Hi, Nick here from Pods with Nick and James. Just a quick one before we get into this podcast.
I want to say a massive thank you for the support that we've received since starting these podcasts.
We thoroughly enjoy it and we look forward to creating more.
If you want to have your say on any topics that we've discussed or suggest future topics,
you can do so at www.reddit.com slash r slash nickandjamespods
and if you want to support us you can do so from as little as £1 a month
and you can do that at www.patreon.com slash Pods with Nick and James.
Anyway, back to the podcast.
Hello and welcome back to Pods with Nick and James. My name's Nick and this is James.
Hi there.
The topic today is one that sits quite close to my heart.
It's actually something that I've been trying to build up to on this podcast
because there are many things in this world that I feel we don't question enough,
which is a lot of the reason why we got into doing the podcast.
This one, this is something that I don't think anybody questions enough.
I think too many people take this topic for granted.
This is the topic of human history.
Now, I think we, I touched over a couple of points with you in conversation before the,
like after the end of the last podcast, didn't I James?
There's a lot of things that I think people just take for granted and don't really question.
And yet when you really think about it, they don't really make a lot of sense in human history.
And even though I was just throwing pictures at you and like little things, you did kind of,
I think you, I'm defending myself here, like you kind of got it, didn't you?
I mean, I got where you were coming from, like the formation,
the things you were showing of the formation of the land, like are at a point where,
I'm trying to think of the right, the right wording here.
Like what you were suggesting, even though it sounded big and possibly out there,
could easily be seen in the formations that you would like more so than the classic narratives that we're given.
Yeah. Yeah. So on that note, let's start with the classic narrative, shall we?
So I want to go over what mainstream historians say about human history.
Okay. Do you know where like the earliest human fossils that have been found on the planet,
do you know how old they are?
I'm going to say, I'm going to take a guess. Is it 12,000 years? 12 spoken a little bit about this before.
12,000 years. So the earliest human fossils date back 2 million years.
Okay. Alright. Now bear in mind that human form has taken on many different shapes.
Obviously the human brain has developed differently over the past 2 million years.
And with that in mind, how old do you think the evolved form that we take on now is?
Damn it. I kind of misunderstood the question. So that's why I went with 12,000.
So I'm going to say, I'm going to say 12,000 again based on 2 million.
Okay. The annoying thing is I've got different sources, which give me different information.
There's a really good book called Sapiens, which covers some of this.
Unfortunately, it covers a breadth of human history as well,
which means that I've forgotten this little bit, but I know I have read it at some point.
Okay. So if it was 2 million for what you could consider to be a human being,
let's say, and if we're going by modern carbon dated evidence,
like so by the what scientists agree these bones are this old based on the carbon dating systems.
I know there's free separate carbon dating systems. I don't know what they are though.
I'm really sorry. I should know more about that. Right. Sorry. Short on.
No, I'm going to change my answer. Right. You know what? Let's just go completely off the wall here.
200,000. Okay. Okay. Really good. 300,000 years ago, we evolved into the form that we are today.
Really good for reconsidering there. Yeah. So this is kind of where
I start to struggle with human history. Right. So humans lived as hunter gatherers.
Right. During that period, 300,000 years to the point where civilization began.
Now, do you know what enabled civilization and allowed us to step away from being hunter gatherers?
Right. So would it be again, I'm going by the book Sapiens here, unfortunately,
which you know what? I'm going to look that up in a minute because I probably should give the name of the person who wrote it.
But I'm going to say it was the cognitive revolution that caused us to step away from being animals.
It's by somebody called the book that I've read some of this on is by a person called
Yoval Noah Harari is the book that I'm referencing here. But he was saying that it's the cognitive revolution.
It's the ability to think and to use understanding or to use
to use complex communication, which required requires vocal cords, but all animals can make a huge number of different sounds.
So I'd say it's that would is do you have a different answer? What am I or am I barking up the wrong tree?
I can see where you're coming from. So, yeah, definitely there was a cognitive change.
Essentially something significant needed to happen in order to enable civilization to stop having to follow the food.
And that was agriculture. Damn it. It was the agriculture revolution.
Yeah. So obviously before that, hunter gatherers would follow the food.
And it makes complete sense. Of course you would. You would go with the herds in order to follow the sustainability of your tribe.
You know, now, do you know when historians say that civilization began when we began, sorry for punching the microphone, when we began the agricultural revolution?
Was that 12,000? I don't know why I've got this 12,000 in my mind.
That's a good number. But we'll explain that number in a minute. It was 4000 BC. So we're looking 6000 years ago.
That's what mainstream historians say. OK, mainstream historians say that the civilization began in little place called Mesopotamia in 6000 years ago in 4000 BC.
And is Mesopotamia is that modern day Iraq? Yep, that's Sumeria. Yep.
