Hey everyone, as you know, I've pledged
to obliterate the entire
pseudoarchchaeology cult, and this will
be another installment in that series.
Today's target is a joker named Ben Van
Kirkwick, who goes by Uncharted X on
YouTube and other socials. What's his
angle, and what kinds of dumb stories
does he tell? Let's take a look. As I
said, this is not my first video
tackling the pseudoarchchaeology cult,
which consists of a bunch of frauds who
lie about archaeologists and
archaeological sites in order to make
money on the internet. This fad has
exploded like crazy over the past decade
or so, largely thanks to who the hell
else, Joe Rogan. And the priests who
popularized this crap span a wide range
of perceived credibility. Some push
blatant ancient aliens style [\h__\h]
while some fly a little more under the
radar with less transparently outrageous
claims. But all of it has the same
effect. The popularization of
pseudocience and the denigration of the
scientific community. It's a big bad
establishment doesn't want you to know
my super secret truth type of grift.
Just like so many others we've covered
before. The godfather of this grift is
Graham Hancock, who we covered in a very
thorough video that also featured
bumbling sidekicks Jimmy Corsetti the
Nazi and Dan Richards aka Sasquatch
Taint. Those two also each got their own
follow-up videos, so now it's time to
move on to other figures in this cult.
Ben Van Kirkwick made an appearance on
Joe Rogan alongside Jimmy in 2023, and
his videos have gotten a lot of views,
so he's a reasonable target to hit next.
Let's talk about who this guy is and how
he got into this grift. In 2016, Ben
began the Puka J podcast. His initial
content involved what he claimed to be
some of the best evidence for ancient
high technology, which essentially
amounts to baseless ramblings combined
with blind regurgitation of claims made
by frauds like Graham Hancock and
Christopher Dunn. There's actually a
connection with Graham that goes back a
few years prior. In 2013, Ben fell for
Graham's grift and paid several thousand
dollars to go on one of his tours of
Peru. During this trip, he recorded a
Q&A with Graham that he later posted on
YouTube. Not being the sharpest tool in
the shed, Ben fell for Graham's grift
again in 2015 when he paid even more
money to go on a tour of Egypt. Needless
to say, Ben's a Hancock fanboy, and most
of the Pukaj content reflected his
unwavering commitment to Graham's
[\h__\h] script that we have so
thoroughly dismantled in previous
content. Ben also interviewed noted
pseudoarchchaeologist Brian Forester who
was part of the Peru tour. Brian and
Graham used to be buddies until about 10
years ago when Brian started doing
potentially illegal DNA testing on
looted Peruvian mummies and claiming
they were extraterrestrials. When you're
too much of a fraud for Graham Hancock
to associate with you, that's when you
know you've really messed up in life.
Speaking of trying not to mess up in
life, let's pause for a brief word from
today's sponsor. We're about to mock
some frauds for pretending that ancient
civilizations had some unknown super
advanced technology. But let's not
forget that some people focus on the
real technology available today in the
information age. How can you set
yourself up with a fast-paced career in
tech so that you don't have to lie about
pyramids to pay the rent? Well, let me
introduce you to boot.dev. Have you ever
wanted to learn how to code? Boot.dev is
for you. It's the easiest way to learn
Python, SQL, Go, and Typescript. And
apart from being super simple and
hands-on, it's also gified into a
fantasy theme where Boots the Bear
Wizard helps you along your quest as you
gain experience points while building
real projects. It's like playing an RPG,
but you're also getting ahead in life. I
went through the first few lessons, and
even though I'm pretty technologically
incompetent, I found it intuitive and
easy to progress. There are daily quests
that allow you to earn rewards,
community boss battles, and more. Try to
top the leaderboard, complete every
course, build asteroids, learn
cryptography, and when you're done, get
cracking on finding that new dream job
so you can watch your salary skyrocket.
All the content is free to read and
watch, but you can also become a member
to unlock interactive features with
either a monthly or yearly plan. This
gives you full solutions for all lessons
and access to infinite practice in the
training grounds as well as certificates
of completion. Use the QR code you see
on your screen or go to boot.dev dev and
use code professor Dave to get 25% off
your entire first year on the annual
plan with a 30-day no questions asked
money back guarantee. That's boot.dev
and use code professor Dave to set off
on your enchanted coding quest today.
Getting back to the debunking, two years
later, Ben rebranded himself and his
content under the name Uncharted X and
continued to be a Hancock fanboy,
refusing to consider the possibility
that he had been duped. Most of his
early content is exactly what you would
expect. All of history is wrong.
Interviews, fawning over frauds,
peddling lies, glazing Nicola Tesla, and
of course, videos promoting his own
tours, which are his breadandbut income.
As is the case for most of the leading
figures in this cult. That's right. You
too can pay thousands of dollars for a
fake expert to lead you around a
fascinating region and disrespect all
the sites they claim to rever. These are
shots of Ben illegally manhandling
artifacts as if he's in a contest to
show just how not an archaeologist he
is. Then about 3 years ago, Ben started
posting about his present obsession,
stone vessels in Egypt. Ben thinks these
vessels were made using some kind of
advanced technology. Maybe computers,
maybe lasers, maybe super hard alien
nipples. He doesn't really know, but he
knows that whatever it is, these vessels
definitely could not have been made by
hand. They're just so super duper
otherworldly precise. And the majority
of his most viewed YouTube content is
based on this ridiculous narrative. Look
at all this crazy stuff that ancient
people couldn't have made with simple
tools, which means high-tech secret
ancient civilization or aliens or
whatever the [\h__\h] you want it to be.
Anyway, over the last 3 years or so,
Ben's been relentlessly promoting crazy
ideas about these vessels for attention,
and he's managed to hook some deep
pocketed folks who have been 3D scanning
them and posting the data online in the
interest of open sourcing research. Then
along came a guy named Mark Quist, who
performed some analyses on the publicly
posted 3D scan of one of these stone
vases, the one Ben has spent three years
insisting is too perfect to have been
made by hand. Mark concluded in 2023
that the vase had all sorts of
numerological significance, including
the pi and fi ratios and the radial
traversal pattern. Basically, all sorts
of sacred geometry nonsense of the sort
that Randall Carlson promotes, another
fraud who will be getting his own video
at some point. All of this was eagerly
gobbled up by Ben and his buddies.
However, Steinagertis, a former member
of Ben's research team, reviewed Quist's
work and concluded that the finding of
the radio traversal pattern was facious.
Garedus' work was solid and Quist
rescended his conclusions. He has since
left his initial report available online
along with his acknowledgement of his
erroneous conclusions. He now believes
that the vase he examined is definitely
not 5,000 years old and is either a
modern replica or an antique reworked in
modern times. Gyis went on to have a
pretty significant falling out with
Ben's team and the Artifact Foundation,
a commercial for-profit company posing
as a research organization led by Adam
Young, another fraud. Gertis describes
this falling out as a textbook case of
how a series of ethical breaches
compound into catastrophic
unreliability, exactly the kind of
misconduct that undermines legitimate
research into ancient civilizations.
Gertis' extremely thorough post about
this falling out is absolutely brutal
and makes it clear that the rest of the
research team didn't appreciate the
revelation that these stone vessels did
not encode some kind of imaginary sacred
geometry. Most significantly though,
Gertis includes the following plea
addressed directly to Ben. Ben, with all
due respect, this one is for you. You
were made aware of this entire situation
months ago. It's easy to hide behind the
phrase, "I'm just the reporter sharing
what was shared to me." No personal
accountability, no critical thinking
about the data being shared, just acting
like a parrot who only shares data
conforming to the needs of a few
friends. Gertis wrote that in September
2025, and Ben has yet to make a video
addressing these words, presumably
because he's truly committed to finding
out the truth and is busily
investigating, not because he's a
grifting fraud, burying the truth about
his fraudulence. To make things worse,
Max Fomachev Zamalov, another individual
involved with Ben's research project and
the Artifact Foundation, recently
published a paper reporting his
extremely thorough analyses of 3D scan
data for these vases. And the results
don't look good for Ben's [\h__\h] The
data show that he can clearly
discriminate between handmade vases,
both ancient and modern, and modern
machine-lthed vases. Importantly, all of
the verifiably ancient vessels are fully
consistent with each other and with
modern handmade vases. So much for the
idea that these represent ancient
advanced technology. Allow me to repeat
for clarity. Two handpicked members of
Ben's research team have concluded that
there is nothing super advanced about
these stone vessels and that they are no
different in symmetry and perfection
from modern stone vessels made by hand.
The whole experience was documented by
Max's wife. And this is an interesting
read which explains in a more accessible
way than the paper how Ben was
conclusively debunked by this work. And
yet Ben still desperately clings to the
grift. He's been spewing this narrative
for a long time, and the cold, hard
empirical facts that obliterate his
grift have not slowed him down one bit.
With all of this context covered, let's
perform a thorough viva section of Ben's
stories. Since every video is the same,
we only need one to comb through. So,
let's use this slightly earlier one,
evidence for ancient high technology,
part one, machining. Hello and welcome
to Uncharted X. My name is Ben and in
this video I want to share with you some
of my favorite examples of the evidence
for ancient forms of high technology.
From the machining marks and
construction techniques used in
megalithic construction to the
measurable precision and symmetry of
ancient artifacts big and small, these
enduring mysteries are difficult to
explain from within our orthodox view of
human history. Often wrought from the
very hardest forms of natural stone,
these objects and the techniques used to
make them represent a class of
outofplace artifacts that seems far
beyond the known capabilities and the
tools of the ancient civilizations we
attribute them to. This is the basis for
Ben's entire perspective and honestly
the entire pseudoarchchaeology cult in
general. Ancient civilizations totally
couldn't have made this thing because I
say so. And archaeologists who say
otherwise are stupid shills who are
afraid of my super awesome truth. In
reality, it's just one gigantic argument
from incredul being pedled by a science
illiterate toddler who can't wrap his
head around the notion that him not
understanding something doesn't mean
that other people who devote their lives
to studying that thing might understand
it quite well. This appeal to ignorance
encapsulates the entire cult and it will
be the common theme of every single
thing we talk about for the rest of the
video. These astonishing precision
objects undeniably come to us from the
distant past. They are found on ancient
sites. Yet often they seem far superior
to the work that's around them. The
crudder and far less precise signature
common to so many Bronze Age or
primitive civilizations. Here's a nice
fallacy of division. Assuming that all
the items associated with a particular
civilization must exhibit the same
characteristics, who could possibly
propose that different objects could be
made with more effort and craftsmanship
than others? A Ford Pinto is the same as
a Lamborghini, and a t-shirt from
Walmart is the same as an Armani suit.
