Advanced Ancient Civilizations - Results of the LAH Expeditions 2004-2011 English Translation

Uploaded by ancientpolygon on 11.04.2012

Throughout the years many people frequently traveled around the world in search of evidence of advanced ancient civilizations.
Starting in 2004 we formed an assembly of established scientists of many disciplines who decided
to take a look at various ancient artifacts with their own eyes and from a scientific point of view
Initially there was of course a question which they all wanted to answer
And this is a question which interests a lot of people. And they always argue about the matter.
And that is ... Could the ancient Egyptians, being a relatively primitive society as we imagine them to be, in the middle of the 3rd millenium BC have built the pyramids of Giza.
There are all sorts of arguments being made about it.
Some talk about the number of workers needed for construction.
While others estimate the size of the blocks of stone and whether they could have transported them or not.
All these disagreements make us feel as if we're running in circles.
Because some people use certain numbers to prove that it was impossible for the ancient Egyptians to have built them.
While others try to use these very same numbers along with some of their own
to try to prove the complete opposite and say that it was indeed the work of ancient Egyptians.
So this is where we seem to all be running in circles, and frankly it is getting a little annoying.
Actually, at first we too were interested in the answer to this question.
But as a result, I consider that we found a much better direction to head into.
And this direction is simply this. If we look at the famous Great pyramid right there on the right. It's weight is roughly 7-8 million tonnes.
The second pyramid is a bit smaller. However combined, the three pyramids in Giza
weigh in excess of 15 to 20 million tonnes. All made out of stone.
So what is a million tonnes of stone? Well, somebody had to shape and transport the stone blocks to the building site.
But first, let's start with the fact that they had to be shaped somehow.
If we consider the weight of all the megalithic constructions found on our planet.
Then we will get a figure in the vicinity of 100's of millions possibly even billions of tonnes.
These are quite substantial figures.
So we are talking about a colossal effort in construction and stone fabrication.
Subsequently, when a construction is done on such an enormous scale
no one will ever be able to make everything perfect and flawless.
And in many cases being perfect was not even required, with techniques like polishing, etc.
So there are certain undesired flaws in construction which remain.
Some kind of traces of craftsmanship. Including the marks left by the tools which were used.
Furthermore, it's just a matter of simple logic. I mean any person can deduce if a piece of wood
was carved by a knife, cut by a saw, or simply broken off by hand.
After each of these methods, a specific trail of clues is left which tells us something about the method which was used.
Same thing with stone, we have to consider the specific attributes of the stone.
And we also have to take into account the laws of physics.
Here's a bit of physics. For those people who are not familiar with it.
This graph shows the harness of various materials. This is something they might
teach you in a natural science class in school.
So what we're talking about here, is that if we try to process a hard material using a
tool made out of a relatively softer material then all we will achieve is the dulling of the tool itself.
In other words it is impossible to work with basalt or granite using copper.
That is using copper alone. You must always use some kind of a additional element or an abrasive, like Quartz sand which is harder than granite.
So in any case, the work would not be done by a copper tool alone but by the sand or a relatively harder material.
So this is a simple occurrence which we must take into account.
Here's a good example of two vastly different types of stonework on a block of black basalt.
On the right side, the stone was processed by a hand tool using a simple method of chiseling.
On the left we have work resulting from machine fabrication.
This conclusion is drawn from the fact that as a result of using a chisel on the surface
it becomes rough and uneven. In addition the stone actually changes color, becoming whiter.
In order to achieve the surface we see on the left, we need to have some kind of a very fast moving instrument.
So it was probably a disk type saw rotating at a very high speed and not only cutting the stone but also polishing is as well.
In addition, here we also have a trace of that very same instrument, which kind of veered off to the side and left this crease.
This is a classic example, which might as well be included in the modern textbooks on stone working.
Sort of showing a picture with the effect of a certain tool on a piece of material.
Were it not for one small detail, this block actually lies near one of the smaller pyramids
near the larger pyramid of Pepi II in Southern Saqqara in Egypt.
Pepi II is considered to be the pharaoh of the 5th dynasty dating all the way back to about the middle of the 3rd millenium BC.
So we are talking about machine based stone fabrication over 5,500 years ago.
