Lost Ancient Technology

These are the tools dynastic Egyptians supposedly used. Now explain the CNC-level symmetry and precision seen in granite. These tools easily blunt after a few strikes. Some other tool, technique, or method was used, because the probability these tools were capable is near zero.

@rabbitholebot People have been doing this with DMT for decades.

CERN scientists are communicating with entities from other dimensions.

@DaveShapi What about site development laborzero.com to congregate to?

FUCK YES MY LABOR/ZERO KICKSTARTER WAS FULLY FUNDED IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS!!!! 🚀🚀🚀 WE'RE SHOOTING FOR THE MOON, BOYS!!! POST-LABOR ECONOMICS IS HAPPENING AND YOU MADE IT HAPPEN!!! THIS IS YOUR VICTORY MORE THAN IT IS MINE! I'M JUST A DUDE WHO WROTE A BOOK, BUT IT BELONGS TO THE WORLD!!!!

@Dearme2_ Buy Bitcoin Save

You meet your 18 year old self, you’re allowed 3 words. What do you say?

@odedanilo Yes.

Serious question: Do people actually exist who genuinely enjoy staying home all day, completely alone, without seeing anyone?

@davidpattersonx Unlikely. The world has had power structures embedded for 100’s of generations, power isn’t going to start being equalised and distributed to the masses becuase of AI. Too Naive to believe so.

Universal high income is not communism - it's capitalism at the limit. Over the next few years, AI will dramatically accelerate productivity and prosperity. Once AI can supply unlimited labor at low cost, prosperity becomes unlimited, and human labor becomes unnecessary. We will have a free market where everything is free.

@TOEwithCurt DMT being possible.

What's the ONE question about reality (physics, consciousness, math, philosophy) that you can't stop thinking about? Write as much as you want.

@davidpattersonx The world has been governed by elite oligarchic wealthy families stemming back generations, you think they’ll just allow this equalising? Systemic control will just vanish?

Some people say now is your last chance to get rich before all work disappears. It’s not true. We will all be rich. And everything you have saved will have been a waste of time. Your million-dollar house will be worth $10,000. The price of everything will drop by 99%. That means your universal high income (UHI) will be worth 100 times an average salary today. Your savings will mean nothing, and we will all be rich.

@davidicke The lizard thing did you in (real or not). If you left that out you’d have had a different timeline.

I have been saying this to the sound of enormous laughter - till now - for more than 30 years but this guy refuses to talk to me. I can't take him seriously because there is absolutely no credible explanation for that given my decades of calling events and where it is all really coming from.

@alieninsect Amazing that this retreat exists. It’s precisely what I’d be looking for… the exotic environment, ultra pure DMT, right set and setting and expert supervision. It’s definitely on the cards for me.

Still a few places available for this year: Eleusismind.com

Beautiful ultra high purity DMT freebase ready for conversion to fumarate for DMTx infusion at @EleusisMind

@alieninsect @RCarhartHarris Any Bayesian updates as to what this may mean for DMT then?

It’s not really a “maths* makes it true” axiom. Don’s axioms are actually very simple to define fundamental properties of conscious agents (perception, decision, action, etc). It’s the maths* that formally provides the implications of those axioms when applied, say, to systems of interacting conscious agents. The fact that Minkowski space time, some relativistic effects, the Schrödinger equation, etc, basically fall out of the mathematics when applied to this network of interacting conscious agents is a remarkable finding. Perhaps the consciousness-first ontologies had it right all the time and considering physicalism’s abject failure to derive consciousness from matter despite having at least a couple of centuries to do so, perhaps it’s time we take ideas like Don’s more seriously.

Is a "math makes it true" axiom problematic? Especially if it's a "I leave it up to the math experts to tell me it's true" axiom? I thought math was abstraction, idealization, not territory?

@ObserveByProxy7 Intent influences probability.

Donald Hoffman and co are on the brink of releasing PROOF that consciousness is fundamental and NOT produced by the brain. BREAKTHROUGH: How consciousness creates the simulation;

@TheProjectUnity Let’s hope so.

We are approaching a potential convergence point where multiple high-impact revelations across a variety of sectors in society could become noticed in synchrony, correlations drawn by people in light of these revelations may change our trajectory, away from pre-existing agendas

@DrZamilov @UnchartedX1 @MattBeallPod @DeDunkingPast Valid point, I doubt there is evidence, but does it not make logical sense he’d do such a thing, wouldn’t you? Can you confirm the measurements of precision of your modern vases match the precision of Matt’s vases in the same region of the yellow markers, have they been scanned?