Every example of any type of product we
see today is exactly the same in
quality, and that's how everything has
ever been. Duh. Did these same
civilizations also possess some form of
unknown advanced capability or the
advanced tools required to make such
objects? I suppose it's possible, but
there is an utter lack of evidence for
any such tools in the archaeological
record, nor any record of them in these
civilizations own histories. Is it
possible that these objects are far
older and that the history of
civilization on this planet is longer
than we ever believed? Could the
ancients, at least as we know them, have
inherited some of these artifacts and
architecture? Could they have found them
to be sacred, incorporated them into
their cultures, and use them for ritual
or for ceremony? After all, our own
modern civilization has inherited the
very same objects, and we still find
them to be sacred. We still use them for
ceremony even today.
The technology that's evident in this
type of stonework is generally dismissed
as mostly irrelevant by mainstream
archaeology. Yet, it's frequently found
to be utterly remarkable by anyone with
an open mind and the will to apply a
basic analysis of the engineering
principles that must have been used in
their construction. Many researchers and
experts from the past couple of
centuries have done just this. And they
often report being utterly aruck by
these ancient accomplishments and left
wondering just how Bronze Age or other
relatively primitive cultures managed
such feats. This grift only works on
people who know nothing whatsoever about
archaeology because in fact there is
plenty of evidence for all the things
Ben is talking about. He just ignores
all of it because it doesn't support his
desired narrative and he knows that his
target audience will never lift a finger
to look up literally anything. They'll
just take his word for it. During this
passage, he jump cuts from Egypt to Sax
Huan in Peru to Tia Huanako in Bolivia.
These are three distinct cultures with
distinct traditions of stonework that
employ different tools, all of which are
understood immaculately. for a good
primer on Egypt during the Old and New
Kingdoms. This publication and the
references therein show plenty of copper
chisels recovered from archaeological
quaries and stonemason workshops as well
as murals depicting these processes as
drawn by the very people doing this
work. Also, Arnold 1991 extensively
details the tools, methods, and
techniques. We know the tools that
Egyptians used. Anyone who says
otherwise hasn't bothered to examine
what we do indeed know about Egypt. for
Sax Huan and Tia Huanako stonework.
Check out a mountain of observational
and experimental work summarized in
Protzson 1986 as well as Pratzen and N
2013 among other publications. Also,
there are major differences between Inca
and Tia Huanako stonework that are
revealed when you actually do the
research as explained in Protzson and
N97. They are clearly not the same
although they may appear the same to
people who don't know what they're
looking at. Summarizing experimental
work they themselves performed in 2013.
Protzson and N state without a doubt the
experiment showed that motifs like those
found at Tiaanako could be carved with
simple stone tools. No fancy theory is
needed to explain Tiaanako stone
carving. Using these stone tools, N was
able to closely reproduce what the
Tuanako accomplished. Dimensional
precision, right angles, and sharp edges
and corners on both the interior and
exterior of the motifs. With some prior
knowledge, we estimate that this amount
of work could be accomplished in about
25 hours. Now, Benny Boy probably
doesn't like reading books. So, here's a
clip from PBS Nova Secrets of Lost
Empires that will demonstrate what we're
talking about.
>> So, you're going to chip a groove and
then you're going to put the copper and
slide it back and forth. But how? And
that's going to cut the granite.
>> We're going to put sand inside the
groove and we're going to put the saw on
top of the sand and then let the sand do
the cutting. All that needs to be done
is to move the saw backwards and
forwards in a nice steady motion.
>> You don't want to lift it up and get
those grains in there.
>> No, they'll they'll work themselves in
as as it goes. Okay.
>> That's it.
>> Now, the stone weight at each end of the
saw are putting the load onto the sand
and causes the cutting. The crystal is
forced to score a groove in the stone.
>> So, the copper is only guiding the sand.
And the fan's doing the cutting.
>> Right.
>> Now, Danny, can we see any progress in
our lifetime?
>> Yes. Um, if you came back in an hour's
time, you would see about a 4 mm cup
down into the stone. You're kidding. In
an hour, you'll be 4 mm down. Well, I've
been doing a lot of experiments, and I
can guarantee that this will cook
through the stone at about 4 mm an hour.
Uncompleted works show the telltale
signs of other tools.
>> 8 in wide and deep drill holes.
More striations surround the missing
core. Dennis thinks he can recreate
these too.
>> Yeah. For the first few seconds, no
problem.
Eight hours into it, I can see being a
little sore.
Wall paintings confirm the existence of
similar drills for wood.
>> But perhaps the Egyptians had more
patient or tolerant workers.
As you can see, it might be slow, but
thousands of laborers working around the
clock for years on end can definitely
pull off this kind of stuff. No alien
lasers needed. Ben knows about this
documentary. He's referenced it in his
content.
>> In this PBS Nova special, they go
outside in Egypt and they test bronze
chisels, bronze saws, and tubular drills
on granite. And they debate whether it
was just sand or sand and water that
were used along with the softer metal in
order to cut the stone. So they start
their experiment and after a few days of
making some poor Egyptian fellows work
in the sun grinding on the rock, they
show off their incredible progress of
barely more than an inch into the stone.
>> As you can see here, we achieved this in
just a few days.
>> They pop out their drill core and
declare victory.
>> Wow, it popped right out of there.
>> Look at that.
>> Yes,
>> that could be Fourth Dynasty, Dennis.
Petri's work and his observations aren't
actually mentioned in this at all. And
as with the Penn University study,
neither is the word spiral or helical.
Now, I don't want to nitpick this to
death. It was quite clearly done for a
television audience. It wasn't a real
attempt at a scientific study or
anything like that, but there are a
couple of things about this that I just
have to mention. For example, this is
how they claim to start the cut for the
horizontal bronze saw. So, you're going
to chip a groove and then you're going
to put the copper and slide it back and
forth.
>> We're going to put sand inside the
groove and we're going to put the saw on
top of the sand and then let the sand do
the cutting.
>> How then did they start this hole for
the tube drill? It just isn't addressed.
Also, note the blatant use of steel
chisels here in order to break off the
drill core. They had bronze chisels as
they were shown earlier in the
documentary. So, why didn't they use the
bronze instead of the steel? Because as
it turns out, it's not easy to snap off
a chunk of granite with a bronze chisel,
as the bronze just bends against the
granite. When Chris Dunn experimented by
drilling into granite with a tube drill,
he also found out that he could not
break the core out with a copper or a
bronze chisel for this exact reason. And
he notes that he had to resort to using
steel chisels in order to snap it off.
And you can see the exact same thing
happening here. This is a serious flaw
in the primitive model that the
mainstream seems to want to stick to. Of
course, we can highlight the snide
dismissal of these methods. Barely an
inch. Again, there were thousands of
laborers working constantly for years.
If this is what it took, it's what they
were going to do. Pharaohs didn't give a
[\h__\h] about how difficult of a feat it
would be. They just threw more humans
and money at it until their monuments
got finished. And the striation patterns
that result wonderfully match what we
observe. So, there's plenty of reason to
take these techniques seriously. But it
gets much worse. Ben cites Christopher
Dunn, which is bad enough, but then
starts talking about bronze chisels. In
the quote, he himself flashes. Chris
mentions using a copper chisel. Ben's
obviously not a chemistry buff, but he
should know that bronze and copper are
different substances. Copper is an
element. Bronze is an alloy of copper
and tin, and it's significantly harder
than copper. Ben also doesn't consider
stone chisels or any other object that
could have been used. He just says that
Dunn couldn't get it to work. Therefore,
nothing can work. So, who the [\h__\h] is
Christopher Dunn? Ben mentioned Petri's
work. Who is that? He acts like he's
making scholarly references. But who are
these people? From the legendary William
Flender's Petri's works of the late
1800s to Egyptologist Mark Laner's PBS
special that aired on television to
university studies that used electron
microscopes and to the revolutionary
publications of modern-day manufacturing
engineer Christopher Dunn. These
machining marks have been a hotly
debated subject for quite a while now.
Flender's Petri was certainly a real
researcher, but his work was done over a
hundred years ago. All of it is
ridiculously outdated. This is like
creationists pointing at Darwin's
remarks about how we need to find
transitional fossils to substantiate
evolution and then pretending that we
haven't found many thousands of
transitional fossils since the late 19th
century. Our understanding of these
tools and techniques is light years
beyond anything Petri understood. Then
there's Christopher Dunn. This guy is a
nut job who says the pyramids at Giza
were power plants. He thinks they were
built to generate power and that ancient
Egypt was fully electrified. If you
needed explain to you why this is
[\h__\h] stupid, you need a lot more help
than my channel can provide. Dun is a
crackpot who writes dumb books full of
[\h__\h] just like Graham Hancock. He's
never done an ounce of peer-reviewed
anything. He's not a credible source for
anything. He's a scammer with his own
[\h__\h] overpriced Egypt tour for
idiots who think there are magical
structures under the pyramids. And
referencing him makes Ben look like a
grifter by association. Are these the
people he references every time? From
the luminary Sir Flender Petri in the
1800s, one of the very first to apply
engineering principles to the evidence
for precision stonework in ancient Egypt
to a long list of modern engineers like
Christopher Dunn, stonemasons like
Yusfowan, architects like Randall
Carlson and many other researchers all
with expert understanding of
construction techniques. They all find
it very difficult to reconcile these
achievements with the known capability
of the ancient cultures our academics
insist created them. Their findings
support the idea that these could well
be in fact out ofplace objects and that
they require a level of technology that
is far beyond that of the cultures that
we attribute them to. Yep. Every [\h__\h]
time. Petri is ancient. Dunn is a nut
job. Yousef isn't a stonemason. He
operates a school of ancient mysticism
and sells package tours. Randall Carlson
is not an architect. He's a general
contractor who took a few community
college classes in geology. These people
aren't experts on any of this [\h__\h] They
have no relevant expertise of any kind.