And just to confirm, is this the land of King Sargon? Yes, it was.
OK, great. No, sorry. Just going to double check that. All right. Great.
He keeps popping back up, doesn't he? Sorry. It's an amazing name. It's fun to say. I'm going to keep saying it. I apologize, listeners.
It's all right, because I was bringing it up later anyway, so it's OK. Oh, brilliant.
Now, with that in mind, bear in mind, so let's recap, OK. Humans have been on the planet for 2 million years.
All right. And we eventually evolve into the form you see today 300,000 years ago. Right.
And then we spend the next 294,000 years banging our heads against brick walls until eventually somebody goes, you know what, somebody should probably build a house.
And voila, 6000 years ago, we start building houses.
With that in mind, do you know what's the most likely end to human civilization?
Is it overpopulation or is it just mutually assured destruction?
I mean, I don't think humans have got a say in it. That's the most amazing thing about it. I think the most assured and likely cause to the end of human civilization is completely out of human control.
Are you thinking asteroids? Space debris. Exactly. It's happened before.
It's wiped out entire populace of dinosaurs. Yeah.
And it's been theorized that there's been many cataclysmic impacts of space debris.
And these are these are these are things that we can we can look at in like the rock walls of the Grand Canyon.
You can see mass extinction events in the dirt layers. You can also see massive extinction events in the core samples from Greenland.
So it's not it's not out there to consider that the end of human civilization would come through space debris.
Yeah. I'll call it space debris because asteroids, comets, meteors, whatever you want to call them.
It could be anything. And do you know where the last extinction event was?
Well, the 65 million years ago one which wiped out the dinosaurs.
No, no, it was at the end of the younger dryas. And that was 12000 BC, 14000 years ago.
Shit. Yeah. At the end of the younger dryas, basically we come to the end of the ice age and there was a sudden warming of the planet that caused the ice sheets to melt away.
Caused extensive flooding. Monumentally affected the land.
For example, in Washington, yeah, there's a place called the scablands. Have you ever heard of it?
No, I've heard of the salt flats, which unfortunately is where my mind went to when you said the scablands.
But the scablands is a really interesting place. If you look at it from like Google Earth, right, you can see evidence of.
Immense water damage. And I'm not talking like a little trickle that's broken into a flood.
I'm talking immense singular impact. And the way you can see this is what you what you call land ripples.
If you look at, you know, when you go to the beach, right, the tides gone out, the sand kind of looks like almost like waves, almost like ripples.
Yeah, where it's kind of ended up ending in these eggs. Yeah.
And you can see this and you can tell how much water went across the land and how deep the ebbs and flows are on the land.
So, I mean, Randall Carlson is somebody who studied this for a hundred like a hundred.
He studied this for decades and he is literally he can explain it in a way that I can't.
So if you want a better explanation of the scablands and what it all means, then go and seek him out.
But he can he he says that it's evidence of incredible amounts of water being pushed across the Washington flats.
Now, there's also somewhere else on the planet, which I think I covered with you at the end of the last podcast,
that also shows immense water damage.
And it's interesting to know that this specific place looked incredibly different 14000 years ago than what we see it today.
And that, of course, is the Sahara Desert.
So the Sahara Desert is now obviously a barren wasteland. But you can see if you look at that,
once again, if you look at it from Google Earth, you can see in satellite images the evidence of it being washed from the Mediterranean Sea out towards the Atlantic Ocean.
Right. And the amount of water that would have been needed to have taken it from the lush green, almost like fertile farmland that it was to what we see today would have been an immense amount of water.
And that came 14000 years ago. OK.
Now, this is where you have to start thinking, OK, if that amount of water was able to eradicate that amount of land 14000 years ago,
how big was that cataclysm and what effect would it have had on the existence of humanity at the time?
OK. Now, flood myths are everywhere. Every society's got them. In the Bible you've got Noah's Great Flood 2600 years ago, 500 BCE.
The Indic people have got the Manu Flood, that was likewise 500 BCE.
The Greek floods from Hesiod's Theogamy, that was 600 to 700 BCE. The Zoroastrians, Yema's Flood was 1100 BCE.
The Epic of Gilgamesh, an Akkadian, Sumerian, Mesopotamian, King, the floods of Gilgamesh, that was 1900 BCE.
There are even ones that we haven't got a date for that are documented. For example, the Aborigines of Lake Tyre have their flood myth.
And of course, the Norse have got their Ymir Flood, which is also undatable.
So flood myths exist all over the planet. And as we know, or as we've discussed, an asteroid impact into the ocean would cause a tidal wave,
which could be as high as a mile high, to travel around the globe.
That mile high wave of water would strip everything away down to the bedrock and leave nothing behind.
Which is why I always lean towards needing to rethink human history, because it's so easy for it to go from what we see today to all of a sudden, nothing.
