any thoughts on this sort of interbreeding? Then maybe this is what became the priest kings and then further led down to the ginger monarchy within your sort of body of work or? Am I over extrapolating?
speaker-1: No, not really, because you would do that if you had an interest in what was going on and you wanted to do a case study later on when you come back. Remember space travel is difficult. We're going on standard ⁓ physics here that you can't go faster than light, which means you cannot easily get around the universe if that holds, if that is true. That means each visitation is necessarily going to be 10, 20,000 years apart because that's just the restriction of getting around the universe. You're going to want to come back maybe and see the results of what you actually did, the intervention that you made. One of the ways of doing that would be to create blue eyes, ginger hair, blonde hair. because then you would know where those people started and then later on when you come back, you can see where they ended up around the world. You can see the migrations of these people from where you started. So yeah, you might well want to do that. It's quite possible that you might want to do some ⁓ minor, I don't think major, but minor. ⁓ intervention with the genealogy, with the ⁓ phenotype of the people and of the plants. Suddenly at this time we get grains and these grains happen to be very beneficial. Now did we evolve those by selection or were they created? You get things like corn, I remember correctly wheat, not American corn, I'm not sure about that one, but wheat has more chromosomes than humans do. It has chromosomes that have doubled up. So it ends up with quite a few chromosomes. It has a very complex ⁓ genome within wheat. Now, was that a game by natural selection or was that by intervention? Because if you're going to have a civilization, you're going to need somehow to feed them. And having something like corn being invented at the same time is quite useful, you might say. ⁓ So yeah, it's possible that there was some genetic manipulation. It's possible.
speaker-0: And do you see this, I think in these secret societies, I think of this bloodline, you think of freemasonry and whatnot, and obviously you know so much more about it than myself. Do you see as the very upper echelons of these things that sort of this zenith of the hierarchy of modern society, there might be some sort of playing going on, there might be some sort of intervention going on with these types of beings or aliens or whatever you want to call them or ⁓ what are your thoughts on that?
speaker-1: Yes, no. mean, there would have to be an aristocracy. ⁓ If you're making a civilization, you've got to make an elite, you've got to make an educational ⁓ elite or a power elite in order to lead that civilization and hope that that ⁓ educational elite can carry on into the future to improve the society you've just made. And so there would be certain people within that society that had deeper knowledge of what actually happened. because people were there. People would have seen these alien beings. They would have seen the construction. Those traditions would have been passed on down through the generations. So there might be some people with inside knowledge. ⁓ But continuing intervention, I can't see it happening for a couple of reasons. A, we've already said that it's very difficult to get around the universe. So people are not going to pop in every two minutes. to see how things are going. be if they did come, you wouldn't come across 10,000 light years of space in order to draw pretty patterns in a wheat field. I mean, that's just utterly pointless. No one in their right mind, let alone an alien mind, would bother doing such a stupid thing.
speaker-0: Yeah. So, no.
speaker-1: Yeah. And the people who made all those crop circles have already admitted that they did it. And then of course, all the believers say, no, you didn't. Yeah, but we did. ⁓ So no, that sort of alien intervention is absurd. The aliens that Americans keep talking about, that would be absurd as well, because you would not come to another planet in a little spaceship, which is obviously just a, you might say a, ⁓ like a space taxi from the mothership. I mean, you wouldn't come across thousands of years of light in a small, tiny little spaceship that is only the same size as a modern aircraft. You would come across in something much larger, ⁓ which would have other smaller spaceship attached to it. If we're talking about standard
speaker-0: Yes, yes.
speaker-1: physics here, not talking about, you know, breaking through dimensions and things of that nature. So these spaceships that they're talking about in America are merely distractions. I think some of them, when they're talking about these Tic Tac spacecraft are ⁓ test regimes within the radar. Now, if you're making a radar, I used to be in computers, I was a computer analyst, one of the many things I've done. ⁓ The first thing you have to do is you make a test routine to test your system to see it's working. And what do you do for a test routine? Well, you make a Tic Tac to simulate what a contact would be in your radar ⁓ and see if your software actually tracks it. So you have two pieces of software. You have the software you're using for the radar. And then you have the testing software, which will ⁓ try and emulate what it's going to see when it's using a radar, because it's very difficult to simulate what the radar is going to find just in a laboratory. And so you do it by software. Now, if someone has left some of that software in the radar, it might well be playing the test system. And people are actually seeing a test tic-tac running around, which the radar then tracks, thinking it's a real thing, but it's not real thing at all. It's soft-lap. That is what I think they're seeing.