So we mostly concentrated our efforts on these types of finds.
You may have seen something similar to this earlier today on the floor made of black basalt.
Here you can see that the width of the blade which cut this block of granite is about 2-3mm (0.08" - 0.1").
And here you can see the incremental notches left by a saw. This is a block which also lies
near the Great Pyramid. Judging by the distance between the notches, the saw progressed at a step of 1mm (0.04").
This is not easy accomplish even using modern equipment. If it was in fact a flat edged saw which was used here.
So when we talk about machine tools, what we're really talking about is a diamond tipped cutting blade on a steel base.
We are talking about technology which was clearly out of reach for ancient Egyptians.
Here's something you may have seen earlier today on your trip.
This is a sort of a chopping block which was used as a base to cut other stone on.
When the stone was cut, the saw then went further and made these chaotic incisions on the block below it.
If you were to cut a stone block using a hand tool, then once stone is split, there is no reason to cut any further.
So this instrument was moved automatically and with a high velocity. So it was clearly not something done by hand.
Here is a sarcophagus in the Cairo Museum.
It was placed deliberately with it's back to the wall because it is unfinished on that side.
If you look closer or if you maybe shine a flashlight at it then you can see the same notches we saw earlier.
The notches run in different directions almost perpendicular to one another.
Again this was cut by some kind of a saw which progressed with a step of 1mm (0.04").
So actually, this would test the limits of even the current stone manufacturing methods.
And I don't know if anyone noticed that floor made out of black basalt near the Great Pyramid.
There it is evident that many of the cuts on it were made chaotically.
It almost seems like a welder testing his electrode on some kind of a piece of scrap material
...he touches it with the electrode and a bit of weld remains there.
Same thing here. Someone made this with a single swing of the tool. There is no meaning behind it whatsoever.
But you can see that this cut was made in literally one or two motions.
So each cut is a result of a single movement of the saw.
Using current technology, a cut like this could possibly be made using a huge circular saw.
This is a block of red porphyry located in Abydos in the world famous Osireion.
It's about 6-7 meters (20 - 23 ft) in length.
So, can you imagine the size of a flat edge saw which was used to cut something like this block. The saw would have to be
over 10 meters (33ft) long just to achieve the swing needed to cut this block.
Clearly, no copper or bronze tool could be used here since it wouldn't maintain it's stability at that size.
Here we see that they sawed this block up until the line a bit below the top and then broke off the rest.
Almost identical results can be achieved in modern times when we see a stone cut in modern stone cutting facilities using a disk shaped saw.
The saw is spun, and is then passed horizontally, leaving the horizontal cut mark.
Furthermore, our modern blades only advance with an increment of 2mm or 3mm (0.08" - 0.1") max so as not to overload the saw.
So if it was in fact a disk based saw which was used, then we are talking about a saw with a minimum diameter of 2.5 meters (8.2ft).
The maximum diameter of a modern disk stone cutting blade is 3 meters (9.8ft). Anything larger would compromise the steel disk.
The diamond tips on it wear off constantly and must always be replaced.
But more importantly, the steel disk can't withstand the load. We currently don't have any material
which could withstand the load exerted upon it from such a cut.
These are all ancient objects.
No one has touched them, cut or drilled them in any way using any kind of modern equipment.
This is a granite block in Abou Rawash.
Here you can see the cuts made by a saw which accidentally made a small detour.
So if this was cut with a flat saw then the saw would have to be moved like this.
But actually this block is curved throughout it's surface on top and bottom.
So ideally it could have been made by that same type saw of about 1.5 - 2 meters (4.9ft - 6.6ft) in diameter.
as was explained to us by the lead foreman at a modern stone manufacturing facility.
Or it could also have been done by a pendulum type saw.
However, given the radius of the cut, we would have to suspend the pendulum saw a height of 10 meters (33ft). A fairly substantial distance.
So what makes up a disk saw? Well, it's the mechanisms which rotate the disk.
Also, energy must be supplied from somewhere to facilitate the rotation. So on and so forth.
So in other words, disk type saws are really a result of advanced modern machine based manufacturing.
This is a back of a sarcophagus in Saqqara.
What looks like a very negligently done work, with some tool that's similar to a hand held grinder.