Okay, so we've discussed the effects of floods. Obviously we know that an entire civilization could be wiped out through one of these floods,
which could be started by an asteroid impact. We know that asteroid impacts happen all the time.
So it's not unreasonable to consider that human history itself has reset.
That leads you down the road of thinking, okay, let's look at what we can see in the world.
Now, there's lots of things in human history that we kind of take for granted, but one of the things that I think has been watched for a very long time is the stars.
They even gave birth to one of the earliest religions in the zodiac. And the stars were the way of telling what kind of behaviors you could expect around the planet.
So have you ever heard of the procession of the equinoxes?
No, I know what an equinox is. So for the sake of not looking entirely ignorant, you have two solstices a year and two equinoxes a year.
The solstice is either where the day is at its longest and therefore the sun is at its highest, or when it is the opposite of that, when it is at its lowest.
The equinox is the point perfectly between the summer and winter solstice. So it's at the time when things are perfectly in the middle.
Again, as this is a cycle going from one to the other, there are two equinoxes. So two solstices, two equinoxes.
Always going solstice, equinox, solstice, equinox.
So to explain the procession of the equinoxes, if you think about, you know how the zodiac is essentially like a clock in the sky.
If you look at the wheel of the zodiac, you can see the constellations of the zodiac in a circle in the sky.
Do you know the earth rotates on its axis? And you know that this axis is slightly, well it's not straight, it's slightly circular.
It's like 28 degrees or something along those lines?
Yeah, and that in itself rotates. So this is how you end up with this procession of the equinox, where north points to a different point in the zodiac.
For a specific number of years, namely about 1900 to 2100 years.
And it will go through systematically each of the signs of the zodiac, but it goes through backwards, which is why you call it the procession of the equinoxes.
Do you know which sign of the zodiac we're currently in?
Because again, we've covered this very briefly in some of our other conversations, so I apologise for using some of this insider knowledge here, Nick.
But I believe you've said in the past that we are at the beginning of the Age of Aquarius.
Yeah, absolutely. They made a whole song about it, that's how happy they were. If you get that reference, amazing people.
Now, I want to just say to the viewers, obviously I've discussed this with you, but I want to just talk through the relevance of these ages and how we see them in certain parts of society that we don't necessarily acknowledge.
For example, previous to the Age of Aquarius is the Age of Pisces.
Now, the symbol for Christianity in the last 2000 years is the fish.
I don't want to just say, OK, that proves my point. Jesus himself was a fisherman, but his dad was a carpenter, so it doesn't make sense that he would just be a fisherman.
There has to be significance to that.
If you look at the Bible, when Jesus is asked, how long will you be with us? He says, I will be with you until the end of the age.
And when his disciples say, how will we know when the end of the age is? He says, well you'll know because you'll see a man bearing a pitcher of water. He will go into a house, follow him there.
And that's foreshadowing the beginning of the Age of Aquarius. So of course, Jesus' symbol being the symbol of Pisces, all he's saying is, the Age of Pisces will be with you for the next 2000 years, until the Age of Aquarius.
And that's the reality of it.
Now, we could stop there and go, OK, well that proves Pisces and Aquarius, but let's look further back. What came before Jesus?
I mean, I'll follow this to a point, but I will also admit that I know that there's another version of the quote that you've said, and I don't know if it's from one of the other Gospels, but it's like, how will we know to when these things will take?
And Jesus said, it's not for you to know the times and dates that the Father is set by its own authority.
But we'll go with the water jug thing. Additionally, Paul went out of his way on several occasions to cry, at least, and say that, well, I believe they're different, but I will admit I can understand.
There is stuff there. There is stuff there which is uncomfortably close to the two things.
The 2000 year thing is concerning, and when it comes to the bloke with the water jug, do you believe that a mass flood is imminent? Is that where you're beginning to lead us there?
I don't know. I know that there's the Perseid meteor shower that happens every year, which is the remnants of a massive asteroid, and this time 14,000 years ago, there was an impact on the planet as we went through the Perseid meteor shower.
We know this because there's carbon dating from around the time, there's a mass extinction event, but there's also somewhere on the planet where it's actually documented that this happened, which we'll get to a bit later.
But I'm not foreshadowing anything. I'm not a prophet. I don't have the knowledge, and let's face it, I was around December 21st 2012 when the Mayan calendar ended and everybody was adamant, I say everybody.
The crazy conspiracy people that I hung around with at the time were adamant. It was the end of the world. They even had an end of the world party where they spunked their entire wages.
I was one of the sensible people that went, yeah, but I'm not going to spend my money because there's a good chance I'm going to wake up tomorrow and have to go back to work and have bills to pay.
So I've been around these prophecies of end of the world and whatever else. It's about being aware, more than anything, aware that these things have happened.
I'm not looking at the future. I'm looking at the past. You have to know where you've been to know where you're going, which is what I keep saying to people.