speaker-0: Do you have thoughts on? I'm sorry, go ahead. I was going to ask about I think it's Commander David Fravor, is it? He he was the pilot that saw it with his eyes and then tracked it. Would that run somewhat counter to the software theory with it? are there any more general thoughts on, you know, these first person encounters, people being abducted, this contact with the greys. I don't know if we're diverging too far from the pyramids, but I find this interesting as well,
speaker-1: Go ahead.
speaker-0: Yeah, what are your other thoughts on it sort of largely?
speaker-1: like this picture show
speaker-0: You think I'm Venus?
speaker-1: special. Some people like to make things up because then it makes them special. I've seen this. You've never seen this before, but I saw it in the sky. Now everybody wants to talk to you. know, all the radio and television all come down to what do you want to People doing do it for that, for the fame and fortune. Some people do it because they're easily confused. There are an awful lot of dumb people out there who are easily confused. I've had people confused by
speaker-0: I see.
speaker-1: thunderstorms and all sorts of, you you've only got to see the, the flat earthers, seeing every cloud in the sky and then saying, ⁓ look, we've, we've never seen one of those before in the sky. Yes, we have. We've been seeing those clouds for the last 200 years. ⁓ and even I've noticed some highly educated people and I don't want to disparage any particular pilot. who has made a report, but I've seen pilots who are equally befuddled by what they have seen outside because you do see phenomena outside and you've got to be able to interpret those ⁓ without jumping to conclusions. ⁓ yeah, yeah. I did 40 years of flying. So, I mean, I've seen things that initially looked a bit odd. I saw a bunch of grapes. This was at night flying over Wales, a bunch of grapes in the sky.
speaker-0: as well wasn't that
speaker-1: Probably about 20 of them all sitting in the sky. you think, yeah, what's that? Well, it's the SAS playing silly buggers over Hereford, isn't it? SAS is being, you know, our elite army unit and they put flares up in the sky. But if they put 20 of them up in the sky, it looks bloody awful. Awful.
speaker-0: fast. Yeah. Strange and brain anomalous. Yeah.
speaker-1: And you've got to interpret it. ⁓ I was flying out over Belgium, Holland, and there was this green light on the ground, was dodging left, right, right and left. Bright green on the ground, just dodging left and right. And had no real idea what that was until I suddenly saw it was following the canal system. It was the moon reflecting in the canal. And because of various atmospheric refractions or whatever, the moon was now reflecting as greenish light and it was following the canals because the canal was the reflector, the mirror that was reflecting it back into my eyes. And so it had to follow the path of the canal wherever the canal went. So you find all sorts of oddities like that and you've got to be able to interpret them. And some people are not as good interpreting natural phenomena. than others and so they can be confused. But again, you're not going to come 10,000 light years to play silly buggers with aircraft in the sky.
speaker-0: Yeah, yeah.
speaker-1: That's not how it's going to happen. You're going to have some sort of large ship which comes and visits the earth unless you want to go really out on a limb and say that you can go through portals and so on. there is no evidence whatsoever that you can jump through portals and go, you know.
speaker-0: Are you familiar with them? I think it's Eric Weinstein's work. I've seen him recently speaking about that there has been this sort of pressure on physics from maybe the 1970s or late 60s or so that has just sort of stopped further evolution of the thoughts. And what they actually did come across was maybe some sort of understanding of gravity, which they could manipulate and then And they were like, this is too dangerous. This is where they don't let it out in the public anymore. It's a new kind of Manhattan project. And it's this ability to manipulate gravity that's allowing these so-called UFOs to travel these extraordinary distances and these sort of speeds. You need to fasten that or it's, who knows.
speaker-1: I think the stagnation of especially string theory and things of that nature is because of the orthodoxy. And this is the trouble we have in the modern world is we have the orthodoxy because we've invented universities.
speaker-0: Click.