Here is another mark left by a disk saw also in Saqqara near the Userkaf Pyramid.
So, this disk would have been about 40cm (16") in diameter.
This is a block in Abusir, in an area which is currently closed off to tourists.
Here you can see a cut which runs along the top of the block. This is a continuous single cut and it looks like this.
It shows that the cut was practically made with one single swing of the saw and then the rest was broken off.
And not only was this cut at a curve but this cut is at it's deepest at about 13-14cm (5.5").
Again, it seems as if something like a portable grinder was used here.
But, to cut such a hard material as black basalt using a modern handheld grinder
the worker would only be able to cut at a depth of 1-1.5mm (0.04" - 0.06") in one single pass of the blade.
So, what kind of material was this tool made out of, and what kind of strength must this craftsman
have posessed in order to apply such an unbelievable amount of force on this tool.
So actually, this kind of cut is out of reach of our modern stone fabrication methods.
This is in Karnak, Egypt.
Seemingly showing some ordinary decorative grooves which run alongside the pictograms.
Again you get a sense that something like a portable grinder was used to cut these grooves.
These are granite gates. Most tourists pass through them when visiting this site.
The height of this gate structure is 5-6 meters (16ft - 20ft).
This groove spans the entire height of the monument and there are similar ones near it as well.
The other side of the gates has the same types of grooves.
And this is what it looks like close up.
The depth of this cut is about 1cm (0.4"), at times maybe a bit more.
Basically this is a V-shaped cut with a width of about 3-4mm (0.11" - 0.15") on entry at the top and practically zero width at the bottom. It's about 1/10th of a millimeter (0.004").
Not a single one of our modern materials which we use for cutting can withstand the load exerted upon it given a similar circumstance of working granite like this.
In other words we can't even imagine what this tool could have been made out of. Here we have the same groove but a bit further down.
The width of the cutting blade was about one to two tenths of a millimeter (0.004" - 0.008").
For a comparison, the blade on a modern disk saw can't be wider than 1cm (0.4").
Yes, 1 centimeter (0.4").
Well, you could if you were also using an abrasive material, then the blade would be self sharpening and you would get an oval wedge type tip as a result of grinding down.
But its still a minimum of several millimeters in width. Anything smaller would break the saw.
We found these disks on display at the Cairo Museum. I'm not sure if we will encounter
them again because they were removed from the exhibition for a while.
They are stone disks similar to our modern CDs maybe a bit thicker and a hole in the center. Made from all kinds of stone.
As the photograph near their display tells us, they were supposedly found alongside some wooden arrows.
In order to produce one of these disks you would need to have access to modern machinery, something like a lathe.
Here is yet another example of machine fabrication. This is done by a tube drill.
This was not drilled with a solid drill bit but specifically a tube shaped one.
The drill proceeds to a certain depth and then the tube is removed.
The remaining central core is then given a good bump from the side and it breaks off from the rest of the stone at it's base.
This is a very convenient method of drilling, whether on granite or black basalt.
Actually, the core doesn't break right at the base but a few millimeters (few tenths of an inch) away from the end of the cut.
And you can see some interesting parameters as a result of that.
Here we'll talk about some other parameters. We see the notches left by a drill. You can see that they are regularly spaced in increments of 1mm (0.04").
From this we can draw a conclusion that the drill progressed with one whole millimeter (0.04") in one single rotation.
100 years ago when Flinders Petri, a famous Egyptologist encountered the same problem, he considered it as precisely as that, a problem.
Back then it surpassed the stone manufacturing capabilities by a factor of 1,000.
Today of course we have caught up and are now capable of much more
but nontheless in order for the drill bit to advance to a depth of 1mm (0.04")
there needs to be a high velocity of rotation, at a minimum of 10's or even 100's of revolutions.
So this in fact is much more powerful than even the current technology we have. You can see them in Saqqara as well.
This is in Karnak, Egypt.
Here you have a tube like drill used with a diameter of roughly 20cm (8").
But here you could see the cut made by the tip of the tube drill
There is a bit of the core remaining resulting from it not being completely broken off at the base.
So you can see that the thickness of the blade tip was about a millimeter (0.04") given a 20cm (8") diameter of the overall tube.
This is an area which is closed off to tourists. Also in Karnak.
