I will tell you one of my conclusions up front so you have an idea of where I am headed.

Before and just after the world-wide flood, people were extremely intelligent and they created a highly advanced society, but they became self-absorbed, self-sufficient, arrogant, godless and ruthless, so God used various means to judge them.

 Let me show you how much evidence we have for advanced Technology, wickedness, and divine judgement in ancient times. Here is the chart, which I will explain with words below it.

Each of these categories is subdivided into Biblical and physical evidence.

Before the world-wide flood the Bible only gives us some hints of advanced technology; there is no physical evidence of technology that survived the flood. The Bible gives us few details about their wickedness, and there is no physical evidence of it. In contrast, the Bible gives us many details about God’s judgement, and there is much physical evidence of the world-wide flood.

From the flood to the tower of Babel, the Bible gives us some idea that mankind was capable of great achievements, and the Bible gives us just a few indications of their wickedness. The Bible also describes God’s action against mankind at that time.

After Babel, the Bible says nothing about their level of technological advancement, but there is a vast amount of physical evidence for such advancement. Regarding evidence of wickedness there are only a few hints of a physical nature, and there is some observable evidence of judgment.

Here is the hardness of a few selected materials according to Moh’s hardness scale. The underlined ones are the most relevant to our topic.

An American ton is 2,000 Lb. A British tonne is 2,200 Lb. Because one of my primary sources for information is from Australia, the uses of the word tonne in this presentation will be the British tonne, unless indicated to be the American ton.


In this lesson, I will deal exclusively with the vast amount of evidence that has been surfacing which proves a high level of technological advancement in ancient times. There are many more things that I choose not to include, such as: using the pyramids to generate electricity, cutting stones (not cracking stones, but cutting them) with resonant frequencies,  moving stones with resonant frequencies, etc. Those things are very interesting, but as-of-yet, not quite provable (in my opinion), therefore I have chosen to omit them from this presentation. 


I would love to show you some photos of the things I will share in the rest of this lesson, but I don’t have permission to post them on my website yet. I hope to get or take such photos I can legally post online and then make videos. But until I get that done, I encourage you to do an internet search for each major category I will present so you can view photos of them. Seeing photos of what I am talking about will make this lesson much more powerful. But be sure to come back to this site to get a Biblical perspective on what happened to the people who made the amazing things that were left behind.


Megalith mean “large stone”. There are examples of megalithic construction in many places around the world, such as:

Stone Henge, England (20 to 40 tonnes),

In various places in Peru, such as Macho Picchu (the stones were quarried on a different mountain), Cusco, Sacsayhuaman, (where some stones are 150 to 200 tonnes,) and Ollantaytambo, (where some stones are 70 tonnes and were quarried on the side of a mountain on the other side of the valley which has steep sides.)

in Baalbek, Lebanon, where where three stones in the quarry are estimated to weigh One thousand, one thousand two hundred and fifty, and One thousand six hundred and fifty tons. It has tool marks underneath it which are different from the scoop marks in Egypt, but they also seem to be made by a machine. At the temple complex in Baalbek, there are three stones in the foundation that weight between 750 and 800 metric tonnes each. They are not sitting on the ground level but were raised several meters above the ground.

the stupidly large stones of the Yangshan Quarry in China; it’s no wonder they could not be moved,

and the 887 statues of Easter Island, some of which weigh up to 82 metric tonnes.

Then there are the largest stones in the foundation of the Western Wall, Jerusalem, the heaviest of these is estimated at 415 short tons! The wall itself was built by King Herod the Great; but we will talk later about who cut these stones for the foundation.

and also India, Russia (megalithic tombs), Japan, Mexico, Turkey, Europe, and more.

And of course Egypt.


If Megalithic means “with large stones”, Monolithic means “with a single stone.” Usually the stones used in Monolithic construction are even larger than those used in megalithic construction.

The Greeks made pillars in several sections. But long before the Greeks, the builders of ancient Egypt made pillars with single chunks of stone. Even the decorative capital at the top of each pillar was of the same piece of stone (although earthquakes have a way of breaking up such large pillars).

They also made large obelisks out of one chunk of stone weighing several hundred tonnes.  