They're clueless scammers and we should
all make fun of them just the way we
made fun of George Oucalos on ancient
aliens. Ben pretends that no
archaeologist has used engineering
principles to study this stuff, which
makes him either a liar or a lazy [\h__\h]
Plenty of researchers have tackled these
phenomena with great success. He just
wants to sell the narrative of stuffy
closedminded academia versus the rogue
trailblazers upsetting the mainstream
consensus. Just like every other
anti-science scam on the [\h__\h]
internet.
>> Along with my own observations, my own
travels, it is on this basis, on the
opinion of a long list of qualified
experts and not those of mainstream
archaeology or anthropology that I too
believe this category of stonework to be
evidence for unknown and ancient forms
of high technology. Right? Except once
again, literally not a single person he
references, including himself, is a
qualified expert. Ben knows nothing
about archaeology, engineering,
stonemasonry, or any other relevant
field. He's a [\h__\h] tourist. He visits
places, listens to fake experts, and
regurgitates what they say because he's
dumb enough to believe them, dishonest
enough to omit all the real research
that contradicts them, and immoral
enough to join their ranks in the
grifting by selling his own tours.
Archaeologists don't tend to write books
about precision engineering and it by no
means degrades the profession by saying
that many of its members generally have
only a limited interest and certainly no
professional expertise in construction
technologies.
That's why archaeologists are constantly
collaborating with experts in relevant
fields. Michael Lai was a mason and
brick layer who wrote about engineering
the pyramids. Martin Ecler was a stone
sculptor who also wrote on pyramid
building. Craig Smith was an
architectural engineer who collaborated
with archaeologists to write a book
about how the great pyramid was built.
Dennis St had training in mechanical
engineering and then became an
experimental archaeologist. He wrote the
book on experimental archaeology for
ancient Egypt and several articles on
how to cut granite with ancient tools,
which is why we saw him in the NOVA
documentary Ben Arrogantly brushed
aside. Not enough of an engineer for
him, I guess. James Edwards was an
engineer and physicist who wrote about
probable construction methods employed
at Giza. Ben pretends that nobody with
any engineering expertise has ever
written anything on this topic, and it's
total horseshit. So again, clueless ass
hat or lying fraud. Take your pick. Even
when the engineering or technological
aspects of objects are addressed by
mainstream archaeology, it's always cast
in the light of the known capability of
ancient civilizations, often leading to
circular logic that goes nowhere.
Something like this, an example. The Old
Kingdom granite monoliths like columns
and boxes must have been made by copper
chisels and pounding stones because
that's what we know that they had.
There's no proof they did it any
differently. Meanwhile, analysis of the
objects themselves and the technology
needed to make them is direct evidence
for such an advanced capability. After
all, we have the objects which is the
result of the tools and we have the
markings which is the signature from the
tools. Yet, this evidence is dismissed
because there have been no tools found.
Therefore, the Egyptians must have made
them with copper chisels and pounding
stones because that's what we know that
they had. It's a circular argument and
it's a neat way of avoiding addressing
the actual evidence for precision and
high technology in these ancient
objects. Just ask where are the tools
and walk away. Never mind the
quantifiable proof that we have of their
use that is represented by the objects
themselves. The non-existent evidence
which is just one big argument from
incredul every single time. The tools we
know they had were indeed sufficient to
make these things. We have identified
copper and bronze residues in the
grooves made by these tools and the
objects themselves are entirely
consistent with what can be made using
those tools. This is not a tautology.
It's basic logic. On the other hand,
Ben's claim is that because my idiot
friends and I want to sell stories about
these things being made by ancient
advanced technology, they must have been
made by ancient advanced technology.
That's circular logic. There is no
evidence for the high technology, and
all existing evidence fits conventional
archaeological understandings regarding
simple tools and a gigantic labor force.
So, you might as well be claiming that
these objects were made by farting
unicorns, and closed-minded
archaeologists can't handle your hot
unicorn truth despite zero evidence.
This is why archaeologists rarely
consider the manufacturing of such
precision objects because the answers
risk upsetting the status quo of the
story of history. Every time stupid
mainstream idiots ignore our super
awesome ideas because they don't want to
upset the status quo. Blah blah blah
funding blah blah blah universities are
bad every [\h__\h] time. The only story
is the one Ben and his cronies are
selling. And there's the same amount of
evidence for as high technology as there
is for Hogwarts.
>> If the Old Kingdom Egyptians didn't have
the capability to actually do this work,
then who did? And when they did have the
capability, so they did it when we
already know that they did it. Reality
just intrudes on your grift. Many
mainstream archaeologists and
anthropologists are deeply vested in
maintaining this story of history. They
derive their academic power and
authority as the experts on this story
and of all of its aspects. The motive to
protect it and to resist change is
somewhat understandable, if admittedly
frustrating at times. After all,
resisting change and maintaining the
status quo is the very nature of
establishment. Again, every [\h__\h]
time, every field of science changes
with new discoveries, sometimes
radically. This is how every charlatan
has to portray science in order to sell
their grift. An unchanging dogmatic
monolith. The polar opposite of what
science actually is. Scientists are
trying to disprove things every day.
They are constantly trying to figure out
what we're wrong about and how so as to
revise our models and make better ones.
But the grifter can't tell the truth
that science won't acknowledge their
script of [\h__\h] because it's totally
baseless. So instead, science must be
closedminded and resistant to change.
This is a grotesque caricature of
science that Ben swallowed from grifters
like Hancock and Dunn because he's never
actually met a real archaeologist. He
has no idea what they do and why. In
reality, researchers are paid to do
research that will bear fruit. And in
order to bear fruit, it must be
reflective of reality. If better physics
makes better materials, that's what gets
funded. If better molecular biology
yields better drugs, that's what gets
funded. People don't get paid to stay
wrong about things. That's not how money
works. Any archaeologist that could
demonstrate anything even remotely
resembling the crap that Ben spews would
be an instant celebrity within academia.
But it requires evidence, which Ben
doesn't have, which is why he's
relegated to lying to gullible people on
YouTube. I'm talking about the evidence
for technology that is not explainable
by the tools found in the archaeological
record. Nor is it explainable by what we
know of the capabilities of ancient
civilizations.
I'm not talking about lasers or
spacecraft or mystical energies and
crystals. I'm talking about the
verifiable and measurable evidence of
advanced tooling and machining of very
hard types of stone and the advanced
construction methodologies that must
have been used in the creation of
various forms of ancient megalithic
architecture or artifacts. But there is
no evidence for any of that. So you
might as well be talking about alien
space lasers since lots of your buddies
push that [\h__\h] anyway. You might get
more clicks, Ben. In the meantime,
experimental work by Prozson, Arnold,
Laner, and others have shown that all
the monuments he vaguely gestures at can
certainly have been built with the tools
and technologies that were available at
the times these things are known to have
been made. I've got specific videos on
several of the other aspects to this
argument. Things like the younger
cataclysm, the extension of the human
timeline, or even what the ancients
themselves said about their own origins.
Both the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians
trace their civilizations back tens of
thousands of years further than we give
them credit for. And you would be
hardressed to find any ancient culture
that didn't have fire, flood, or
cataclysm myths in their own origin
stories. Events that their advanced gods
or ancestors barely lived through and
because of them were forced to restart
civilization again. Here's the other
layer of [\h__\h] he learned from
Graham. There is zero evidence for such
a global cataclysm. He's also painting
with way too broad a brush. The Inca
didn't have any of this [\h__\h] in their
origin story. Their creation myth is
about a mountain of burning rock on a
hillside. No floods or cataclysms. The
Egyptians have several origin stories.
In one of them, all the gods masturbate
together to create the world. Could this
epic circlejerk be considered a
cataclysm? Do any flood myths specify an
ocean of semen? The other common
Egyptian trope is that life emerged out
of primordial water. So not a flood or
cataclysm at all. How about the
Sumerians? Again, multiple myths. One
had a call from the gods to build
cities. They do have a flood myth, but
it's not how the world was created. And
it is clearly ancestral to the Acadian
flood story, which is ancestral to the
Judeaic story of Noah's flood, which is
accepted by Christianity and Islam as
well. That civilizations recycle older
myths isn't evidence of anything. It's
one story told a bunch of times about a
thing that regularly happens. Modern
science is validating the evidence for
catastrophism and the grains of truth
that are contained in these stories.
Catastrophism is now part of mainstream
earth science. But its impact has not
yet been truly felt when it comes to the
cultural implications and the soft
sciences of history or archaeology.
With the 1980s, what we see is this
acceptance of catastrophism in Earth
history, right? And so that by the time
we get to the turning of the millennium,
right? By the year 2000, catastrophism
is now pretty much an accepted paradigm
in Earth history,
but not necessarily in human history.
>> No.
>> This is now I would say is the next
>> evolutionary development in
catastrophism.
>> Yeah. is recognizing its role in our
human story on Earth. And and that leads
us directly into the
>> the issue of why, for example, we don't
find that hard evidence for ancient
advanced technological civilizations
that the critics are so insistent upon
>> requiring. Oh yeah. to see.
>> But what they don't understand, and this
has become clear to me talking to them,
reading their stuff, seeing uh seeing
them uh you know on various uh venues is
that they don't understand the scale of
these global events,
>> right?