There is an overpass with a similar drill hole made in the ceiling of about 60-70cm (2 feet) in diameter.
For a comparison, modern fabrication equipment which could cut granite like this was first
mass produced in Czechoslovakia around the end of 1980's to the early 1990's if I remember correctly.
But then again we are talking about a diamond attachment to a tube made out of steel.
Here is a small and seemingly insignificant hole made in a granite block of the obelisk at Karnak.
This hole which has a depth of about 10cm (4") and it is cut at an angle of about 15-20 degrees.
Those of you who have ever worked with a drill could imagine what it's like to try to force a drill into a concrete wall using a single swing.
The drill starts to go sideways. Meanwhile, there are no signs that any kind of hammering took place here,
and the drill bit entered this granite as if it was packing foam or soft wood. At any angle.
The purpose of these holes is actually to hold a decorative panel maybe made out of gold or copper.
Today we would drill holes like this one in a wall for a screw or an anchor to be inserted in it.
So, this hole serves a very similar function, however it was drilled in a very hard material.
This photograph was taken in the Serapeum in Saqqara, Egypt.
Visitors are not allowed in this area.
These are some boxes, there are about 20 of them there.
The total weight of one of these things including the lid is estimated to be 100 tonnes.
This box is monolithic meaning it is all made from a single piece of stone.
Not too long ago Christopher Dunne conducted the following experiment. Didn't give a reason, just wanted to try it.
He tried to get a similar box manufactured using modern equipment and even sent out requests to stone manufacturing facilities throughout the United States.
He was told that, yes, we can make something like this but only from 5 separate parts. In other words the bottom and the five walls.
And that at the present time making it monolithic is beyond their ability.
Meanwhile this was all under the assumption that money was no object.
So, not a single modern company took up his challenge of making a box like this out of a monolithic piece of stone.
Aside from that, you can judge the quality of craftsmanship for yourself
by the presence of a near mirror like reflection on the bottom of the lid of this sarcophagus.
Another problem arises when trying to date this sarcophagus.
The ornamental etchings and writing seen here attribute this sarcophagus
to the new kingdom, or only about 3,000 years ago.
Clearly you can see that the writing here is made on top of a previously damaged area.
If we visit the Cairo Museum then you will see a whole row of these sarcophaguses
where old damaged areas were not polished off completely and are actually visible.
And the writing runs on top of those damaged areas.
Which is clear evidence that the writing was applied much later than the actual production date of the sarcophagus.
So you can't really establish the age of a sarcophagus just by looking at the writing on it.
You can only say for certain that the sarcophagus already existed at the time but for how many years it existed is impossible to say.
This is something we could see in Dashur.
These are pieces of a sarcophagus, thought to be made of quartzite but evidently
there is no pure quartzite in Egypt. And so this is half quatzite.
Basically an undercooked sandstone. Not quite quartzite.
In other words a more easily workable material, but still.
And with these pieces of a sarcophagus we are dealing with interior angles made using 3 planar surfaces.
Not a single modern stone working plant is capable of making those kinds of angles.
When we consulted with the people who were developing a laser at a research facility in Troitsk near Moscow.
They said that, yes, you can do this with a laser but you would need to have a power generator that is half the size of this room.
And that is only to supply the energy needed.
I'm going to jump ahead a bit and say that we did not discover any indication of them using a laser on these blocks.
The use of a laser results in some melted material being left there, even if only a little. There were no traces of any melting there.
Furthermore, not only were they able to cut such complex interior angles, but they also removed layer from the surface of the stone.
This was the bottom of a sarcophagus, and this was done so that the corners would not be damaged too much during transportation.
Another thing which resembles modern machining methods is found here in the Aswan Quarry.
There are these pits which were supposedly used to check the stone for cracks.
You could only fit in them if your arms were folded along your sides. So they're only about 60-70cm (2 feet) in diameter.
And at the same time, some of the pits are 6 meters (20ft) deep.
When someone tries to prove that these pits were dug using hammerstones...
Can you imagine a worker who was held by his legs. As he lifted the hammerstone
to his face and then dropped it, and this somehow was supposed to have crushed something.
It's unthinkable that he would go down 6 meters (20ft) in this manner. While also somehow achieving seemingly polished walls.