In Tanis Egypt, one can see the only remaining piece (a foot) from what is called the largest monolithic statue ever made. It was a rose granite statue of a seated king or Pharaoh, estimated to have been approximately 94 feet tall. The Statue of Liberty is 111.6 feet from her heel to the top of her head (not seated, but standing). The Statue of Liberty is hollow, made of pieces of metal that were fastened together. The colossus of Rhodes, long ago destroyed, was made in a similar fashion to the Statue of Liberty and about the same size. The Statue of Liberty weights 225 American tons. The monolith in Egypt is estimated to have weighted over 1000 tonnes. The single stone cut from the quarry before it was shaped into this statue would have been approximately 1500 tonnes. The quarry was 15 kilometers away! How would you move such a behemoth without breaking it? This statue probably fell during an earthquake and broke into pieces, and most of it has been carted away for other uses.


We are told by archeologists and by the Egyptian Ministry of antiquities, that the ancient Egyptians only used tools made of stone, copper or bronze, and yet they were able to cut things that are much harder than copper and bronze.

How did they do it? We are told that they used sand, or a slurry of sand and water or sand and oil as an abrasive. It was the sand doing the cutting, not the bronze bar. The sand ate away at the bar as well as eating away at the stone. That method has been used until recently, so we know that it does work. You can look up photos of people cutting stone in this way, but take note what color the stone is – it is usually white; it looks like limestone not granite; limestone has a hardness of  3 – 3.5, while granite has a hardness of 6.5. Bronze has a hardness of 3, which means they would have gone through lots of bars trying to cut through granite by rubbing a bar in slurry.


While we know that bronze bars and a sandy slurry being pushed and pulled by one or more men can indeed cut stone, what kind of marks would it leave behind?

In Egypt there are many examples of perfectly straight cuts in granite, and sometimes one can observe the curve of the blade on one edge.  IFFFF they used something like a circular saw, some of their blades would have been 32.5 feet across! We have blades that large today, but they are very rare, and I don’t know if we use them to cut through granite. I will return to curved cuts in a moment. But what I really want to talk about is the aggressiveness of the cut rate proved by the striation marks it left on the granite. There are many stones in Egypt that reveal cut marks with individual lines, (think teeth marks) that are between 1/32 and 1/16 of an inch apart. That may not sound like a large amount, but in cutting granite the gaps between those lines are huge. This means each tooth of their saw took a 32nd or 16th inch chomp out of the rock at each pass. Their saws may not have had as many teeth as ours do, and they may have turned more slowly than ours turn. However, doing it that way would require very high pressure and an immense amount of power to achieve such a cut rate.

But … what if they used sand that consisted of larger particles (like larger grit on sand paper)?  Would that increase the aggressiveness of the cut to make the lines be farther apart? (Some say larger granules of sand account for the cut rate seen in Egypt.) The answer is NO! They would only chew through their bronze bars faster, and if they applied heavy pressure, they would destroy their bars faster still. It would cut through the stone eventually, but it would not cut it at a rate of a 32nd to a 16th of an inch per pass. No way!


While a larger number of flat stones in Egypt reveal a slightly curved cutting instrument (like a large circular saw blade), there are also some stones with curves cut into them. Some exhibit slightly curved cuts, while others have beautifully cut shapes with uniform and symmetrical cuts. Many of these are cut in granite, and those that had not yet been polished, reveal the aggressive cut marks mentioned above. In some cases, the cut marks run in a different direction than what we would expect.

The establishment wants us to believe that the Egyptians used primitive tools to make these curved cuts, but they look like the result of highly sophisticated equipment to me.


There is a huge, 1,100 tonne, unfinished obelisk in the quarry at Aswan, Egypt, which exhibits some peculiar markings which may give us hints as to how they cut them. Most of it is finished smoothly while the tip and the sides are not smooth. They show interesting scoop marks which appear to show the crude cutting of the stone before it was made level or straight. Each long scoop in the stone is usually about 12 to 14 inches wide, and they run parallel to each other.

