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.


A plastic garbage bag for leaves is usually close to 1 mil thick. Aplastic gift card is usually 30 mils thick. A mil is 1/1000th of an inch.

Also, 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, so instead I will 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.)

Baalbek, Lebanon,

Yangshan Quarry in China,

The 887 statues of Easter Island, some of which weigh up to 82 tonnes,

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?

Here is a picture I “borrowed” from Ebay of some modern offset bushings.

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 in thick. It also exhibits the same very aggressive cut marks. I wish I knew how they made it without breaking it.


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.


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.

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