They're like, well, you can't prove that this happened or this didn't happen. No, absolutely, but I do know.
I know in my heart that the history that we're taught about humans is wrong and it's wrong to a point where we need to really consider how we approach history and what we think of ourselves.
There's almost an arrogance about humanity where we're like, we are the smartest we've ever been and we're never going to, nobody ever has come before that has been smarter.
Well, there's a lot of evidence that points to the fact that that's not true. That is not true. And that arrogance is blinding.
Like people were smarter and they still died.
I'll freely think that people were smarter, but would you honestly say that they were more technologically advanced?
Like I'll freely believe like the, for example, yes, absolutely.
Stochrates, Plato, Aristotle, a lot smarter than even the people on the quiz team by the window who win every week.
You know, like, yeah, I'll freely admit like genius is not a new invention. No, there has always been one per one person or two people or a group of people who have moved things forward.
You know.
However, when it comes to, I realize there are ancient stories and there is the idea of magic being, or one narrative that could quite easily be put forward is the idea of magic or secret arts or anything along those lines.
Simply being the remnant of the last cycle, if you will, because if you're saying that humanity has repeatedly become advanced or reset by a mass extinction event and then has advanced.
And what you're suggesting is, is that where we currently are is simply the most advanced that we've been since the last mass extinction event.
Yeah, yeah, that's definitely what I'm saying.
And I think there's evidence that points that almost backs that up and I'll come to that.
And I think it's really important to understand the timelines that have been imposed and where they've come from.
Now, historians themselves, I'm sure there's a level of innocence they want to give.
It's like science.
Science love to give explanations for things and they have to give an explanation for something they can't just say, oh.
Yeah, you can't just, yeah, if you're a scientist, you can't do the classic shrug your shoulders and hold your hands up because it's your job to find the answers.
Like, I think it's OK for you to hold your finger out and say, I'm working on it.
Yeah, and I think that's the smarter thing to do, if I'm honest.
Like, pride comes before a fall and how many people have fallen because somebody else has proven down the line that they were wrong?
Because they needed to give an explanation at the time, they needed to be right at the time.
And what it does is it leads people the wrong way when investigating or developing on knowledge.
Like, knowledge is precious and in order to continue human evolution and to continue advancing,
we need to know that what knowledge we have is sound because otherwise what are you developing on?
All you're doing is you're just polishing out the dust and the dirt that was left by generations before.
And that comes, that dust and that dirt, that comes out of arrogance, nothing more.
Yeah, it comes out of a need to be right, a need to explain.
And, you know, there's no need to actually have all the answers.
Tell us what you do know and then we'll go and develop on that.
We'll investigate more, we're younger, when you've had your time, you'll go, but we'll develop on your knowledge so your legacy will remain.
As long as what you leave is sound knowledge.
Otherwise we'll rub out your legacy too because eventually we will work out sound knowledge that will just eradicate your legacy.
Yeah?
So let's go back 14,000 years, right?
14,000 years ago an asteroid hit and we know this because of a place on the planet which was discovered about 50 years ago,
about 1950 I think it was, it was discovered in Turkey and it has done many things, it's done many, many things.
This discovery in Turkey has already made historians have to rethink the start of civilization, the birth of agriculture,
and it's even put a time stamp on when this asteroid impact happened.
It's a place called Gobekli Tepe and essentially if you think about Stonehenge, these massive stone pillars,
Gobekli Tepe is Stonehenge's grandfather.
It was built 11,000 years ago and all they've uncovered of it at the moment is about 20%, the other 80% is still underground, it's still massive.
But in one of these chambers specifically there's an uprooted stone with a star chart on it which depicts when this asteroid impact happened 14,000 years ago.
Almost like they went, shit we need to actually log this as like an event that happened.
And you know what's really interesting about Gobekli Tepe is the fact that it wasn't abandoned, it wasn't sacked and the people were killed
and it was lost to the ages that way, it was buried.
Oh, purposefully.
Purposefully buried. So that that knowledge couldn't be destroyed, it would be saved.
Now that resonates with me, that really sits in a higher place because people actually wanted to protect that knowledge.
The knowledge itself.
Yeah and I think the fact that they, I mean there's so much that's stored under the ground which eventually they will dig up and investigate further
and there might be a million other accounts of asteroid impacts that might date back incredible amounts of years.
The fact is somebody was around 14,000 years ago to witness this impact and 3,000 years after that they recorded it on stone to make sure that it wasn't lost.
So let's reconsider what we know about the beginning. Sorry, I've got a bit of a wind, being all unprofessional and stuff.
Let's reconsider what we know about human history and let's just look at it a bit sceptical.
This is the thing about when you look back, you need to just kind of look between the lines because what you're not going to find is glaringly obvious fact.