Remember that the establishment tells us that the only tools used in Ancient Egypt were pounding stones and brass or copper tools. But if you were cutting this by hand, why would you leave uniform ridged, and why always that far apart?

If it were some kind of power tool, it would have to be large enough to not allow the bit to be pulled into the area next to it that had already been cut.

It could even be used in cramped quarters to dig part way underneath the massive obelisk.

Such markings are evident in Peru as well as Egypt.


The kind of drilling we see in Ancient Egypt (and Peru) is called tube drilling or core drilling. There are many examples of such drilling all around Egypt.

The establishment wants us to believe that they did it using a rope and a tube with sand put under the tube. The rope is hooked to a bow and the bow is moved back and forth to make the drill bit turn one way, then the other way. Once again, it was the sand that actually did the cutting of the stone.

Once again, I want to turn your attention to how aggressive the drill rate, or feed rate, of this drilling process was despite the fact that they were drilling into granite.

As with the cutting, these marks made by the drill are between 1/32 and 1/16th of an inch apart, meaning that the drill was probably moving slowly and taking huge bites out of the granite with every turn.

There is a specific core that was removed long ago from the inside of a core drill; it has been measured by people who know our modern capabilities of drilling into granite; they calculate that the drill rate in this case was 500 times greater than what we can accomplish today while drilling cores out of granite! (we turn our drill bits fast and take small bites at a time, they probably turned theirs slowly and used high pressure).

How much pressure would it take to drill at this rate? Do you think copper and bronze tools would have stood up to that kind of pressure?

There is also a picture of a core drill that drilled a hole about 6 inches across. Wouldn’t this require even more pressure than the small holes?

Someone in ancient Egypt made large offset bushings out of granite with one side having a very thin layer of stone that appears to be less than 1/8th inch thick. It also exhibits the same very aggressive cut marks. I wish I knew how they made it without breaking it. I would think someone would have to know about offset bushings before setting out to make one or a copy of one. I believe they had and used metal ones, and this was a copy made in stone. I will explain later why someone would even try to make an offset bushing out of stone.


There are many examples of precision machining in Egypt such as multiple VASES AND BOWLS which include chunks of other types of stone which were not of the same hardness. Some are perfectly balanced on a rounded bottom. Many have handles and the vase and the handles are all one piece of stone.

In the last few years, a number of stone vessels from ancient Egypt have been scanned with hi-tech, scanning equipment and the data has been carefully analyzed. All of the pieces scanned are owned by private collectors who specialize in ancient Egyptian artifacts.

I made a chart of the details of six artifacts that were scanned and analyzed. Of those six, all but one of them exhibited between 2 thousandths (2 mils) and 5 thousandths of an inch (5 mils) variance from perfection. The other one was 10 mils off from perfection. For reference, a piece of paper is usually around 4 thousandths (4 mils) thick. A black leaf bag is close to 1 mil thick. We can rightly call that kind of precision micromachining.

More evidence of precise machining is that a number of the vases and bowls seen in museums in Egypt are so thin that the stone is translucent – see through.

 Someone who has a private collection measured a stone receptacle from Egypt and notified Ben Van Weryck of the You Tube channel UnchartedX, whom I have relied on heavily. I don’t know if it was a vase or a bowl since he did not show a photo of that specific vessel. It was determined that the thickness of the walls of the vessel in that private collection were uniform and were only 1/40th of an inch thick. Let’s convert that to mils. 1000 mils divided by 40 = 25. That means it is 25 mils thick. A gift card is usually 30 mils. Imagine carving a stone vase or bowl that has walls that are thinner than a gift card! Then imagine polishing it without breaking it.

Why make something so delicate as an offset bushing made of stone or a stone vessel that has walls that are 25 mils thick?

My personal theory is that the king at that time, probably Mitsraim, whom we will discuss in the last session, required demonstrations of the skills of his laborers before they could gain promotions, or win bids on special jobs, etc. That would explain why we see things in Egypt that are amazing, but don’t seem to serve a useful purpose.


The boxes used to house the sarcophagi in Egyptian pyramids were always cut from a single chunk of granite. They started by cutting off part of one side and that part would become the lid.  After the lid was cut off, they hollowed out the middle of the chunk of stone to make a box. They would also make an inset ledge so that the lid and the box would fit together perfectly.     