>> They don't understand how extreme the
younger dus event and and and associated
>> forshocks and aftershocks really were.
>> Well, that's a whole lot of horseshit.
First, nothing he just said is even
remotely accepted in Earth science.
Volcanoes erupting and other such events
that represent trivial geological
knowledge do not in any way violate
principles of uniformitarianism. But
beyond Randall just being a clueless
douche nozzle with no idea what he's
talking about, he makes it very
transparent why this angle is central to
the ancient high-tech civilization
grift. Nobody can even comprehend how
catastrophic these impacts were. And
they have to have been because they need
to have caused the ancient high-tech
civilization to have completely
evaporated without a single trace, not a
single tool, not a single wisp of
evidence of any kind. This is their get
out of jail free card. No evidence
whatsoever for their stories. No
problem. Just accept this other baseless
pseudocientific story that explains why
no evidence exists. Open and shut. If we
want to understand real science, here's
what one introductory earth science
textbook from 2025 has to say about the
matter. Prior to the acceptance of
uniformitarianism, scientists such as
German geologist Abraham Gotlib Verer
and French anatomist Gor Kuier thought
rocks and landforms were formed by great
catastrophic events. Kovier championed
this view known as catastrophism and
stated the threat of operation is
broken. nature has changed course and
none of the agents she employs today
would have been sufficient to produce
her former works. He meant processes
that operate today did not operate in
the past. Known as the father of
vertebrate paleontology, Kuier made
significant contributions to the study
of ancient life and taught at Paris's
Museum of Natural History. Based on his
study of large vertebrate fossils, he
was the first to suggest species could
go extinct. However, he thought new
species were introduced by special
creation after catastrophic floods.
Hutton's ideas about uniformitarianism
and Earth's age were not wellreceived by
the scientific community of his time.
His ideas were falling into obscurity
when Charles Lyle, a British lawyer and
geologist, wrote principles of geology
in the early 1830s and later elements of
geology. Lyle's books promoted Hutton's
principle of uniformitarianism, his
studies of rocks and the processes that
formed them, and the idea that Earth was
possibly over 300 million years old.
Lyall and his three volume principles of
geology had a lasting influence in the
geological community and public at large
who eventually accepted
uniformitarianism and earth being
millions of years old. The principle of
uniformitarianism became so widely
accepted that geologists regarded
catastrophic change as heresy. This made
it harder for ideas like the sudden
demise of the dinosaurs by asteroid
impact to gain traction. Apart from
illustrating one of countless examples
of a scientific field changing
dramatically in the light of convincing
empirical evidence, we can see that
catastrophism is not part of modern
science. The word catastrophism is not
mentioned anywhere else in the book. It
was an idea. It was proven wrong. It's
still wrong. It's as wrong as myasma
theory or flegistan theory. ideas that
are now discussed only in the context of
the history of science as examples of
ideas that were discredited as we
figured out science. I think this
evidence for ancient high technology is
a vital piece of the overall argument
for a re-evaluation of human history and
our origins. And to me, it's an
indicator for a past that is both longer
and far more complex than the one we
generally accept. You know, the one that
says human civilization only really
began around 6,000 years ago. Even
saying that at this point sounds a
little bit ridiculous to me, but that is
indeed still the orthodox position.
That's the orthodox position because
it's a [\h__\h] fact. Sumere was the
first civilization. Did you want to
present some evidence for a more ancient
civilization? Oh, right. It was all
pounded into individual atoms and spread
into a thin layer across the entire
planet by some epic catastrophe that
definitely didn't happen. A shucks.
Without derailing this video, I do want
to make a point here. As I'm sure some
of you might be thinking, hang on,
hasn't the discovery and dating of
Gobecley with its 11,000-year-old
radiocarbon dating and deliberate
burial, hasn't this pushed back the date
for human civilization?
You would think so, and I and many
others certainly think so. Gobec Leepe
is a site, not a civilization. It was
built by hunter gatherers in the pre-
pottery Neolithic. way to demonstrate
that you don't even know what these
words mean. While there is some
ambiguity and disagreement among
scholars, generally speaking,
civilization refers to a society with a
large population, social inequality,
defined customs and laws, hierarchical
ruling structure, intensive agriculture,
extrloal trade and exchange,
institutionalized ideology, and
prominent monuments. Gobecée has none of
these things except arguably prominent
monuments, but even those are
borderline. Can a civilization get by
without one of these? You can make the
case for that, but essentially all of
them, absolutely not. Ben doesn't know
anything about this site other than what
he's heard from other frauds in this
pseudoarchchaeology space, and he's not
interested in learning. But if you
follow the mainstream debate, such as it
is, or if you look up the entry for
Gobeclette on that bastion of
establishment group think that is
Wikipedia, you'll find that the site is
still attributed to Neolithic
huntergatherer cultures. mainstream
archaeology, you see, rather than risk
being wrong about their precious story
of history, a story from which derives
all of their academic authority and
tenure, simply changed their definition
of what it means to be a hunter
gatherer. as if one of the largest
megalithic sites in the world with
hundreds of expertly made pillars and
stone circles with individual pillars
ranging from 10 to 50 tons in weight. As
if all of this was made by nomadic
tribes of loin clothwearing savages as
some sort of weekend hobby. You know,
the boys get together, go camping, get
away from the kids, do a bit of rock
carving, that type of thing. It's just
more whining about group think, a
precious story, authority, tenure. It's
all this [\h__\h] has. Wikipedia isn't
establishment group think just because
educated people who actually know what
they're talking about make sure it's a
source of factual information. And more
importantly, authority and tenure come
from big discoveries that are backed up
by data. Clueless morons don't get these
things just by bragging about how they
don't know what the word civilization
means. Whining about loin cloths doesn't
change the definition. Nor does
pretending that academics are the ones
changing definitions when he just
doesn't know what hunter gatherer means
either. Gobecepe was built by people who
had no agriculture. We know they didn't
because we've examined food remains at
the site and none of them are
domesticated. They gathered wild cereals
and they left food remains of animals
they hunted. They gathered and they
hunted. Hunter [\h__\h] gatherers. Hunter
gatherer societies don't have any of the
previously mentioned aspects that define
civilization such as intensive
agriculture. So they aren't considered
civilizations. Understanding all that
clearly, but what if it's civilization
is not how science works, which is why
actual scholars don't promote these dumb
ideas. It's ridiculous. The site
obviously requires real civilization to
have been built. It obviously requires
decades of training and expertise for
the quarrying, shaping, and the artwork
wrought in the stone. It obviously
needed a large population base and
diversified organized culture in order
to support such activity. More
stupidity, training, and expertise do
not equal civilization. A large
population base, how big, where were
they living, and what were they eating?
It sure as [\h__\h] wasn't domesticated
plants because they were [\h__\h] hunter
gatherers. organized culture. So what?
Nobody said hunter gatherers can't have
culture. They exist today and they have
their own cultures. They simply don't
grow crops or have domesticated animals.
All you're doing is admitting that
you're actually the one who thinks
hunter gatherers are simplistic and dumb
and incapable of doing anything
impressive. Well, you're wrong since
they made Gobeclete and other similar
sites. That doesn't qualify any of them
as civilization. If you had taken world
history or anthropology 101, you'd know
that. We now know that Gobeckley may
have represented something even more
important and more profound. Its artwork
seems to represent a dating system and
might contain a record of the younger
dry cataclysm itself along with other
cosmic events of the time. Dr. Martin
Swedman, author of prehistory decoded,
has discovered a strong link between the
artwork at Gobecley and the alignment of
constellations going back in time,
including what seems to be a connection
to the younger comets or cosmic bodies
themselves. Nope. Nope. And nope. We
don't know any of this [\h__\h] It's
speculation from a guy who is not an
archaeologist that is regurgitated by
Graham Hancock who brainwashed you. As I
explained in my Dan Richards video,
these structures had roofs, so they were
not astronomical observatories, and the
animals were clearly used as an
expression of community and identity.
They had nothing to do with
constellations. They don't in any way
support Graham's [\h__\h] comet story
that Ben fell for. And the idea that
people would painstakingly record the
positions of constellations while the
apocalypse was happening is [\h__\h]
idiotic. as is the notion that they
would carve them into a single pillar,
but none of the others 2,000 years
later. Nobody outside of this cult takes
Swatman seriously. Period. I think that
the late Claus Schmidt, who was the
director for the excavation at Gobecley
for many years, I think that he knew
that this site represented civilization,
but he was very cautious to not risk his
archaeological career by coming out and
challenging the status quo story of
history with a direct claim against it.
Instead, he said that it represented a
transition from hunter gatherers to an
agricultural society, which to my mind
is a roundabout way of calling it
civilization. Such is the state of
modern archaeology. You continuing to
not understand what civilization means
makes it clear that you have zero
comprehension of modern archaeology,
Benji. And this story about scholars not
wanting to validate new exciting
discoveries because reasons just makes
it clear that you have zero
comprehension of science and the
scientific community in general. Just
look at the treatment Graeme Hancock has
received by academia throughout his
career for the crime of successfully
raising such ideas and opening so many
minds across the world.
Most recently, he was the subject of a
full 27 pages of ad homonym and strawman
arguments and attacks by Professor John
Hoops and the Society of American
Archaeology. Oh, [\h__\h] off with your ad
homonym and straw man [\h__\h] Graham
is a grifting fraud who is constantly
denigrating the archaeological
community. He is constantly talking [\h__\h]
about real archaeologists, which
polarizes the public against real
experts. And when those experts voice
their distaste for his toxic
anti-science grifting, he goes full
crybully mode and you validate him
because you're stupid. These articles
are mostly aimed at Hancock's new book,
America Before. But rather than address
the specifics of his arguments head-on,
they seek to reset the context around
it, framing it all as some sort of
fringe esoteric tradition not worthy of
serious consideration, invoking Bigfoot,
ancient aliens, Atlantis, and all number
of things that have really nothing to do
with Hancock's book. The articles
attempt to discredit anything that
wasn't written from within the safe
spaces of tenure academia as
pseudocience or pseudoarchchaeology.