Argument I hear a lot: "Petrie gave away his best vases to private collectors". Where is the evidence of this? The argument was first made by Ben van Kerkwyk @UnchartedX1 . Repeated recently by Matt Beall @MattBeallPod and by Dan Richards @DeDunkingPast. Ben, what do you base this claim on? What evidence do you have to corroborate it? Without evidence, this claim is no different from: "Where is your homework? My dog ate it..." So please, tell us. Perhaps I am wrong. Please provide the data so we can educate ourselves. PS: The video is an amazing aplite bowl (Early Dynastic) from the Pushkin Museum. Scientists Against Myths scanned it last week. Results of the analysis coming soon. The wall thickness is only 2-3 mm!

@TheProjectUnity “The real truth that dare not speak itself, is that no one is in control, absolutely no one... Nobody is in control. This stuff is ruled by the equations of dynamics and chaos. Now, there may be entities seeking control…” -Terence McKenna.

What is the most powerful group in the world?

@DrZamilov @MattBeallPod Ok, so what about the cost to create a unique precision vase via this method back then not even closely equating to the much lower perceived value back then?

I think it dates back to 1800s or even earlier. But in all honesty, I did not study the production methods closely. The earliest known provenance that Adam mentioned dates to 1930s. This is where Egyptian antiquities forgery was especially rampant because of all the exploration going on. This was the time when U.S. was already building sky scrapers, so the technology was there even earlier.

This is how granite stone vases are currently being made in China. While I am waiting on the predynastic Egyptian replica vases to be delivered, I want to point out that Matt Beall @mattbeallpod has a fantastic collection! The vast majority of his objects are authentic according to my analysis: nature.com/articles/s4049…. His 'precise' vases are true works of art, even if we disagree with their ancient Egyptian attribution. Unlike most collectors, Matt has done extensive work studying his artifacts by acquiring 3D CT scans. I am grateful for the opportunity he had given me to study his objects closely. @Graham__Hancock @markqvist @DrDavidMiano @BrightInsight6 @DeDunkingPast @TonyTrupp @SnkBrs @DrHughT @megaminutiae @alexandertolano @ChrisWithRobots @FoMaHun @Apkalluu @goob_the57373 @oligodynamick @ET_Iconoclasta @Bastet545169547 @adancingferret @JosephAPWilson1 @outofspace2 @occamsrazor22 @AncientEpoch @PortantIssues @uapcappa @stinegerdes @FlintDibble @UnchartedX1

@histofarch @DrZamilov @DrZamilov your thoughts on MV008 (a) and MV005 (a)? If your argument is that all private collection vases are modern machined forgeries due to their precision, how do you reconcile these two museum vases being just as close in precision?

@DrZamilov The stone vessels from the Petrie museum that are more precise than some of the modern vessels are: MV008 (a) and MV005 (a)

POLL: Given the overwhelming evidence (nature.com/articles/s4049…) that the quality of the unprovenanced 'precise' stone vases from private collections is indistinguishable from modern, why do you still believe them to be of ancient Egyptian origin? Please give me a well-reasoned objection; I would like to understand and address them. PS Picture of two modern replica examples, machined from red and black granite. @Graham__Hancock @markqvist @DrDavidMiano @BrightInsight6 @DeDunkingPast @TonyTrupp @SnkBrs @DrHughT @megaminutiae @alexandertolano @ChrisWithRobots @FoMaHun @Apkalluu @goob_the57373 @oligodynamick @ET_Iconoclasta @Bastet545169547 @adancingferret @JosephAPWilson1 @outofspace2 @occamsrazor22 @AncientEpoch @PortantIssues @uapcappa @stinegerdes @FlintDibble @UnchartedX1

@DrZamilov Did the machines that created these vases exist in the 50-70’s (sure Matt has provenance certificates from then?). Back then they were worth little compared, so why spend far more to forge one than what it’d be worth to sell. You haven’t found not one museum vase that matches?

@DrZamilov If they had the ability to lift & manoeuvre 1000 ton statues carved with computer-like symmetry, manufacture Serapeum boxes and scoop out stone even our best AI hasn’t figured out, then it isn’t out of the realms of reality similar “lost ancient tech” created the precision vases.