This looks to be the work of some kind of a funny shaped is another.
There are about 20-30 of these pits on that site.
They could have been done using some kind of a semi-cylindrical, maybe an oval shaped instrument
which was also probably used to carve out the famous obelisk, where the stone was removed along it's sides in this manner.
In fact, there was so much excess material removed from the sides that it seemingly wasn't that much of an effort for them.
Doing this work without machine type instruments is very difficult to imagine.
Here in an area in the same quarry which was recently opened to visitors.
You can see a block which was probably going to be used to make some kind of a statue.
As we learned from our textbooks, to carve out a stone block, the material is removed on the sides and the bottom
and then we use a wedge to break off the central piece.
Not here. The material was also extracted.
Here, these regularly extracted areas are also polished on the surface.
Not the kind of surface which results from chipping away at the material but one which but one which was deliberately polished.
This was a sort of a side effect of the instrument which they used.
This is something we can see in Saqqara, Egypt. It is a series of very level floors.
This gives an impression that they were leveled like we would our polish our wooden floors.
In other words, after the blocks were laid down.
There is a similar floor made out of limestone in Southern Saqqara.
This one spans about 6-7meters (20ft-23ft) in length.
And on the edges, you can see that this was a single block which had about 7-8cm (3") removed from the top.
In other words, first they laid down the blocks and then straightened them out where they needed.
As a side effect of their work, the limestone actually changed color on it's surface to a depth of about 1cm (0.4").
What was this a reaction to, maybe some kind of a chemical or a temperature based influence. There are many possibilities here.
If it was chemical then the question is what did they spill on it.
If it was temperature based then the question is how fast was the tool moving in order to change the color of the limestone to such a depth.
Here we are in the Aswan Quarry again.
And this is a vertical wall. Here are some people so you can get a sense of the scale.
You can see that the wall is about 2-3 stories high.
This wall was simply a result of material being removed.
It runs to this corner and then curves at a perfect radius of about a half a meter (1.6ft) at an angle of 90° and then curves again.
When we consulted with the lead technologist at the stone working facility
he said that something similar could be accomplished using a plasma burner
working with a temperature of about 1,000°C (1,800°F), and this would have to be a directed effort done on purpose.
But here we have this simply being a side effect from some kind of an instrument.
Here you see how the stone masters laid a block in Abydos, in Osireion.
The block extended into the neighboring wall. Then they cut off that side of the block and somehow staightened out the surface.
This block is about 1.5 meters (5ft) in height.
We saw this today in the Granite Temple where seemingly you have blocks which wrap
around the corners and enter the neighboring wall.
This effect is easy to achieve... of course "easy" is only a relative term.
If you have an instrument which can take off a significant portion of the top layer of stone.
You lay the stone unevenly and then remove about 10cm (4") from the top.
At the present time we don't have any kind of technology needed to accomplish something like this.
And since time is running out...I won't focus too much on the smaller objects found in the Cairo Museum.
Marks left by a disk saw were also found in Syria.
Signs that this column in Lebanon and a similar one in Abydos were produced on a lathe or some kind of a spinning machine.
Here I'll show a couple of small objects which we found in Mexico.
These are something similar to small spools from a sewing machine.
Actually the largest of these objects are the size of a sewing maching spool.
You can imagine a small spool which is used to collect some thread.
This is made from Obsidian which is volcanic glass.
The idea that Indians who didn't even have the wheel would be working with something which could only be made using a mechanical lathe.
And they cut it... Obsidian is easy to work with when it is chipped... and here we see that it was actually cut. It has a hardness of 5.
Again, you have to use something like a Korund or a Diamond or something like that.
Sure, they could have used these for ritual purposes.
Slicing their lower lip and using it as a stud for decoration.
Well, if you give an aborigenes a ball point pen and he uses it as a nose ornament instead of a stick. Does that mean that he manufactured the pen?
And this little object is even smaller and made from mountain crystal.
The only way to work mountain crystal is by using a diamond.
These objects are a bit larger. About 5-6cm (2.4") in diameter. Maybe used as some kind of a plug
but I can't imagine the purpose they must have had. They are also made from Obsidian.
Here is something else made from Obsidian. Again, I can't imagine what the function of it was. My best guess is it could have been a ferrule from some kind of a mechanism.