Ancient aliens and Atlantis have nothing
to do with Hancock's books. Did that
seriously come out of your dumb mouth?
The Mars mystery. The message of the
Sphinx. Do you even read your idiot
fraud hero's books, [\h__\h] His writing
is exclusively pseudocience that seeks
to prop up fantasy above actual
scholarship. And he does so by
convincing his readers that an entire
field of science and everyone working
within it are liars and charlatans. He
is the godfather of pseudoarchchaeology.
But do go on with your [\h__\h] victim
complex. Not only that, but Hoops also
sees fit to attach the worst type of
modern dog whistling calls for outrage
to Hancock's work and to the entire
field of non- mainstream history
research. I was genuinely appalled when
I read this and I felt the need to
deconstruct these articles and their
logical fallacies in some depth on one
of my recent live streams and there's a
link to that one below. Yes, it's a
snippet in which John accurately points
out that Graham pulls from white
supremacist sources like Ignatius
Donnelly, which indeed promote the
dispossession and oppression of
indigenous peoples by attributing their
accomplishments to imaginary white
Atlantanss. Every single idiot grifter
in this cult winds about this objective
fact to no end, no matter how many times
people demonstrate how objectively true
it is. And I've proven it in every
single video I've done on this topic.
Dan, Jimmy, that pointless hairball
Metatron. They all whine about how
stupid woke libtards call Graham racist,
which is a straw man, while continually
ignoring the facts about the white
supremacist sources he pulls from and
how they resonate with the white
supremacists that champion him. I've
beaten this horse to death in at least
four other videos, so I refuse to say a
single word about it here. Moving on.
Hoops and his establishment crowd have
also been actively working on social
media to discredit the younger driest
cosmic impact hypothesis as nothing more
than the recycling of ancient esoteric
comet myths or catastrophice books from
the 1800s written well before the
concept of plate tectonics was even
known. Yes, people have been talking
about comets for a long time and for
good reason. Just ask the dinosaurs. But
accounts from the past have nothing to
do with the modern scientific work
that's uncovering the truth of the
younger dice event. Hoops chooses to
completely ignore the now hundreds of
scientific peer-reviewed papers that
have come out since 2007 when the theory
was first proposed. And in doing so, he
discredits the many dozens of qualified
scientists that are behind that work.
George Howard and Mark Young have put
together a comprehensive list of all of
the scientific papers surrounding the
Younger Dryus cosmic impact. It's in a
bibliography on the Cosmic Tusk website.
And that's all the bibliography is. It's
a list with links to the individual
papers. Hundreds of scientific
peer-reviewed papers from 2007
supporting this pseudocience. Huh.
Dozens of qualified scientists. Huh. I
call [\h__\h] Shall we check out this
cosmic tusk bibliography? Whoopsie. Page
not found. That's convenient. But I
asked around and apparently of these 100
plus papers, several have been
retracted. At least 11 are in a journal
that proponents created themselves
solely to publish their [\h__\h] At
least 15 are commentary that provide no
actual evidence in support of the idea,
and most of the rest don't even mention
the impact at all. Ben never even looked
at the bibliography. He's just repeating
what he was told by frauds since he's
incapable of reading primary scientific
literature. There is no support for this
pseudocience in legitimate research.
Let's get down to some examples of
ancient high technology. I've grouped
these examples into categories. And this
will be a two-part video in order to
cover as many of them as I can. And I
want to start with the evidence for
machining. By this term, I mean the
marks and indications of advanced tools
that have been used to cut or shape
stone blocks and objects. And these
tools are definitely not found in the
archaeological record. Right? So by
evidence for machining, he means
physical characteristics that he blindly
insists can only have been made by
something other than the tools we know
that they had and used. This is a
classic example of starting with an idea
that this stuff could only be made by
super advanced technology and working
backwards to the evidence, rejecting any
evidence that doesn't support your
conclusion. That's totally how science
works, Ben. In actuality, here's how
science really works. We examine
evidence. Here's the evidence that we
have. One, bronze, copper, and stone
tools from these sites. Two, bronze and
copper residue on the cut areas of
unfinished objects. Three, quaries and
workshops with hammerstones and bronze
and copper tools. Four, contemporaneous
drawings of people using stone, copper,
and bronze tools to do stonework. Next,
we devise a hypothesis based on the
evidence at hand. The Egyptians cut
stone using stone, copper, and bronze
tools. If this hypothesis is true, then
we should be able to replicate their
artifacts and technology to perform
similar tasks, and we should find
evidence of these tools and their use
when we excavate Egyptian sites. This
hypothesis would be quite simple to
falsify if we use these technologies and
find ourselves unable to reproduce
Egyptian artifacts or if we find some
evidence of super advanced technology
that was being used instead. The former
is a no-go since we've used these tools
to make these things and examined
whether they match the artifacts they
do. And the latter is a bust since we've
never found a single shred of evidence
of any super advanced whatever the [\h__\h]
The hypothesis has not been falsified.
Perhaps my favorite example of what must
have been just a huge circular saw or
perhaps a swing saw is found at the Old
Kingdom site of Abua. This megalithic
block of bassalt that sits in front of
one of the several pyramids on that
site, looks much like many others that
are found here. Yet, a close examination
reveals some astonishing
characteristics. The top of this block,
although weathered from millennia in the
desert, has clearly been cut by a blade
that has a very distinctive circular arc
to it. It left obvious striations and
grooves in its passing, indicating a
rapid rate of cutting through this very
hard material. and a bit of water poured
over the block shows these marks very
clearly. Some saw cuts that left precise
arcs have been estimated by Christopher
Dunn to have been made with saws up to
11 m in diameter, which is over 30 ft.
Primitive hand tools made from copper.
Indeed, just more incredul. Nothing he's
saying negates the use of copper and
bronze tools with sand and lubricant to
cut stone. The Egyptians had plenty of
both metals, and there's no reason they
can't have created massive saws and
brilliant mechanical devices to use
them. Ben's limited imagination is not
an argument. I've also seen photos of
circular saw marks made into stone at
Tiwanaku and Pumapunku in Bolivia,
although I can't seem to find the
photographs that I've seen of them
despite searching around a fair bit.
According to Marsh at all, Tiwanaku's
megalithic architecture was constructed
between 180 and 1010 CE. The Egyptian
Old Kingdom period dates back to between
roughly 2700 and 2200 B.CE. That's over
3,000 years apart. He might as well be
comparing the pillars on the Acropolis
to Mount Rushmore. We see these
primitive quarrying marks everywhere as
the ancient Egyptian stone monuments
have been used as quaries for millennia
now. Small hollows are first carved into
the rock, usually with steel chisels,
and it forms something that looks kind
of like a dashed line. You'll see this
all over Egyptian sites and on many of
the blocks. After this line is carved,
wood is inserted into these gaps and
then the wood is wet. The wood expands.
The block cracks. Hopefully, it cracks
along the quarry line itself. And there
you go. You have yourself a piece of
granite. The circular saw marks that
have quite clearly been used to cut
large blocks of stone don't match any
technique known from the ancient world,
but they certainly seem to indicate some
form of mechanized capability much like
our own. Ben is confusing two different
things here. First, extracting a block
of stone from a quarry, and second,
dressing that block to shape it. The saw
marks he puzzles over were made after
the block was removed, not during the
extraction process. Otherwise, we would
see identical saw marks on the walls of
quaries. We don't. His ideas about
cutting blocks out of bedrock are
idiotic, and they ignore the copious
literature documenting the ancient
Egyptian quarrying processes. Countless
surveys have been done over the decades.
They clearly show roughed out obelisks,
sarcophagi, and statues. They show
blanks for stone bowls and vases. They
show thousands of hammerstones, chisels,
and gouges. They show troughs pecked
into bedrock to outline blocks for
removal. They show fire induced scarring
on rock faces and loads of other
evidence clearly showing how dynastic
Egyptians quarried stone. The cutting
and polishing Ben is talking about
occurred after the stone was removed
from the quarry. He's also jump cutting
through a bunch of pictures without any
context. And because many of these
blocks have been sitting outside
unprotected for thousands of years, and
protection of Egyptian antiquities only
really started in the second half of the
20th century, I wouldn't be surprised if
he's actually looking at stone that has
been cut with a modern masonry saw by
relic hunters and antiquarians. The art
market, especially after the discovery
of King Tut's tomb, was huge for
Egyptian artifacts, and many monuments,
pillars, and other architectural
elements were cut up and shipped to
Western Europe and America to feed this
craze. Ben's dumb [\h__\h] approach of just
walking around and taking pictures of
what's lying around ignores this history
and compresses everything he sees into
remote antiquity. This is one of the
problems of having absolutely no
education or formal knowledge about what
you're looking at. You make simplistic
assumptions about phenomena that are far
more complex than you realize. When we
see these marks, there is really no
mainstream explanation for how they were
made in antiquity other than with the
idea of some form of twoman copper or
bronze saw being pushed back and forth
by a couple of guys using sand or some
other abrasive material to slowly, very
slowly, grind through the stone.
Although this technique will indeed
eventually wear away the stone, it's
more of a grinding motion than a cutting
mechanism. Right? So, no explanation
other than the very clear explanation
you're scoffing at with no real basis.
Plus, what we just said about many of
the cuts you point at having occurred in
modern times. These techniques work,
[\h__\h] You just refuse to accept it
because it demolishes your entire grift.
You're like a young earth creationist
whining about how radiometric dating
must be unreliable just because it
proves the earth is super old. Ben
doesn't even realize that cutting and
grinding stone are the same thing. When
you grind away stone slowly in a precise
location, you're cutting it. Even
modern-day tile saws are grinding fine
abrasive against rock. This isn't like
sawing wood with a tooththed saw. Just
Google rock saw blade. You'll find
spherical blades with edges containing
abrasives, not tooththed blades that you
might use to cut wood or softer
materials. You might even find some
lapidary blades with radial gaps to
facilitate movement of lubricant into
the rock. But all these blades do is
grind into rock. So when we talk about
cutting stone, this is just a way of
saying grinding stone in a linear
fashion that sort of kind of looks like
cutting. Ben has never used a rock saw.