Because if it was glaringly obvious that would be the truth that we follow already.
But it is there.
So let's start talking about hypothetical, or not even, let's go theoretical.
Let's go theoretical scenarios, but let's look at what mainstream scientists say about them and let's look at where they don't make sense.
Okay, so let's look at the Aborigines in Australia.
I will admit I'm a massive fan of, it's going to sound, the name itself seems to condescend itself, but Aborigines Dreamtime.
The stories are interesting. I also like Aborigines culture in that it is very community based, very friendly, very open.
I love the Governor Philip, the first Governor of Australia, even himself.
Despite being of the colonial age and therefore having every predisposition to hate the Aboriginal people.
This is the annoying thing because you can still see there were still colonial overtones to this term that he used, but he said noble savages.
That's what he referred to, referred to the Aboriginal people as, which I know sounds absolutely horrible and it is absolutely horrible.
But even somebody with all of the cultural predisposition to hate and look down on some people just goes, you guys are doing it partly right.
Your morals are together. But sorry, go ahead.
No, it's fine. Aborigines, they're a bit different to isolated structures that you see around the globe.
In that they are possibly the most isolated up until the beginning of the 19th century, or the 20th century when they were colonised.
Now, in order to better understand how science has got the Aborigines wrong, not even science, historians have got the Aborigines wrong.
You need to understand, historians say that the Aborigines came across to Australia in tiny little canoes through Indonesia.
Now, on their way through Indonesia they would have had to have, for a start, they would have had to have crossed the Cyclone Belt in tiny canoes.
Would that have been impossible? I'm assuming the fact that it's called the Cyclone Belt is not a good...
It's hardly Bora Bora. It's not sunshine and dolphins.
As a matter of fact, interesting story. One of the premiers of Australia, he's called Premier over there, not Prime Minister.
One of the premiers of Australia, whilst they were in power, they had a boatload of Vietnamese turn up on their shore.
And they went, alright, I'm not sending you home, but you can't come into Australia.
What I will do is I'll give you this little island. You can have that, it's yours. We'll give you clothing, we'll give you food, you can have that island.
You want to come to Australia, that's your home. And they go, fantastic.
And they get to this island and they realise that this island is smack bang in the middle of the Cyclone Belt.
And they scream human rights and everything else and the premier goes, you know what, if you don't like it, there's a warship there.
Jump on, they'll take you home.
And I thought that was possibly one of the best ways that Australia ever dealt with immigrants.
Normally Australia are some of the most obnoxious when it comes to immigration, especially given the fact that the populace of Australia are immigrants.
It just makes me chuckle. It is frustrating. I remember if you watch Australian border control programmes, if you watched any of that trash sort of TV when you got in from school or anything like that,
you do find yourself after a while, I stopped watching it years and years and years ago, but you do just end up feeling sorry for the people.
You were shaking down this student because she'd brought some of her mother's curry into the country.
And it's just like, dude, I get it. I get it. You've had ecological disasters because us ignorant white men have screwed up on a number of occasions.
And I understand you want to defend both the ecology, but also the local business practices. But this is somebody just taking some food over a border, which was prepared for by their family.
Like, this isn't a a malvolent attack on a country's culture or ecosystem. It's just a young woman who didn't know the rules and has brought some stuff that was made by their family.
And it's just that I'm going to be honest with you, their entire handling of it just made me go, I'm not watching this anymore.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So Aborigines obviously lived in Australia for a very, very long time, thousands of years.
Now, given the fact that historians say that Australians or Aborigines rather came across from Indonesia to Australia, who do you do you have any idea who their closest genetic cousin is?
Right. So I would assume from what you've just said there, it would be the most Islamic country in the world is Indonesia.
That they would genetically it would be that people group.
So you think Indonesians, right? Yeah.
From what you've said Asians. Yeah.
Yes. Yeah. If we're going with if we're going abroad. Yeah. If you follow it back in history, obviously Indonesia was populated by Asia.
Yeah. So why is their closest genetic cousin Africans?
That's a long way to walk. You see, that is a long way to walk, but I can imagine there are migrations of people groups.
Yeah. So I'm not.
I'm not as surprised.
Like the one that the one that would have really surprised me is if you had have said South Americans.
You know, yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, I want to just give you a bit of scope because I mentioned Gondwana before.
Now Gondwana is a supercontinent which separated over a period of 400 million years.
OK. Now Gondwana would have made Africa and Australia connected by a land bridge of Antarctica.
OK. So it would have gone Africa, Antarctica, Australia, all as one landmass with Asia above it.
Right. Which slowly separated. However, Australia settled into the position that it is today about 100 million years ago, they reckon.
So given that humans have been on the planet for two million years, you can't really say that there was a land bridge for them to migrate across.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but Africans haven't been known as like globally travelling, seafaring folk throughout history, have they?