But why did it have to be made out of Obsidian?
And near it we have some common objects: knives, chisels... all made from the same Obsidian.
They wanted us to see that it was all found together.
Here we have a small tube made out of Nephrite.
The thickness of its walls is only about 1.5 to 2 millimeters (0.06" - 0.08").
And it is drilled all the way through. It is completely hollow in the center.
So again, what was used to make it? If it was made with one of their primitive hand tools, I can't even imagine.
However, when we attribute this to machine manufacturing then everything falls into place.
And of course the most killer evidence is in Peru and Bolivia.
So, here we have huge blocks cut out of a mountain which were then transported anywhere they wanted and shaped them however they wanted.
Here is a wall made using a polygonal stone working method in Ollantaytambo, Peru.
Here a wall is embedded into a side of a mountain, this makes the structure very seismically stable.
And it moves with the mountain in the event of an earthquake.
These blocks weigh over 400 tonnes each and they were actually raised to a height of 600 meters (1,900 feet).
And they were placed in such a way that there are no spaces at all between them and the decorative inserts.
And subsequently, there are other walls there as well.
And you can see that after some kind of a demolition occurred,
the blocks were inadequately repositioned and the spaces between them were filled with common unshaped rocks and clay mortar.
So, it's immediately clear that the rough unshaped rocks along with mortar is the work of the Incas. There is no question about that.
But then a question arises, who made those structures before them.
And the thing about Peru and Bolivia is this... If in Egypt we may have some things
which could be said were in transition in terms of technology, quite a few disputed issues.
Here the picture is very clear.
Here we see the bottom layer made using a highly technologically advanced method
of stone fabrication, that is exceptionally laid together, while not using any mortar. And on top is what was done by the Incas.
Sure, they reused the blocks from some other construction, and they used whatever material they had on hand.
This is a vertical mountain where all kinds of niches, steps, shelves were cut into it.
In other words they did whatever they liked with the mountain.
Here is a monolithic construction which is actually a part of the mountain.
And this piece near it was carved from another place and just inserted there.
Meanwhile, the amount of effort to do this would have been incredible even using modern equipment.
What the reason behind it was, that is unknown. The only thing you could possibly fit in these niches is maybe a book or a small bottle, that's all.
And a bit to the left of that there is a kind of a platform surface.
Which Aleksandr Dymnikov from our expedition is seen here photographing.
There is an oval shape cut vertically out of the mountain.
And the resulting surface is also polished from the cut.
And below you can see a sort of a net-like pattern cut into the base.
The function was possibly to prevent someone from slipping on the surface if it was raining.
You can see something like this on the steps of the subway in Moscow.
Where they just passed through the surface with something like a portable grinder with a diamond tipped disk.
And here we see that it was cut, not only that, but it was a dual cut using a blade with a thickness of only about a millimeter (0.04").
Here is a mark left by a disk saw in Sacsayhuamán.
There are very clearly evident traces which were left by a disk shaped saw.
No other kind of instrument comes to mind. We are clearly not dealing with any Incas here.
With their primitive bronze tools.
And right near it is about a centimeter (0.4") deep groove cut into the mountain. This groove spans a whopping 10 meters (33 feet) across.
Very similar to when we work with something like ceramics or glass.
When we score the glass and then break the rest of it off by applying a bit of force.
But here it was done on a mountain and the piece which broke off weighs several hundred tonnes.
Again here you see the instrument entering the material at a depth of 1 to 1.5cm (0.4" - 0.6") using seemingly a single motion.
As I mentioned before, even working with a modern tool like a portable grinder
it would only be able to cut into something as hard as this diorite by about a 1mm (0.04").
Here you can see how deep all this is. And you can see the broken off piece of mountain below.
This is one of their other creations.
Those who could work with the mountain like this. This is all granite, local andesite.
This is in Puma Punku, Bolivia.
The color and shape of the blocks give the impression that they are made out of concrete. But actually it's local andesite.
Here in Bolivia we are in luck because many of the things were buried for a long time and were only recently unearthed by the archaeologists.
Therefore, all of the sharp interior angles cut into many of the blocks found here, retained their perfect original shape since they were not damaged by the elements.