speaker-1: sponsored universities. And you can only stay within the university system if you adhere to the orthodoxy. Otherwise you get consensus thrown out on your ear. That didn't used to happen in the Victorian era because we had an awful lot of gentlemen scientists. Now you might say, ⁓ yes, but they're not professional. Yeah, but they are independent because they are independently wealthy. And so they don't have to go along with any orthodoxy. And that is an advantage in many respects. So you don't get stuck in an orthodoxy like I've been saying with history, being stuck in an orthodoxy and not seeing the Odessa story, for instance, or not even seeing the Exodus similarities between the Hyksos and the Israelites, that they are the same Exodus. You've got to be in a really rigid orthodoxy not to see the links between those two. And yet modern history and modern theology cannot see that those links, let alone see the links with the gospels and Odessa or the links between Arthurian legend and the gospels and Odessa because they're stuck in their orthodoxy. I think mathematics and astronomy, physics have got stuck in an orthodoxy and that's why string theory has got stuck. And that's what
speaker-0: physics and yeah.
speaker-1: Weinstein is complaining about because it has got stuck. They've invented nothing for the last 30 years, maybe longer. ⁓ And it needs to break out of that. So they need some alternative thought like Weinstein himself to push the boundaries a bit more. ⁓ But another reason for not suspecting that these interventions we've seen these UFOs, these, what do they call them? UF something else is nowadays.
speaker-0: UAPs, Aerial Phenomenon.
speaker-1: Another reason for suspecting that they are not really ⁓ alien spaceships is because the megaliths were made of megalithic architecture. If they were going to come back every century or every decade, there's no point making it out of megaliths. You could do it on a pirus exactly the same. The only reason for making these technical messages, these temples, out of megalithic architecture is to make them last for thousands of years and judging by the size of the megaliths they are used, I wouldn't be surprised if they were aiming at a hundred thousand years minimum time. ⁓ Well, that sort of suggests that they're not going to come back for a long time. If you're going to do that, if you're going to make something that will last a hundred thousand years, then the message has to last that long. So the people are not coming back for at least like, you know, 20,000 years more maybe. So that's another reason why I think that the actual building of these megaliths might have been tens of thousands of years. ⁓ in the past and we came out with that. ⁓ cosmic dating we had the stellar dating ⁓ of 66,000 years ago. I think that's perfectly reasonable, you know, for the construction of these great megaliths considering they were built to last for tens of thousands of years. So again, and I don't think any modern visitation is a real visitation. If we had a real visitation, I think we would all know about it. It would be impossible to ⁓ cover it up. no matter how much they wanted to cover it up. I don't think it would be possible to cover it up. You'd all be able to see it in real time. It would be more like, I don't know what films have we had, something like Mars Attacks or something, you know, where everybody knows that it's happening. But I don't think it would be an aggressive attack. I think it would be just a visitation to say hello.
speaker-0: Yeah, no, no, it's, it's an interesting topic. There's no end to it really. Are you familiar with Jason Giorgiani's work on this at all? Have you come across him? I think an American professor, he's an idea of this. This is another rabbit hole to go down Ralph. I'll maybe send you one of his books or his talks. It's quite fascinating. He sees them as sort of, once a civilization gets through a certain point of this singularity that's maybe coming up for us, this gains them a, know, a technological superiority that they're able to do some sort of time travel and all of these kind of things. And he speaks about the Nordics. He speaks about all of these different things, but he has a whole sort of world of thought of where it all links together. It's very interesting. I'll not go right by Diana because I'm sure I'm butchering some of it, but I'll maybe I'll try and get him on the show for a quick chat.
speaker-1: That would be interesting. I'd like to try and keep my speculations within standard physics because otherwise you can speculate anything, which is why I don't go for portals and time travel and so on because we don't really see any evidence of it. Everything that we see is explainable by a standard spaceship type intervention. ⁓ We don't have to have portals in order to see the results that we see. It'd be nice to think if we could have portals, but there we go.
speaker-0: Have yet. ⁓ I mentioned Zechariah Sitchin as well earlier. Have you any other thoughts about his work? I was fascinated by this 10th planet thing. The bases.
speaker-1: I've read him. I've only come across his work through other commentators and I didn't read him because I didn't want to be influenced because all you see in other people's works is commentary on stitching, commentary on ⁓ Hamlet's mill, commentary on Hancock. I don't want to do commentary on other people's work. And so it was better if I just didn't read it because I didn't sort of The first thing that came out that people were discussing and I disagreed with totally was the crustal shift theory. I think that was his institution, wasn't it?