Not widely, no.
So given that Aborigines closest cousins are Africans, and the Africans would have had to have walked,
if we were to believe what modern day historians say, all the way through Asia, through India, sorry, through India, through Asia,
and then through Indonesia into Australia in tiny little canoes.
It's a bit farfetched. Yeah, it's a bit farfetched. It's almost hard to believe.
Yeah, it's like the idea that I shouldn't be picking on any particular group.
But the one that came to mind was the idea that in the Book of Mormon, that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America.
Like it's not impossible. It's just unlikely.
Yeah. Bear in mind that these boats that they travelled across Indonesia in, they travelled there 40,000 years ago, 40 to 50,000 years ago.
So, like hunter-gatherers built ships, or boats, sorry canoes, seaworthy enough to travel across Indonesia 40 to 50,000 years ago.
Before the Vikings attacked England or travelled around the world. Now, Vikings were probably the most predominant earliest race to start travelling the seas.
And yeah, here's some Africans doing it beforehand.
Now, civilisations, you've got to be thinking, at this point I start thinking, okay, so what evidence is there of ancient civilisations?
You mean like pre-extinction event? Yeah, pre-extinction.
So then you have to start looking to the world of myth, mythology. And of course the most commonly known one is the myth of Atlantis.
Atlantis first mentioned... I'm going to be honest with you, if you had a city on the sea, a mile high wave, would be a problem.
Yeah, I mean it was actually seven cities on seven different islands, from what Plato says.
Ruled by seven different kings, all brothers, with one high king.
But Plato says this, and he says that he learnt this through his teacher, who learnt it through the books that were stored in the great library of Alexandria in Egypt.
Lemuria is another supercontinent that is thought to be mythical, but there's evidence of the existence of Lemuria off the coast of Bermuda,
with the Bimini Road, a road which is quite clearly man-made and yet seems to travel off into the ocean, under the sea.
It just baffles me. And then of course you've got Egypt. Now Egypt is probably the best example of reasons why you cannot believe mainstream historians when it comes to human history.
We're going to go over this in a second, but I just want to say as well, you said about South Americans, you'd be more surprised if South Americans had migrated to Australia, yeah?
So what about if Africans had migrated to South America?
I mean, it's less than the width of Brazil, but that's just the size of Brazil.
That's the fact that that's a massive country, which takes up most of a continent, rather than the fact that it's a short distance on sea.
It's not a short distance on sea, and if you get the angle of your sailing very slightly wrong, you're not just a couple of days off course, you're several weeks off course, and you might very well die.
So the Mayans have statues, Mayan heads, that you can look up on Google, and a number of them quite clearly depict non-South American looking bone structures in their faces.
Something that you could almost say is very African looking. And they made statues of them, because that's what you do when you're surrounded by them, right?
I don't think they were surrounded by them is the point I'm trying to get to, that's why they made statues of them, because they were a being, or a few beings that landed on their shores that were advanced,
and therefore got idolized and deified into stone. Interestingly, a lot of Egyptian statues, their facial structures in these Egyptian statues, there's a couple of prevalent features.
If you manage to find a statue that is not defaced, then the faces of these statues look African, which makes sense, Egypt is on the north-eastern edge of Africa.
Of course, why wouldn't it be? But it's the fact that if you look at Egyptian people now, they don't resemble Africans, they resemble Arabians, or Middle-Eastans.
And as I said, other Egyptian statues, there's a repeated pattern that happens across Egyptian statues where the nose is hewn off and defaced.
Most likely because an African's nose is very broad and makes it very apparent that that's not a Western human, that is an African human.
Why were they trying to hide that if they weren't trying to mask history?
So, like I said, there's evidence that things aren't the way that we think they are. There's at least mythological evidence of ancient civilizations, which people take for granted.
And if you start mentioning Atlantis, you start getting into the realms of being told that, oh no, it was just created as a fable. It was created for humans not to get too comfortable with their world and not to grow too quickly.
Not that we listened to that fable, by the point.
Yeah, I think the problem here seems to be the one, or the one that you're alluding to here, is the difference between, and I guess what this talk is pointing or beginning to step towards is not just the difference between fact and opinion,
but by the credibility of source of information of whether something is recorded history and considered fact, recorded history and considered legend, or recorded allegory or story and considered myth.
Yeah.
And it's what your frustration seems to be here is that you're referring to physical archaeological items.
And yet, unlike, okay, I love science, I think science has done a lot, technology does a lot, I would not be alive if it wasn't for both in my mind, the grace of God and science, and the fact that I live in an age where medical treatment is available.
All of science though, is best guess. It's best guess by proved by several by not several.
It's best guess by incredibly smart people at the time, building on the best knowledge that they had available, which could be countless, you know, near countless generations of incredibly smart people before them, but it is still best guess.
Yeah.