Sometimes they purposefully carved divots (which we would call imperfections) into their boxes. It appears that they did this when they found the beginning of a crack and wanted to keep it from getting bigger. For them, strength and durability were more important than beauty. However, they were indeed capable of an amazing degree of precision. Whether with permission or without permission I do not know, but engineer and author Christopher Dunn was able to check the inside of one box for squareness and for straight lines. It appears that he used a helper/photographer, a flashlight and his engineer’s square and straight edge. The straight edge he used is guaranteed by the manufacturer to be straight and smooth to an accuracy of 1/10,000th of an inch. He checked several spots on all the surfaces while shining the flashlight on it. Light will penetrate the smallest gap, but light was never seen coming through. That means there are no high points, or low points, no undulations are bumps. The walls and floor of that box were perfectly straight.   To get an idea of how small 1/10,000th of an inch is, take a piece of garbage bag, hold it carefully between your fingers, and slice it into ten equally thin slices – without cutting your fingers.  Each one of those is 1/10,000th of an inch thick. But we don’t really know how precise that box is because its smoothness and straightness exceeded his ability to test for errors.

He also checked for squareness by using his engineer’s square which is guaranteed by the manufacturer to be accurate to 5/100,000 of an inch. Once again he used a flashlight, and once again no light came through.  That means the box’s corners are perfectly square to at least 5/100,000th of an inch. But once again, the precision of the box exceeded his ability to test for errors, so we don’t know exactly how precise it is. If you take another piece of garbage bag and slice it into 100 equally thin slices, (without cutting your fingers) each one would be 100,000th of an inch thick. If you took 5 of those slices and put them together, then you would know what 5/100,000th of an inch is like.

After cutting the boxes, they had to grind away the cut marks and then polish them, all without compromising this incredible degree of precision.

In order to do such precise work, they would have to be able to measure for such precision, since the human eye struggles to see even a single mil of thickness.

If they had equipment, they also had everything necessary to make the equipment.


Here is something we do not see in Egypt. The Quimbaya tribe of Columbia has long made small golden artifacts that look like airplanes!

There are a total of 18 of these planes (although I think there is one more that is not included in this photo). Here is a list I have made of the various characteristics of the planes from a photo that includes 18 in one shot (some of these are hard to see in the photo of all of them together, so I looked at other close-up photos too).

Have a small horizontal stabilizer at the tail = 18

Have a large vertical stabilizer at the tail = 17

Have large, mean mouths (some with teeth) = 17

Have a big head, small neck, then a thick body = 15

Have some representation of vortices (or vortexes if you prefer) = 8

Have triangular shaped wings that are not quite true delta wings = 7

Have straight wings = 4

Have vertical cannisters for dropping things on enemies, or for vertical lift-off = 4 

Have a true delta wing shape = 2

Have curved wings = 2 (one curved frontward, one backward)

Have butterfly wings = 1

Have a visible source of power = 1 has a propellor, but it is flat and thus would do nothing


Support #1: we are told that these airplane artifacts were found by grave robbers in 1890 and were a small part of a large cache of golden treasures purchased by the President of Columbia in 1891; over 400 golden pieces of this treasure were shipped to the Queen of Spain. The rest remained in Columbia. None of the small airplanes were sent to Spain (they held no meaning back then because it was over 10 years before the Wright brothers flew their biplane).

Support #2: all of the planes remained in Columbia and are now displayed in the Museum of Gold in Bogota. That museum opened its doors in 1939 and received its first artifacts from the Quimbaya collection in that same year. I don’t know if any planes were in that first set, but they probably knew that the collection of Quimbaya artifacts included planes as early as 1939. (https://inauguracion+del+museo+de+oro+bogota&ia=web)

However, delta winged planes were not built until the mid 1950s.