This is actually work on a master level.
And modern stone working professionals are baffled by how this was done.
We are clearly not talking about any kind of a primitive tool being used here.
This is something fabricated using a machine. Furthermore, in many cases using technology which greatly surpasses our own.
Take a look, here we have an interior angle made out of 3 plane surfaces.
This is one of the cases which proves that this was not concrete but actually a result of a mechanical cut on a natural stone material.
A hard fragment of stone which was cut off along with the rest of the material.
If it was made using a concrete mold then this fragment would just sink slightly below the surface and we wouldn't see it.
Here is another example of clear signs left by a machine-type fabrication.
On the other side of this small block there is a vertical groove into which a series of holes were drilled.
These holes are roughly 2-3mm (0.08" - 0.1") in diameter. Why they were drilled, is unclear.
This was done by masters of stone work and with seemingly little effort.
Here is another block. There are rows of holes on this block going every which way.
Here they split up, one goes down, the other one goes this way.
And these two grooves on top actually approach zero at the edges.
So again, some kind of a disk type instrument was used to make these grooves. Something which could easily cut granite like this.
This is a classic example from Machu Picchu.
Considered by mainstream archaeologists to be a tomb of some leader. It was actually empty when it was discovered.
Looking a bit like a modern sauna.
Here, the natural side of the mountain and these embedded blocks give an impression
that they are made out of some kind of a soft clay or plasteline.
Here, we initially thought that the front portion of this block was sawed off.
However, when we looked closer at the edge of the cut.
It almost seems as if they used some kind of a wide screwdriver and poked at the stone then broke the rest off by hand.
In other words as if they were working with some kind of a semi-soft clay material.
And on this block, this darker portion is about a millimeter (0.04") deeper than the more yellow colored section above it.
It gives an impression as if this layer was actually removed by hand.
These are technologies which are not only a mystery as to how it was done,
but also the chemical and physical processes by which this granite was shaped are completely unknown to us.
We don't even have a theoretical understanding of how this was done.
Here we also have a block with an interesting cut in it.
If you can imagine running a hot knife alongside a cold piece of butter. The edge of the cut is bent outward a bit.
And here we see the same thing but on a piece of granite.
As I mentioned before, these technologies are completely unknown to us presently.
So I will stop with the examples and state my concluding thoughts on the matter.
The first conclusion is this: Are there facts which prove that in ancient times an advanced civilization left its mark on our planet?
Yes, there are.
Furthermore, a technologically advanced civilization which was capable of advanced machine manufacturing.
There are so many traces of this. We found literally thousands of cases of signs where advanced technologies were used.
So in my view, the question of was there or wasn't there some kind of a highly advanced civilization on earth in ancient times.
I consider this case to be closed. There was.
The evidence exists to prove this 100%.
Secondly, this overwhelming evidence dispels the most essential arguments which our current academic establishment has towards ancient myths and legends.
We see that this was done by some kind of a highly advanced civilization.
The capabilities of this civilization greatly surpassed those of our ancestors.
And so if we face the facts, then there had to have been some kind of representatives of this civilization.
Who regardless of their visual appearance were regarded as gods by our ancestors.
Therefore, we can transition away from thinking about myths and legends as mere works of fantasy
and imagination and into the realm of practical investigation. That is the second most important point in my view.
And thirdly, we can now begin talking about what kind of a civilization it was.
Earth based or extraterrestrial.
But most importantly, we can try to achieve the same. If someone else did it already, then we can do it also.
We have to try if not to make the same kinds of technologies but at least find their equivalent.
Just imagine having access to mobile tools, and they're clearly mobile since they worked in the mountains of Peru and Bolivia.
Mobile instruments which could cut mountains and transport them easily from one place to another.
We solve the problem of building in hard to reach mountainous regions.
We solve the question of colonizing other planets, and so on and so forth.
We no longer need building materials. All we need is the technology and the tools. That's all.
This is a colossal perspective to undertake.
I won't go into conclusions drawn from myths and other things.
But at the very least I consider that we can now start moving in this direction.
We have to move away from the argument of was there or wasn't there. We resolved this, case closed.
Let's try to understand what kind of a civilization this was and what were its capabilities and let's try to accomplish the same.
Thank you.