speaker-0: I'm not familiar with it.
speaker-1: Yeah, the crust had moved. ⁓ and that's why things were in different positions to where they should have been. ⁓ I didn't agree with that. So that was one reason for not, not going along with stitching. we know that hasn't happened because of the ⁓ Hawaii chain. So the Hawaii chain is caused by a tectonic plate running over a hotspot. So you've got Hawaii. And then you've got a whole chain of islands that go out for hundreds of miles, thousand miles all the way across to the edge of the Pacific plate where it does a right hand bend and turns to the right. So, and all of those islands are obviously now underwater now. So they're just peaks underwater. That chain has not changed direction in millions of years. However long it takes to go all the way across a thousand miles across the Pacific. So we know the crust has not moved and rotated around in the last, I don't know how many millions of years, let's call it a hundred, 200 million years, maybe more. Um, because that chain of islands would have shifted. It would have another 90 degree bend in it somewhere. And he was saying that we've had this crustal shift in the recent past. No, we haven't. That's patently obvious that we haven't. ⁓ we have had ice ages and that's another thing we must discuss because I wrote my paper on my peer reviewed paper on ice ages, why they happen. And that's interesting enough without trying to speculate that we've had a crustal shift. no, haven't followed stitching at all.
speaker-0: And from what I recall, I've maybe read three or four of his books. I think he was speaking about the Ben Ben and one of them. And I think he was given and again, don't quote me on this, but I think he was writing that it was a kind of rocket and was given this idea that was a rocket ship. Whereas when it's come across yours, it's a meteorite. Which makes much more sense, you know.
speaker-1: And it's simpler as well. know, why try to over engineer it? The Phoenix was a meteorite, you know, because it's a fiery bird that comes in from the heavens above. mean, that's interesting enough for ancient man, let alone having a rocket. Yeah.
speaker-0: I think there's diagrams of people in Iraq makes sense. So yeah, just as a final question then Ralph, have you any other sort of thoughts on this theme of the mystery of the pyramids or about these megalithic sites that you've studied that you think is worth mentioning as well too or to ponder on?
speaker-1: I think we've been through it in quite a lot of detail. It would be nice if some new researchers take up the baton and continue because I've set the scene. I've shown where these megalithic maps might be pointing towards and it really needs someone maybe to follow on and have a look at what this might be indicating. I mean, for instance, ⁓ if we're looking at K2 as being ⁓ a copy of the Great Pyramid, perhaps it would might be nice if someone could organize some proper survey work of K2. It's very difficult because it's on the borders of Pakistan and China. You know, it's not exactly the most stable place in the world to go and do any survey work. But anyway, it might be nice if someone could do that. Maybe do it through satellite. I don't have the satellite data. Maybe there is better satellite data. not known about. ⁓ With the South Atlantic material, there is There is something that I've never mentioned and it's not in the book. ⁓
speaker-0: Breaking info here.
speaker-1: Yeah, well, I'm getting old, you see, I don't want to take it with me. I don't want to be morbid or anything, but
speaker-0: No, no, you're fine.