Support #3: Control surfaces and other details they got right. If these artifacts were the work of people who were imagining what powered flight might look like, they were not likely to get very many details right, rather their conceptions would be general and crude. Think of Michael Angelo’s concepts of a helicopter. It was simply a screw made of sail material with two men turning the screw. It would indeed create lift if it were turned with enough power. But could two men turn it fast enough to lift their own weight? And what about control surfaces? How would they control this thing? – They could not! Yet all but one of these planes have tails that include both a vertical control surface and a horizontal control surface. (Most crude ideas about human flight have simply copied birds, but birds do not have a tail that includes both a horizontal stabilizer and a vertical control surface as most of these artifacts do.)

Support #4: People have scanned several of these artifacts, and the corresponding computer software has said that they could fly. Others have made scale models of one or two of the Quimbaya planes, attached a motor and propellor, and the planes did fly. So, they got enough things right that many of these planes would fly.

Support #5: Vortices (vortexes). 7 or 8 of the Quimbaya planes show some representation of a vortices. How would Indians in South America know that planes create vortices? Either planes had existed earlier, and they heard stories about them producing vortices, or these artifacts were created after modern planes came into being. It is not likely that the Quimbaya Indians, with no prior knowledge, would have guessed that planes create vortices.

Support #6: many of these planes show some physical features that are obviously incorrect. If these artifacts were forgeries created after powered flight reached the era of delta-wing planes in the mid-1950s, they would not have made some of the mistakes they made. Those errors included the following:

– very small wings and a very thick body, meaning they have a ratio of lifting surface to body size that is too small to generate enough lift to carry a fuselage of that size, 

– something on the plane that looks like the vortices they created, i.e. swirls that look like vortexes on the leading edge (front edge) of the wing (even if such swirls would create vortexes, they are on the wrong side of the wing), vortex-like swirls cut into the wing which curl in toward the fuselage (in real life, such a vortex would swirl the other direction),

– large canisters that stick up from the fuselage as a representation of the ability to drop things on enemies below, or for vertical lift-off capabilities.

– a small neck between a big head and thick body, which would create drag.

– If these were fakes, created after 1950, they would have been closer to the real thing, with just a few small differences. The creators would probably have done what people today do if they want to draw a car that is not an obvious representation of any car being made today – they would make a plane that looks real but is not an identical replica of any one plane. Thus, these major mistakes give them greater validity.


– mouths with teeth,

– features of birds, moths, or flying fish


People struggle to believe that such advancements as a delta wing plane could have existed at any point in ancient time.

{In my lesson about technology from the flood till the tower of Babel, I will give you my opinion about why these artifacts are shaped the way they are and how they connect to the Biblical narrative. Yes, I will be mean and make you wait}


These chambers were carved into solid granite (and polished to a high degree of luster) and show great precision on many levels when measured by modern scanning technology which analyzed 132 million points of data for each chamber.


Has the following characteristics:

Walls that demonstrate perfection to about 5 hundredths of a millimeter,

Complex shapes that show perfection measured to within 2.5 mm,

Corner angles of 88.5 degrees that do not vary more than 8/10s of a degree along the entire wall,

Other angles that are 87 degrees and vary only by 1/10 of a degree.

After scanning the entire chamber with 132 million points of data, they took one half of the image and flipped it around to superimpose it over top of the other half; they did this twice in order to show how close the structure is to perfection regarding longitudinal symmetry and transverse symmetry.

This process revealed that this chamber has vaulted ceilings where 69.7% of the points measuring the ceiling are within 2.5 millimeters of perfection regarding longitudinal symmetry,

and 75.1% of them for transverse symmetry (width).

These percentages don’t sound like perfect symmetry, but they actually show very good workmanship for a difficult task performed on a very hard material. Cutting anything out of a granite mountain is more difficult than building something with the material of your choice. The Sistine chapel and the Hagia Sofia both have curved ceilings, either vaulted or domed, but that is not as difficult as carving a vaulted ceiling out of granite, and I wonder how precise those two structures actually are. While carving a vaulted ceiling, if something starts to go off plan, everything after that will be wrong. If you or I tried to carve a chamber into a granite mountain and tried to give it a vaulted ceiling, what would our scan numbers look like?