He doesn't know what they are. He
doesn't know anything about geology and
rock formation. He doesn't really know
much of anything. The very tiny width of
the blade, as indicated by the lip at
the edge of this cut, makes it nothing
short of impossible that such a saw
could have been made from a soft
material like copper or bronze and still
managed to cut through bassalt. First,
the lip Ben is showing you is only part
of the groove made by a saw. He's
missing the other half of the rock that
would allow him to approximate how wide
the saw actually was. So he's just
speculating with incomplete evidence. He
clearly showed several partially cut
rocks a bit earlier that had relatively
wide cuts in them. If those are
genuinely ancient, they are a better
approximation of the width of the saw
used. Also, the width of the blade is
irrelevant to the material of the blade.
Does Ben think that copper or bronze
can't be thin? Again, the prevailing
hypothesis is that sand was doing the
majority of the cutting and that the saw
was simply a mechanism for directing and
moving the abrasive sand. So, his
statement about it being too soft to
make a thin cut is stupid. Then there's
the obvious problems. It would simply
take far too long to grind through all
of these blocks in this way. And many of
the blocks that seem to have been cut in
this manner are way, way too large to
have been done by hand with primitive
tools like copper saws. While this
bassalt block here at Abusia isn't
itself that large, consider trying to
saw or grind through something that is
10, 11, or up to 20 ft long or even
longer, like the large granite slabs
that are in the Great Pyramid or the
great boxes of the Serapium. And you can
quickly see the issues with the idea of
doing this type of thing by hand with
copper sores. It would take so long. If
only there was some kind of
authoritarian supreme leader with
practically infinite wealth and
thousands of people with nothing better
to do than cut stone every day until
they die. But it's just not so. These
aren't cuts that a couple people could
make in a day. So, it's just impossible.
And super advanced technology that
nobody has ever found must be the
culprit instead. [\h__\h] toddler
mentality. I won't chastise him for
having no idea what backbreaking manual
labor is like since I've done very
little of it myself, but I'm not
arrogant enough to pretend that it
doesn't exist. He's just projecting his
laziness onto the ancient Egyptians.
Maybe one day he'll get off his ass and
actually try to accomplish something and
then he won't be such a pessimist about
what other human beings are capable of.
Christopher Dunn has made an excellent
study of this block at Abberwash along
with the other evidence for mega
machines in his book Lost Technologies
of Ancient Egypt. I plan to produce more
detailed investigations into the
specifics of these circular saw markings
sometime in the future and give it a
treatment much like I have done for the
tube drills. But my intent in this video
is to cover a wide breadth of examples
for high technology and to try to not
get too lost in the details. Ben is
doing nothing but cherry-picking
individual pieces he can't explain. Even
if there were no explanation, which
there is, the stone slab he's talking
about, is just one single piece out of
thousands or even millions of cut stone
artifacts made by ancient Egyptians.
He's fixating on this single piece
that's confusing to him while ignoring
all of the others that are easily
identifiable as having been produced
using hand tools. This is a common
tactic of charlatans, demanding an
explanation for a single observation,
but conveniently ignoring the thousands
of other things that show how you're
wrong. It's Michael Beehe and the
so-called irreducible complexity of the
bacterial flegellum, which of course
isn't actually irreducibly complex, but
also involves ignoring all of the other
evidence for evolution by natural
selection, as if this one example
somehow outweighs everything else in the
biological world. Moreover, Ben is not
telling you anything new. He's just
regurgitating the script of Christopher
Dunn. Notice that Ben uses the exact
same example that Dunn used in his book
published nearly 20 years ago. He even
uses the picture from Dunn's book. This
is a clear indication of the static
nature of pseudocience. No new evidence
is presented and no new insights are
garnered. The script of lies is meant to
trick people who will never lift a
finger to learn anything. So, it doesn't
need to be updated no matter how much
real science progresses. And it also
means that Ben doesn't have to come up
with anything new. he can just
regurgitate what other frauds have said
before him.
>> This block that's being shown by Ysef
Aowan was, at least last time we saw it,
located at Giza. It's another example of
a hole drilled into a larger piece that
may actually be something from another
tube drill. But sadly, this block is now
missing. It's no longer at Giza. At
least we couldn't find it. And this is
an all too common occurrence for
evidence that doesn't really fit the
mainstream narrative. That's right.
dirty academics snatched up some
evidence that didn't fit the mainstream
narrative. Or maybe the [\h__\h] that
frauds like Ben spew all over the
internet is encouraging people to loot
Egyptian archaeological sites. I'd put
my life savings on the ladder. Using
manpower alone and manual hand tools
like pounding stones or copper saws and
chisels, it takes literally days of
effort to grind away a very small amount
of material in the very hard stone types
like granite or diorite. Ben has no idea
how long it takes to do any of this
because Ben has never actually done any
of this. Pratz and Ener's replicative
research on Inca stone masonry suggested
it would take roughly a day to produce
one Tiwanaku style block. In terms of
the Egyptian stonework Ben shows, he
chooses to ignore all of the studies
that demonstrate how this can also be
done in a day or two. In short, his
argument here is essentially that no
human has ever been capable of doing
hard work. There are other machining
marks that seem to indicate some form of
powerful industrial process was used to
shape and finish the stone. One of the
best examples is this remarkable slab
tucked away in a corner at Abusia that
has many such markings on it. Blades or
saws have dipped into the material and
then backed out and cuts have been
adjusted. I can only describe this block
as having been machined. It's very flat.
Its corners and angles are very precise,
and there are power tool markings all
over it that seem almost delicate in
their application.
Even the end of this slab appears to
have been cut through. And then you can
see where the stone was broken away. And
just look at the flatness of the
surfaces and the sharpness of the
angles. Ben is so clueless that he
doesn't even realize that he's showing
clear evidence against his ancient
advanced technology narrative. The many
different cut marks on this slab are
quite clearly mistakes where the saw has
gone too deep and when the surfaces and
edges were later polished, which easily
explains how smooth they are on average,
these gouges in the material were too
deep to grind out. These accidents are
on both the surface and on the edges of
the block. If we indulge his ridiculous
fantasy, wouldn't the vastly intelligent
civilization operating these super
advanced cutting machines simply discard
this block because of the obvious
manufacturing defects? If it was as easy
as Ben thinks for these people to whip
out another block with sharp angles and
flat surfaces, they should be quite
capable of making a new one and firing
the guys who didn't set the guides
correctly on their super awesome saws.
Right. In reality, a simpler explanation
is that the ancient Egyptians made this
did their best to grind out the
problematic areas and used the resulting
piece despite its obvious flaws because
cutting an entirely new block would be a
substantial investment of time and
resources. There's one other dimension
to machining that I want to cover, and
it's something that I've talked about
before, that is the polishing or the
finishing of precision made stone
objects. Once again, we're talking
primarily about the boxes and the
statues. In many cases, the stone has
been worked to a point of reflecting
light, which is not a natural
characteristic for granodorite or other
hard stones. It needs to be worked
extensively to get it to this point.
There appears to be several stages of
finishing that's required in order to
get to this mirror-like finish. And this
process is best illustrated by the
mighty singlepiece boxes that are housed
in the underground catacombs of the
cerapium of Sakara. While most of these
giant 24 boxes have been finished to a
almost mirror polish, there are several
that show various stages of polishing,
which makes the whole complex all the
more remarkable because it indicates
that this finishing work was likely done
in situ underground and in very tight
quarters. If Ben had any clue what he
was talking about, he would know that
any stone can be polished to a
reflective finish. It just takes
multiple stages of increasingly finer
grit. Nothing here is even remotely
novel or mysterious. Archaeologists have
recovered thousands of polishing stones
from quaries and construction sites
across Egypt. Ridiculous. Here also we
have other machining. Probably the
latest layer. We saw how the rough
machining reached a certain point. We
have more machining here. Look at it
here. Fine lines.
If you can bring it with the camera.
You see there are fine lines. Yeah.
>> You see it?
>> Yes.
>> That looks like the final process or the
final stage of smoothing before they
give it the shining polish. So the
shining and you see it here too.
>> It's like a vitrification almost, right?
Is it you've heard that term?
>> They say the same a lot of the same
thing about the
>> stones and like the transformed to
>> Yeah. It's a vitrified. You can see
there's almost like a layer of granite
on top that's that's polished like it's
this layer.
>> Ben said vitrification granite if that
is indeed granite takes an absolutely
immense temperature to vitrify and you
would see clear pet prological changes.
Biioype mica would turn brown due to
oxidation of iron above 500° C. Above
1,000° C the micas would begin to melt.
Above 1,200° C the felic minerals quartz
orthoclace and plagiial would begin to
melt. And upon cooling, they would
remmineralize in distinct bands. The
rock would essentially no longer be
recognizable as granite. Any petologist
or person with a passing knowledge of
lithology, including your alleged expert
stonemason buddy who previously
identified this sarcophagus as being
made of granite, would have immediately
recognized that something was seriously
wrong with the rock. Since nobody in 200
years has identified it as vitrified, we
can obviously dismiss this as a
possibility. All of this basic
geological knowledge underscores just
how little Ben knows and demonstrates
that when he sees something he can't
explain. His tiny pea brain immediately
jumps to assuming it must be something
he's seen before. In this case,
vitrification. This is his entire
thought process when it comes to
anything in the archaeological record.
And this is why he is so convinced that
his stone vessels must have been made
with advanced machines. I have geology
tutorials you can check out when you're
ready to learn something, Ben. Then
lastly, we have the actual polishing
stage that brings the material to the
point of reflecting light. Even while
covered in dust, the perfect nature of
the finish on these boxes really is
remarkable, particularly in some of the
interior spaces in the boxes, which
appear to have been polished almost
perfectly.