speaker-1: But let me see, I'm just looking for some images. So when I went off to the South Atlantic, I actually flew down to the South Atlantic ⁓ using the Avery map. I went down to the South Atlantic with the Royal Air Force ⁓ on their passenger flights that they do going down to the Falklands and so on. So I actually went down to the South Atlantic and The reason for stopping off here, this is ascension. is because the largest stone at Avbrey, which no longer exists, but it did exist in the 17th century, ⁓ is not the chain of islands in the South Atlantic. It was a large monolith that sat near the equator. And if you measure that position on a globe of the world, it points pretty much to ascension. So the main focus of Ainsbury is not Stonehenge, which is the point it was giving in the North. It's not the South Sandwich Islands, which is the point it was giving in the South. It's an island halfway down, which is this one. And if you go to Ascension, what you'll find is a load of syndicones. which have the same morphology as Stonehenge. So if you remember ⁓ how Stonehenge, and I'll pick up an image of Stonehenge in a minute, how it looks like you have a circle. We're talking about the megalithic stones in the center. So you have a circle of stones, 30 stones with the ⁓ ⁓ with the capstones on the top of it as a ring around the outside. And then inside Stonehenge, we have a horseshoe shape pointing out towards the Northeast. And what we end up with on this island is a whole load of circles, cinder cones, with a horseshoe in the center pointing out towards the Northeast. So it's almost as if they are the same shape as we see at Stonehenge. Which I found interesting ⁓ because this was pointed at by an image on Avebury that gives you the ⁓ latitude of these places. And you go there and you find images which you could interpret as being a template. for the formation of Stonehenge. So that's interesting. I actually went to this one and I went into the center of this one. ⁓ And there's two or three of these that point out towards the Northeast. And I'll just grab very quickly an image of Stonehenge to compare. ⁓ So let's have a, what would be the best. Perhaps this one, if we have a look at this one. So have a look at the image we've got on screen and then I will stop share and share something else instead and have a look at this one. So we've got a circle and we have this horseshoe shape in the center pointing out through the northeast. And I think that is very similar to what we've just seen. with the cinder cones on Ascension. So there's an interesting thing that the center of Avebury was not the two circles, the two small circles, top and bottom, giving the latitude markers. The main focus of Avebury was the huge great monolith that used to sit in the center of it. Roughly speaking in global terms, sitting ⁓
speaker-0: the equation.
speaker-1: On the equator, just below the equator. So anyway, there's an extra little something.
speaker-0: I'm not a real straight.
speaker-1: Another Easter egg. And it would be nice if we had another generation that could take this maybe a little bit further and do some more research, do some more survey work once this gains traction and people sort of understand that it might be a true explanation so that we can get to grips with this a bit more. I mean, for instance, ⁓ Just going back to screen share again. I shouldn't have come out of it, but there we go. If we go back into screen share, it would be nice if this is the horseshoe shape ⁓ at Stonehenge. At the back here, we have the great Trilithon at the back of Stonehenge, which is the primary ⁓ stones at Stonehenge. One of them has fallen down. You can see it here in light orange has fallen down.
speaker-0: Can you hover over it with your mouse? I can't see what you're talking about. Sorry.
speaker-1: Just there, it's pointing at it there.
speaker-0: mice isn't showing up for some weird reason.
speaker-1: Let me make...
speaker-0: Yes, I see your most now. Yes, yes.
speaker-1: Uh, if I zoom in a bit, so there's the Trilithon that's standing. Oh, am I? No, I'm doing it in the wrong place. I've got two images on the screen, of course. Got, um, one standing Trilithon here and this one has fallen down. Now this one fell down in the last hundred years or so.
speaker-0: Sorry. Yeah, there you are now, yes.
speaker-1: No, maybe 200 years. So it's fairly recently it's fallen down. It would be so nice to be able to lift this up and see what is underneath it because the ground that's underneath this has not been touched ever since it fell down in the 18th, 17th century, whenever it fell down. So yeah, I would like some more work to be done on these mysteries to see if anyone can come up with any supporting evidence. ⁓ because the information's there, the information looks good. We need to take it a little bit further. So that's, that's my main plea to any readers is, ⁓ try and take the baton and run with it somewhere. See where it goes.
speaker-0: Fantastic. Hopefully these talks helping out a little bit with it. Yeah. We can try to get the word out and we can we can run with that torch. Yeah. Yeah. The relay over time.
speaker-1: Hopefully we'll find out some more information later because I mean think about it the technology has improved wildly since I started this. You think of the survey work that people can do now, the geophys that people can do now. ⁓ It's so much better than it used to be before so yeah hopefully someone might be able to do something and come out with something interesting.
speaker-0: It's exciting to look forward to. so, yeah, think I'll, I think we'll wrap it up there for another week, Ralph, if that sounds all right with you. Thank you very much again for your time. I really appreciate it. And thank you for everyone else that's been watching. Please just as always like and subscribe. It's one of those things we have to go through here. And we'll catch you all next time, but we're going to be doing a Q and A down the line. So if anybody has any questions that they would like to ask Ralph, please leave it down in the comment section below and we'll try to. compile them all together and to do a separate show with it. so just once more, thank you everybody. Thank you, Ralph. And we'll see you all next time. Cheers.