Has the following characteristics:

Small walls inclined at 89 degrees with a variance of 22 hundredths of a degree,

Large walls inclined at 87.3 degrees with a variance of only 15 hundredths of a degree,

Vaulted ceilings where 77.6% of the points related to the ceiling are within 2.5 millimeters of perfection for longitudinal symmetry, and 67.8% for transverse symmetry (width).

These chambers often show the intermingling of several circles, spheres and other shapes, when analyzed with scanning equipment. In at least one of these chambers they purposefully carved a circle within a circle within a circle.

There are two chambers, separated by enough rock to carve another chamber between them, yet they have lines that run straight from the entrance tunnel of one to the entrance of the other.

Then the computer scan showed that their lines were straight, even after passing through meters of solid rock!

They also found that the chamber on the right and the lines connecting the two chambers are oriented to the North, South, East and West, while the chamber on the left was cut at a different orientation.


Why did they hate or fear the 90-degree angle? Maybe you wondered the same thing. For whatever reason, they used precise angles that were close to but not exactly 90-degree angles (88.5, 87, 89, 87.3 degrees). Because they cared about such things, they had the ability to create and consistently maintain very precise angles in walls carved into granite. They had to be able to measure these things precisely in order to do that.

These chambers were “tuned” to a specific resonant frequency. The practice of building things with resonant frequency in mind is a recurring theme when one studies ancient technology. It was obviously important to them, and they knew how to achieve it.

These builders in India, like others in Egypt and Peru, seem to have used a measuring system that, like the meter, is based on the circumference of the earth!

 The level of precision in these chambers is not perceived by the unaided eye; it must be analyzed with high tech equipment to be appreciated. At the very least, this implies that the people who carved these chambers also had some method for analyzing their work. A more forthright assessment would be to say that they could not have carved these chambers without high tech equipment. This level of precision is not attained by accident, by guessing, or by just “eyeing it”.

With things we build today, we seldom bother to analyze what we have made with 132 million points of data and then flip half of the image around to determine how symmetrical our structure is. Because we are not striving for a precise level of symmetry, I’m sure our structures would not look good at all when analyzed in this way.

Most of the things we make are objects that stand alone as their own separate entity; we can put them on a table, or a pallet and move them around. If we mess up the project terribly, we can get rid of that one and start over with another one. But when they carved these chambers out of a granite mountain, they only had one chance to get it right. If they made a major mistake and were forced to abandon their project, they would have left a big hole in the mountain that was obviously abandoned mid project.

What’s more, cutting these chambers with a specific resonant frequency in mind means they could not make a mistake and then simply adjust the plan in order to absorb or cover up the mistake. Doing so would throw them off their target frequency. They had to get it right the first time.


You are probably asking, Who made these things? When did they live? What happened to them? What happened to their tools?

Next, we will begin to look at the hints in the Bible that help us create a mural that will address those questions.


The point of all this is that some people, at some point in ancient times, were doing some amazing things!


If you want to see more about these topics, I recommend that you click on the link at the end of this paragraph and watch the video of a presentation made by Ben VanWyreck of the the UnchartedX You Tube channel. Starting at minute 20 and going through minute 51 of his video, he gives a good summary of what I have shared in written form above. Prior to minute 20 he goes into some evolutionary stuff and after minute 50 he goes into great detail about something which he covers better in a future video, the link for which is also found below. The impact of seeing this stuff will far surpass my ability to write about it, but once again I do not have permission to post those videos or photos online (I may have to make a trip to Egypt myself someday).

Here is that summary presentation:

An excellent video about modern analysis of ancient Egyptian vases is found at this link:

Or you can check out individual videos (usually 1 hour long) on his You Tube channel called Unchartedx.

There are many other people talking about this stuff on You Tube, but I like the Unchartedx channel the best.

Here are a couple links to information about the museum of gold in Bogota, Columbia. http://(https://inauguracion+del+museo+de+oro+bogota&ia=web),_Bogot%C3%A1

Several of the sites I visited about this museum are written in Spanish. If you can read Spanish well, I suggest you do a search in Spanish because that will open up more sources for you.

Here are the links to the information about Barabar in India:

The next lesson in this study of Advanced Technology in Ancient times is ADVANCED TECH AND THE EGYPTIAN MINISTRY OF ANTIQUITIES