If you've seen my Serapium series,
you'll know that there is some
astonishing evidence that a liquid may
have been used to achieve this finish.
You can see the markings left by what
appear to be liquid drops on the
underside of the lid here.
>> A liquid,
some kind of liquid.
So, the liquid
leaks down here and then forms these
lines with drops.
Now, this isn't a varnish or a polish,
at least as not as we know them. And
many people have suggested this to me.
That's not what this is because these
liquid pooling marks that are shown
here, they are noticeably smoother than
the surrounding material. This is not a
process nor a chemical that we know of.
No, dumbass. It's not a process nor a
chemical that you know of. Other people
actually know things. He's dismissing
the possibility of varnish or polish,
saying that these areas are noticeably
smoother than the surrounding material,
which is what you would specifically
expect if it was varnish or polish.
These tombs have been open to the public
for over 200 years, and who knows what
people in the recent past have done to
them. Well-intentioned curators did all
sorts of things to antiquities in the
past. Biodegradable materials were
packed with tobacco leaves. Arsenic and
mercury were used to deter pests. And
yes, all sorts of items were coated in
lacquer. Ben knows [\h__\h] all about the
history of how these stone sarcophagi
were treated over the last 200 years.
He's just saying it's not varnish. Trust
me, bro. Our granite blocks and the
slabs that we use are polished with
mechanical devices and varying levels of
grit before they're shipped to your
house and installed as a kitchen
counter. Yeah. And these processes used
to be done by hand. Pointing at
something a machine can do doesn't mean
that humans have never done it by hand.
It's like pointing at a washing machine
and concluding that humans have never
washed clothes by hand. Mechanization
makes processes easier and faster, but
they are always replacing human labor,
which in this case was done as recently
as 200 years ago. Now, the orthodox
explanation for this polishing is, of
course, cast in the light of the
primitive capabilities of the ancient
Egyptians. Academics claim that this
polishing was done simply by rubbing
sand and rocks onto the surface.
While this seems fairly ridiculous, this
might actually be a plausible technique
for polishing a flat surface, never mind
how you got the surface flat in the
first place. But even if it took years
to achieve, it just isn't realistic when
you consider the vast array of nonflat
surfaces. There are many complex,
irregular surfaces that are on these
objects that have been polished just as
well as the flat parts. There is no
orthodox explanation. There is an
explanation that is fully consistent
with all of the evidence we have. Ben
describes it as rubbing sand and rocks
onto the surface, which does indeed
sound ridiculous, but then again, no
archaeologist says this. They do say
that solicified sandstone, a quartz rich
rock, was used to polish stone because
fused quartz is very hard. They also
suggest that a slurry of mud and sand
was used applied with a leather lap to
allow for the polishing of both flat and
rounded surfaces. Why do they say that?
Because quartz sand has been found
embedded in the polished surfaces of
ancient drill holes and cores. Some
researchers have also documented the use
of corundum, one of the hardest minerals
in the world, as an abrasive powder
because it was found embedded in drilled
limestone surfaces dating to the new
kingdom of Egypt. Corandum doesn't
naturally occur in limestone. So, it
must have been added. Maybe Ben knew all
of that and just forgot. It's not just
the boxes that are polished. We also see
a very fine degree of finishing in
evidence on many statues. Plenty of
these are housed today in the Egyptian
Museum in Cairo, and many of them are
made from types of stone that are even
harder than granite. Note how every
surface is polished, and in some cases,
the reflection of light is used to
emphasize features like the rib cage on
this statue or the chest of this seated
figure.
The inside of the fingernails are
polished. The artistic lotus flower
motif on the side of the throne here is
polished. Holy [\h__\h] How the hell did
ancient Egyptians polish things? It can
only have been alien lasers. Well, Ben,
the curved surfaces don't really pose an
insurmountable challenge given the fact
that they had smaller stones and leather
and other [\h__\h] that can easily have
polished these surfaces. Your relentless
lack of imagination is indicative of
some kind of developmental disorder. And
this polished finish which when shown
next to the writing shows us one of the
hugely obvious contradiction when it
comes to the varying level of
technologies that we observe in ancient
Egypt. The technology reflected in the
writing on this statue does not remotely
reflect the technology that was used to
make the statue itself. It doesn't even
come close.
This is one of those things that once
you see it, you can't easily unsee it
because you start to notice it
everywhere. The glyphs carved into these
objects display the signature and the
marks that handheld chisels leave when
used on stone in a manner like this.
Compared to the object itself, the
writing is generally always pretty rough
work. The builders obviously had the
ability to polish any surface at any
angle, as I've just shown. Yet the
writings are never polished, even in
large symbols with plenty of space. Hey
Ben, the people who cut, carved, and
polished these monuments were not the
same people who carved the writing into
them. They're different [\h__\h] jobs.
This is what happens when you know zero
things about ancient Egyptian culture
and archaeology. Ancient Egypt was
largely an illiterate society. The
laborers carving these stones could not
read and write. The dedicated class of
craftsmen who knew how to read and write
complex passages were totally different
people. And this is well documented in
the literature. Ben also seems to think
that the carving and writing were
happening at the same time. They
weren't. These objects were carved and
transported and then scribes would
inscribe the hieroglyphs. Also, what's
wrong with the explanation that in many
instances these glyphs were not polished
in order to contrast and be more
readable against the polished surface?
And finally, he's also just lying. He's
ignoring all the examples where
hieroglyphic writing was well polished
and executed while showing you a few
examples where it's not. The Flammenio
obelisk currently in Rome is a perfect
example of this, as is the obelisk from
Luxor that is currently standing in
Paris at the Plastic Concord. The
simplest answer is because the writing
most likely came later and was done by a
civilization that lacked the same
capability to work the stone.
Why we cannot accept it? Because of the
perfection of machining.
You cannot be the one who do this
the thing that would challenge the
engineers today and then you will be
challenged just by adding the writings
on.
>> That's right. Those stupid ancient
Egyptians were too dumb to figure out
all this stuff. He's not going so far as
to suggest that white Atlantanss did it.
But do you see how blatantly rooted in
racism all of this pseudoarchchaeology
crap inevitably must be? Especially that
we have seen many many good examples of
dynastic Egyptians relief and deep
relief and high relief
superior writings and we know the
process of it and we know the tools and
in my opinion as a stone carver and
someone who been studying this I haven't
seen really any writings in the
hieroglyphics even the best quality ones
which I love so much relief or high
relief or deep relief that reflect
power tools. I have seen it in statues
and in boxes and in slabs, but I haven't
seen it yet in any uh writings. I know
how it was done. It was done manually.
This is my friend Ysef Aan. He's a
master stonemason, a chemlogist, and the
son of the legendary indigenous
wisdomkeeper Hakeim Elawan. And he's
been studying these objects and ancient
Egypt his entire life.
He understands in a way that few do what
it really takes to work in and carve
stone both by hand and with power tools
and he really knows what he's talking
about. I greatly respect his perspective
and his knowledge and I agree with him
when it comes to the technology level
that we see in the writing. This is all
it ever comes down to. This guy is not a
true expert in any of this stuff. But if
you know zero things about this topic,
he can sound like the world's premier
expert to you. That's the danger of
people with minimal knowledge passing
themselves off as experts. People with
literally zero knowledge and the
tendency to want to believe these
narratives will blindly believe them
every time. Legendary indigenous wisdom
keepers. Ben says that's meaningless.
He's just some guy that works with
stones today using modern tools. He has
no [\h__\h] idea what technologies and
processes were used in ancient Egypt.
That's knowledge held by archaeologists.
Does his baseless opinion outweigh all
of the scientific evidence accumulated
by thousands of archaeologists and
Egyptologists, some of whom are also
stonemasons with more experience than
him? Of course not. It's like Discovery
Institute pointing at some jerk with a
PhD in an unrelated field, spewing
anti-evolution horshit, which is
trivially debunked by basic knowledge
that could be explained by a thousand
other far more qualified experts who
actively publish science. It's a fake
expert propped up by a fraud to enact an
argument from non-existent authority to
trick the viewer into rejecting
everything that legitimate scholars
already know. There's some nuance here
to explain. The donastic Egyptian
civilization lasted a very long time,
many thousands of years. Hold the phone
one second. These hieroglyphs don't look
like they're simply scratched into the
surface. They look like they're
well-ared and polished. Hey Ben, a
second ago you told us that you'd never
seen anything like this. And yet here
you are filming them. This is the cartou
of Rammeses II at the site of Tannis
which dates to the new kingdom of Egypt
roughly 1300 to 1215 B.CE. Does he
realize that around 1500 B.CE people
were fully capable of doing such amazing
things? Is he aware of the Masonian
Greeks, the Hittites? Does Ben know
anything about any of this? No. But one
wonders why exactly Ben isn't traveling
to Greece and marveling at the
contemporaneous stone structures and
artifacts that they built. Why is he
always going to Egypt and Peru? Is there
something about the people of those
countries that is different from the
people from Greece? Oh, right. Greeks
were white people. Sort of. So they
could build all this crazy [\h__\h] with no
problem, huh? They eventually developed
iron tools. And although this was long
after the Old Kingdom, they certainly
developed the ability to do very fine
work into hard stone. Iron smelting
technology emerged in Egypt around 500
B.CE. during the late period, likely
introduced by the Persians and trade
with the Greeks and Romans. It was not
commonly used until the Greco Roman
period. This is 2,000 years after the
Old Kingdom and 1,000 years after the
New Kingdom. Ben is being disingenuous
here by showing you a temple that was
built 1,000 years before the
introduction of iron into Egypt and
claiming that there was no way it could
have been made without iron. He seems to
be implying that all of the stuff he's
talking about could only be accomplished
with iron tools. He is wrong, but let's
remember what he says here, that after
the introduction of iron, Egyptians
certainly developed the ability to do
very fine work into hard stone. I'd
imagine that being a scribe or a stone
carver and writing hieroglyphs was a
lifelong trade and would have taken
decades of training to become truly
proficient. This proficiency in writing
extended even to erasing old glyphs and
replacing them. This process is well
demonstrated by an example here at
Tannis on this obelisk fragment. See how
the bird glyph is being blended into the
writing. I think that this is why
Ramsy's II seems to have had his name on
everything. Once he tagged it, it was
his forever, and we still attribute
endless statues and monuments to him.