And what, what we have of recorded history. Now yes, there are some texts where it is, like even in the Bible like Jesus walked into Samaria.
You know if there's, there's a line in the Bible, which is that you can't really go, Oh, well, what does that really mean?
It's literally, yeah, exactly. Bethlehem Judea and walked into Samaria.
Yeah, and like I get it. There are, there are texts where it is down to translation where it is down to supposed where it is down to.
So, it's a very individual interpretation. But what your frustration here seems to be Nick is that you are frustrated by what is considered to be historical fact in that the idea that the agricultural revolution.
When did it set to 200,000 or was it agricultural revolutions, apparently started 6000 years ago.
The idea that it happened 6000 years ago.
And the idea that we have existed in our current mental state for 200,000 300,000 years ago.
So what you what your frustration here and it seems to be what you're, you're saying here is a fair argument. There must be more to the story than we spent 294,000 years.
Bucking it up and not creating anything. Yeah, I'm sorry. I probably shouldn't swear because that's probably undermined the whole intellectual validity of the argument here. But that seems to be what you're what you're suggesting. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely.
And I think I think if you look, if you look to Egypt, you can start to see evidence that technologies did exist.
Okay. For example, let's just look at the pyramids for one. Yeah, the pyramids were created and even now there is no concrete evidence for how they were created because we don't understand it.
We cannot understand how they were built. And if you think the way that modern historians explain it is that those stones were carved by copper tools and dragged by sheer will and manpower into place over a period of 20 years.
They were floated a long way from the quarry, but that doesn't, that doesn't explain the, it doesn't explain the vertical element like explains how they how they move the stones there. It doesn't explain how you moved it several hundred feet in the air.
Like, yeah, sorry. Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Like the fact that you don't know how doesn't mean you're an idiot. So just put your hands up and say, I don't know.
That's okay. But what you can't do is go, well, only copper existed at the time, so they had to use copper. Let me tell you something, okay. If I had a hammer that I had no idea how to use it, I didn't have any need to use it.
I wouldn't keep it as an ancient relic. If what I needed at the time was a shovel.
I would melt it down and make a shovel.
Now, some of the materials that we use today in machinery are some of the most precious on the planet, and they're not renewable. So it makes sense that they would be recycled.
If they weren't just lost in a cataclysm, it makes sense that they would be turned into something that was useful at that time, and therefore there wouldn't be evidence of it.
Copper isn't incredibly useful when it comes to being a tool because it's incredibly soft. It's good for pipes. It's good for wire. But it's not overly good as a hammer.
So it stands to reason that there comes a point where copper's use is outgrown, and you start to look to the harder materials. And then you have to start recycling some of the materials that exist already, maybe, hypothetically, technologies that existed that you have no more idea how to use.
The reason I say this is if you look at some of the sculptures and some of the objects, the artifacts in Egypt, the best quality artifacts are the oldest artifacts, which makes no sense if human evolution is to be believed the way that it is.
There are objects which were investigated by a bloke called Petri, who was a scientist that looked at, with open eyes, he was an engineer actually, that investigated a lot of the Egyptian artifacts.
And even he says, we cannot do this now. And that was, yes, okay, that was 1920. But even now, like the granite that are in some of these stone vases is paper thin.
You can't do that. Even with laser, now you would end up burning a hole in the granite. You cannot make artifacts that are so perfectly carved. They've been put under radar and laser scanning.
And some of the points of symmetry in these artifacts are perfect beyond the level that we can get with technology that we have now. And these are just vases. And you might think, okay, like we discussed before, some of these vases, you might think, okay, that was 100 years of a man's life that he poured into that vase to get perfect.
But there are thousands of them that are just as perfect from the first dynasty. And then you look at the second dynasty artifacts and they're made of alabaster, which is really soft material, not granite, which is, I think, one step lower in the scale of hardness than diamond.
You start to think, what did they do? Did they just have major concussion and lose all of the skills that they had before? Or did the people that had the skills die out?
There's evidence of it. There's a place called Baalbek. I think we discussed this before as well. Baalbek is also known as the Temple of Jupiter to the Romans. It's a massive temple which was burnt to the ground and rebuilt by the Romans.
In the foundations of the Temple of Jupiter or of Baalbek, there are some stones that are placed in the foundations. There are stones below them and there are stones above them. Now these stones weigh 800 tonnes.
We can't move those now. It's not physically possible, even with the technology we have now, to move stones that big. There's a stone which was partially carved that is on its way out of the quarry that is 1200 tonnes.
There's even a stone below that which is thought to be 2000 tonnes that they were working on to move. And they were able to do that.
So the thought that we are the most advanced we have ever been is, as I said at the beginning of the podcast, it's almost arrogant. When you look at the evidence of the intelligence that existed before, most likely what happened was civilisation reset.