Here is another example of an unfinished stone vessel from the Petrie Museum. You can see it in the early stages of being shaped by lapidary technology. I hypothesized that it was shaped by turning the chiseled blank in wet sand (abrasive). The stone vessel shaping stages: maximus.energy/index.php/2025… PS Do not get me wrong: I am all for finding LOST ANCIENT TECH, but the ancient Egyptian stone vases ain't it, and I do not appreciate the perpetuation of mystification and outright lies about these artifacts. This muddies the waters and makes finding out the truth - and hence finding the REAL LOST ANCIENT TECH - much more difficult. So please be honest, and we will find the evidence in no time! So much effort is wasted on chasing dead ends, all thanks to mystification (or intentional deception?) that makes for a flashy headline :( In fact, I am beginning to think that the REAL CONSPIRACY could be the pollution of the information space with red herrings that intentionally set off researchers onto false tracks, thus preventing finding out THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR PAST. This pollution is exactly why academic researchers won't touch the subject. There are very few people who could tackle the problem, which requires a SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS, study of scientific literature, and writing papers. All of this costs time and money, and in the meantime, one is not generating content. I am not complaining, I love what I do, but if you want me to find out the truth - PLEASE-PLEASE - do not make my work more difficult by propagating false claims and twisting the facts. Cheers! @Graham__Hancock @markqvist @DrDavidMiano @BrightInsight6 @DeDunkingPast @TonyTrupp @SnkBrs @DrHughT @megaminutiae @alexandertolano @ChrisWithRobots @FoMaHun @Apkalluu @goob_the57373 @oligodynamick @ET_Iconoclasta @Bastet545169547 @adancingferret @JosephAPWilson1 @outofspace2 @occamsrazor22 @AncientEpoch @PortantIssues @uapcappa @stinegerdes @FlintDibble @UnchartedX1

@jan_krokan @DrZamilov Exactly. We typically see only one unique variant of the ultra precise vases, or any of the vases for that matter. Meaning someone had to go to the trouble of forking out way over the odds for a unique vase to be precision machined at a time they weren’t worth anywhere near today

@DrZamilov @LostAncientTech @DrZamilov by that statement, it also implies that there should be 10-100x exact replicas of each precise artifacts out there, in the private collections, right? we need to find those, in private collection and then your theory solidifies. imo

This chart is the reason the argument about precise vases being of predynastic origin is over. Allow me to explain: it is never useful to think of anything in terms of a possibility because ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. This is how the Universe works: it is probabilistic. As such, it is possible that any vase, anywhere, is predynastic Egyptian, Atlantean, or made by aliens. It is also possible that I will win Powerball or die in a plane crash. What is useful is to think in terms of likelihood. How likely is this vase to be Predynastic? The probability is much less than 1%. How likely is it to be modern? The probability is nearly 100%. So, rather than keep arguing that 'it is still possible' that the precise vases are predynastic Egyptian (which is possible, like it is also possible that they are alien artifacts or natural rocks), we should focus on discussing likelihood. How likely are they to be predynastic Egyptian? The data tells us - unlikely, with a probability number attached to each vase. Am I full of shit? I don't care about winning the argument or about whether these vases are predynastic or modern. I merely explain here how rational thinking works. This is how rational thinkers navigate the world, and how courts decide criminal cases. It does not mean that I am right: courts (and scientists!) do make mistakes. Science is often wrong because our knowledge is never complete. What bothers me is confusion: it stems from the incorrect use of (and ambiguity) of human language. So please quit saying 'possible' (it is meaningless) and start saying 'likely' or 'unlikely'. It is possible that a dog ate my homework, but it is unlikely. The probabilities may change, and the needle may swing the other way as we get more data. Conclusions may change also. This happens all the time! Open-mindedness means the ability to revise your conclusions in light of new evidence. Likelihoods and probabilities reflect the current state of knowledge and may change as our knowledge broadens. I have already changed my mind once; I will change it again. My science could be wrong, could be wrong, sure. But is it likely? The only way to know is to get more data. So if you want to dig deeper looking for the truth - give me more data to study :) @Graham__Hancock @markqvist @DrDavidMiano @BrightInsight6 @DeDunkingPast @TonyTrupp @SnkBrs @DrHughT @megaminutiae @alexandertolano @ChrisWithRobots @FoMaHun @Apkalluu @goob_the57373 @oligodynamick @ET_Iconoclasta @Bastet545169547 @adancingferret @JosephAPWilson1 @outofspace2 @occamsrazor22 @AncientEpoch @PortantIssues @uapcappa @stinegerdes @FlintDibble @UnchartedX1