While I think the truth is more likely
that he was just the last guy to write
his name on something that was vastly
more ancient, Ben is always one step
away from actually understanding
something about archaeology, only to
promptly fall on his face. Yes, Rammeses
did have his name carved into things
that were older, and other pharaohs did
the same thing. When historians first
read what was written on monuments and
in papyrie, they began identifying
problems that couldn't be resolved using
written records alone. And one of the
problems was that there appeared to be a
missing dynasty in these records.
Indeed, nearly every mention of the 25th
dynasty of Egypt had been systematically
removed from written sources. This was a
period during which Egypt was ruled over
by Nubian kings from modern-day Sudan,
the so-called age of the black pharaohs.
After the fall of this dynasty, later
pharaohs set about erasing any mention
of this period of rule by outsiders, in
part because the ancient Egyptian
culture was extraordinarily xenophobic.
We know that this occurred not by
reading what ancient Egyptians said, but
by doing archaeology. That's right.
Archaeology doesn't just assume that
what's written is an accurate account of
what happened. If Ben knew anything
about archaeology, he'd know that. But
he doesn't. Ben doesn't seem to
understand that recarving the surface of
an obelisk would result in a clear
change in the surface of the obelisk. So
his proposal that Rammeses II simply
have this entire thing recarved ignores
the fact that the glyphs are carved into
the granite. You can't just erase it
like a chalkboard. Also, Ben clearly
says that Ramisees II carved his name in
this obelisk. Rammeses was a pharaoh in
the new kingdom. But the whole point of
this [\h__\h] video is to pretend that
Egyptians in the Old, Middle, and New
Kingdoms didn't have the technology to
carve stone in this way. He's been
showing us New Kingdom archaeological
sites this entire time, and now he's
blatantly contradicting himself like a
[\h__\h] He's been showing video after
video, picture after picture of New
Kingdom monuments and sarcophagi saying
they couldn't do this. And then with two
minutes left to go, he admits they
definitely could do this. Astounding.
Undoubtedly, some of the carving that's
been done into obelisks and statues is
really excellent work. It looks very
sharp and well- definfined, particularly
on obelisks, like this example at Karnak
Temple. Ben just said a minute ago that
the writing on this statue does not
remotely reflect the technology that was
used to make the statue itself, and that
the glyphs carved into these objects
display the signature and the marks that
handheld chisels leave when used on
stone in a manner like this. Compared to
the object itself, the writing is
generally always pretty rough work. So,
ancient Egyptian craftsmen could also
make glyphs that are very sharp and
well- definfined using hand tools. Which
is it, Ben? We do, however, see this
evidence on the objects themselves, on
the boxes, on the slabs, on the columns,
the obelisks, and on the statues. The
writing is without fail always used to
date the sites and to date the objects
that are found on the sites. despite in
many cases there being a huge disparity
in technology levels. Or maybe, just
maybe, you're a clueless toolbox with no
idea what ancient Egyptian craftsmen
could actually do. Maybe you're so
obsessed with this idea of a huge
disparity in technology levels that you
can't see the evidence that is directly
in front of you for what it truly is.
evidence that ancient Egyptians could
create massive stone monuments with
rocks, sand, copper, bronze, and a near
limitless supply of well-trained
craftsmen. Also, writing is used to
approximate a date on monuments. But
since archaeology is a science, it uses
all available evidence to make its
conclusions, not just the writing.
Archaeologists use dendrochronology,
radiometric dating, studies of stylistic
change, changes in epigraphy, and all
sorts of other things. That's what
differentiates archaeologists from
historians. Genius. You would know that
if you'd bother to actually read a
single [\h__\h] book or scientific
article written by an actual
archaeologist. But you don't. You just
parrot what you've heard from frauds
like Christopher Dunn or Graham Hancock.
And because they're lying to you
literally always, you're left completely
in the dark on all of this. How could
anyone say that these poorly made
scratches into this incredible box at
the Serapium were made by the same
people that made the box itself? Ben
doesn't know what this is. The writing
on this sarcophagus places it during the
reign of either Cleopatra or Tommy I
13th. This is roughly 55 to 30 B.CE.
This date is supported by archaeology
performed at the site as well as by
radiocarbon dates on the bull mummies
and other materials recovered here. But
wait, iron tools were introduced into
Egypt around 500 B.CE. CE roughly 400
years before the writing on this
sarcophagus. So at the time the writing
was made, ancient Egypt had iron tools.
Remember a few minutes ago when Ben said
that after the introduction of iron,
Egyptians certainly developed the
ability to do very fine work into hard
stone. So the writing was done at a time
when Egypt regularly used iron tools.
And according to Ben, because they had
iron tools, they could have made this
stone box. But Ben doesn't think that
they made the stone box because Ben
doesn't know the age of this super
shitty writing. Since the dating of this
writing would mean that Egyptians had
iron tools, which Ben says are necessary
for the production of these boxes, then
what is the [\h__\h] problem? It gets
worse. A minute ago, he showed a cart of
Rammeses II and described it as very
sharp and well- definfined. He's
positive that Rammeses II carved it. So,
we can assume that Ben believes that by
the New Kingdom, Egyptians could carve
stone easily enough. But that cartou was
carved over 1,000 years before the
writing on this sarcophagus. So the
writing he's pretending is so crude and
lame actually dates the sarcophagus to a
period of time when Egypt actually had
iron technology and other more advanced
technologies. If you're not seeing a
pattern here, I don't know what to tell
you. He's not only clueless about all of
this [\h__\h] he's also just constantly
contradicting himself. Yet this is
exactly how we date and relate this site
and its objects. At the Capium, this box
is considered to be the most valuable
because it has writing on it. I would
prefer to call this what it is, a
priceless, high technology ancient
object that was inherited and then
vandalized with a chisel by a later and
far less capable ancient culture. Maybe
it's high time that we opened our eyes
and used some of our own high technology
capability in order to re-evaluate these
ancient places so that we might get just
a few steps closer to the truth. A far
less capable ancient culture. The dating
of the inscription places it at the time
of the Roman Republic, one of the most
technologically advanced civilizations
of the ancient world which had fully
embraced the Iron Age. Could the box
have been made thousands of years before
the Romans turned Egypt into a vassal
state? Sure. But nobody looks at the
mighty works of Rome and thinks that
they inherited and then vandalized them.
You don't know how old any of this stuff
is and instead just look at it and place
it in some ageless mythical past where
everything older than a few hundred
years is essentially all the same age.
As we're more or less wrapping up here,
we can offer the full diagnosis. Ben's a
tourist who's been fed a mountain of
[\h__\h] and he's never bothered to
actually do anything remotely resembling
research to verify the stories he
blindly accepts because they make him
feel smart and special. He goes to
places, records videos, and then
narrates a story that portrays all of
this stuff as being produced by a
mysterious lost civilization. He doesn't
know anything about real history or
archaeology apart from what he parrots
from Christopher Dunn, Graham Hancock,
Randall Carlson, and other frauds. He's
too dumb and too lazy to actually learn
anything. Instead, he just assumes that
archaeologists, historians, and
Egyptologists are hiding the truth
because grant money tenure authority
establishment something something. Like
every other narcissist in this grifting
space, Ben sees himself as a maverick
renegade, one of the only people to
truly understand any of this stuff,
despite demonstrating with literally
every sentence out of his dumb mouth
that he doesn't understand the first
thing about any of it. This is the main
psychological lesson that I wish every
member of this pathetic
pseudoarchchaeology cult would learn.
When you're as ignorant about any
science as Ben is about archaeology,
everything can be twisted to seem like a
mystery or a conspiracy to hide
evidence. If Ben bothered to read books,
scientific articles, or actually sit
down with a real archaeologist, and if
he were to do so with an open mind, he
might actually realize that he's been
duped by the Graham Hancocks of the
world, just like everyone else who
populates these channels and arrogantly
regurgitates these narratives.
I know we only combed through one video,
but it's all we need since once again,
they're all the same. every video, every
podcast appearance, it's always the same
narratives, the same ignorance, the same
arrogance. This brings us back to what
we mentioned at the beginning. Ben's own
research team has concluded that his
infantile claims about amazing ancient
technology and stone vessels are wrong
and that they are fully consistent with
handcarved pieces. Remember, these are
people that Ben interviewed. He selected
them to be on his team. They were his
guys. The fact that they've all
concluded his idea is bogus puts Ben in
quite a fix. With all of his rhetoric
about the closedminded, financially
compromised archaeologists not accepting
evidence that's inconvenient to their
narratives. What's he going to do? He
sure as [\h__\h] hasn't acknowledged any of
this yet. And absolutely nobody is
wondering why. He's in too deep. He's
been pushing this crap about the vases
for years. Look at all these videos. The
sensationalism, the certainty, all of it
has been obliterated through his own
ego, his own attempt to empirically
validate what he never should have been
pushing in the first place. And now he's
stuck. He has to keep pedaling his
[\h__\h] tours and promoting this crap
to absolutely anyone that will fall for
it. But hopefully with this and other
videos made by myself and other
debunkers, the pool of potential victims
will continue to dwindle until there's
nobody left. And that will be the end of
this miserable toxic cult.
So that's it for Ben Van Kirkwick and
all of his [\h__\h] on Uncharted X.
Hopefully if you had been duped by these
stories, you now see how empty his
claims really are beyond being
conclusively debunked by research he
funded himself. Who's next to be exposed
in this ridiculous cult? You'll just
have to wait and see. Until next time.