And that knowledge was lost with it. I mean what happened to the great library of Alexandria?
Was it burnt to the ground like the great library of Babylon?
It was burnt to the ground by the Romans at the end of Cleopatra's reign, at the end of the Egyptians. Even the Egyptians say that they are a legacy race. There is the wall of kings in Egypt which is a wall which scriptures each of the pharaohs back in history.
And they go back to the first dynasty and before. And the kings that existed before were said to have reigned for over 100 years each.
Sometimes even longer, more insurmountable lengths of time which historians say is physically impossible because there's no proof that humans existed for that long.
Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's not right. And there is no reason for them to have lied on that wall.
Given the fact that everything else the Egyptians wrote down historically was accurate to a degree, you have to think why would they start writing lies in their history. It doesn't make sense.
So once again you have to go, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not real.
And it's the same when you look at things like Stonehenge.
Okay, people say that Merlin built it. Merlin floated these stones into place. Once again, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not real.
Let's stop treating mythology like it's some fairy tale that we tell our kids. Start thinking maybe there is an element of truth in it.
Maybe it's not all true. Chinese Whispers is an incredible thing. It's a game I used to play as a kid.
And you can tell just in Chinese Whispers how history changes over time.
But we're not naive. We as people are not naive and we shouldn't be naive to the possibility that what we think is wrong.
Because otherwise you close your mind to possible revelations, possible advancement.
All I ever seek to do is be smarter. All I ever want to do is know more.
And I've had to eat my hat a few times. Gone through quite a few hats. Because what I believed was wrong.
And this may be another one of those occasions where what I believe is wrong.
But at least I'm open to that. You confront a historian with this kind of argument and you get shut down.
Because they cannot bear the thought of being wrong.
It's what they've studied. It's what they've been told.
It's hard for me to even talk like this as I know that the group that I now represent with my own beliefs.
Has hardly got a good history of this.
But yeah, if you believe one exclusatory thing to be fact.
It does mean that your mind is closed or you are unable to fully conceive of a possibilities as truth.
Which unfortunately in, I don't know, a lot of people would then say that agnostic is the best way to be.
Because it simply is the admission that you don't know.
And you're not willing to put your faithfully behind something.
But it is, when somebody studies something for an extended period of time you do get a dedication that comes from the sacrifice of learning this one thing.
And there is pride in it. And there is a certain esteem that you build for yourself.
And it's a horrible thing to have to face the revelation of that being taken away.
It's understandable, absolutely understandable.
But I think it's almost exhilarating, it's almost exciting to comprehend the fact that we've now got 294,000 years worth of history to write.
To look back with open eyes and go, what are the possibilities of things that could have happened?
Rather than 6,000.
Exactly. You know what, we know what happened over the last 6,000 years, at least reasonably, more factually than we know what happened in the last 294,000 years before that.
But let's stop shutting down mythological tales of gods walking with humans.
Let's stop shutting down tales of floating cities.
Let's stop shutting down tales of cities that lived in oceans in concentric circles.
And seafaring civilizations that traveled the entire globe before we even knew what boats were.
You know, in the Hindu texts there's a book called the Mahabharata.
And within the Mahabharata there is ancient wars, monumental wars of spaceship-faring folk that were like gods
floating around in the sky and spaceships blowing the crap out of each other.
The thought that that could possibly be an actual historic account of an event is exciting.
It's not terrifying.
We know they haven't been around for the last 6,000 years because we've been here and we've witnessed it.
However, the fact that they could have been around, the fact that these craft could have visited the planet
and interacted with humans at some point in our history, that's exciting.
Anyway, I feel like I'm going to get off my soapbox before I fall off it.
And yeah, I just want to go back over the saying that I keep telling myself, which is,
to know where you're going, you must first understand where you've been.
It's okay to look backwards and go, I ain't got a clue.
It's okay to look back and go, you know what, I'm going to try with an open mind to find out what's going on here.
Yeah, yeah.
Because I want to find out what kind of things we could learn.
The fact that they were able to move 800 ton stones into temples, that's exciting.
How did they do it?
Let's look at things with an open mind and see if we can work it out.
If we are not as smart as we were, let's try and find out how.
I can say this for now, we almost definitely have developed technologies that have never existed on this planet.
But we also haven't developed technologies or skills which have existed.
And that leaves a whole world of advancement and investigation and revelations that are left to us.
We don't have to continue down this road of overconsumption, of stagnation.
We can branch out into completely different fields of expertise in order to continue to develop.
That sounds pretty exciting to me.
It's an amazing thing to consider.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, thank you very much for the research.
Thank you very much for the sharing of knowledge and the challenge of what we consider knowledge and the challenge of what we consider truth.
Thanks a lot for listening, listeners.
We'll be coming up with another podcast in a couple of weeks.
Thank you very much, guys. You take care.
It's by from me.
Thank you.