The video said it was steel.

What a truly moronic rant............ 🤦

The confirmation bias is a bitch isn't it........... Moral: academics do not "spit on people questioning" - a truly moronic assertion to be blunt. They do however expect said questioning = to be supported by credible evidence upon which all can agree to show plausibility for whatever is then being asserted......... - that part is _"non-negotiable."_ So question away if that is your wont.... Just make sure however if you are going to challenge accepted facts based upon the evidence and analysis that you first have = equally compelling evidence as noted. Absent that any questioning simply becomes "conjecture" of an unsubstantiated nature - usually owing to nothing more than incredulity for its' own sake. p.s. - what is the title of the video............... So why would the video speak about things you rant when that has nothing to do with the subject at hand?? - think about that. Methinks you are bytching here simply to = hear yourself complain.......

I know you think you said something here = but try again. 1 - how to make a copper tube = cast it...... - the same as we do today. That can be accomplished via using molds you make from a variety of substances. Mold casting using say wax or clay an example dates back to antiquity. 2 - the subsequent tube need not be "peerless" as upon using it the action of it rotating against the inside wall created by drilling will smooth it out as it goes. 3 - where is the "wood" which used to be in the holes created = gone obviously...... Think about where this is = Egypt - a mostly desert environment. Thus while the Egyptians certainly imported wood it would be valuable and not left lying around to rot generally. It would be scavenged as say firewood by those who came later or perhaps upon some site being abandoned any salvageable wood was stripped out and reused for something else. Final thought. Look at Egyptian temples and see they are usually = open air........ This means that any holes drilled into stone blocks would be for specific purposes such as framing for a gate etc.. That limits yourself to perimeter walls etc. which means royal enclosures and some temples etc.. So the Egyptians were not drilling holes everywhere as you see them rarely given the effort and expense of creating them and any wood which might be inserted into them.

We as Homo Sapiens had other "cousins" if you will who were similarly closely related. So what you allude to means that only the Apes (Primates) = survived the evolutionary process as all the rest went extinct.

Why bother........ If you use the Corundum separately - such as in an emulsion form by mixing it with say clay and some water to form an abrasive paste = you can collect and reuse what remains from the process without much effort. If however you try to blend it with an alloy then you must not only try to collect the residue of that = you must resmelt it to generate additional tools - which is a costly and time consuming process. Moral: don't "overthink" things. Rather as the "KISS" method says = _"Keep It Stupid Simple."_ Time is money - even in antiquity.

@@varyolla435 the copper would last longer if the abrasive is embedded.

@@mreese8764 Yet that does not alter the fact that your process would be more labor intensive than simply acquiring your bronze tools + corundum. While the Egyptians mined and produced some of their own bronze = they also imported it as well. There were major producers of bronze in the Mediterranean region who supplied the various cultures with already smelted bronze ingots. Sunken ships containing said ingots along with various trading items representing the different cultures to include Egyptians have been found. Further sources of emery corundum existed as well. The Greek Island of Naxos traded in emery corundum and other minerals since the advent of the Bronze Age. So once again what you say might be possible = but we see no evidence of this. It further entails more work to specifically cast your tools whereas bronze tools and corundum along was widely available and easy to use via simply applying it to a particular application. There are examples of bronze tools in museums = just bronze. Follow the evidence of what you see and less "what if......" - unless you happen to have evidence to support that. That is how academic inquiry is done.

You could just perform actual research and easliy find that your claim is false.

@@Eyes_Open By serious with this propaganda egyptian is not build pyramids.

@@morningstar5177 Did you search for the information?

Stones don't need to be lifted. Merely repositioned.

@Eyes_Open that's a good point. But still moving a few tons vs. 1650 tons is quite different

@@shidoin5398 Would certainly require plenty of trained workers, an abundance of lumber, ropes and a knowledge of mechanical advantage.

@@shidoin5398 Not really - though yours is a common mis-assumption. Consider rockets. The earliest rockets were not that large - some being little more than "hobby rockets" today. Yet upon the science proving itself out - Physics in this case - then engineers based upon that now proven science = could apply it to "larger" versions - such as the now multistage rockets which send men into space. Moral: if men using a wooden sledge + some ropes + rollers and manpower can move a stone then as alluded to by others to move something larger requires = more of the same. Heavier loads require thicker sledges and more rollers as alluded to and will require more effort to move obviously. That however can be accommodated via the addition of - animal power - oxen specifically. An ox can pull more than a horse and a fully mature bull - which can weigh upwards of a ton = can typically using a yoke pull at least twice its' own bodyweight - more if on a "slippery" surface such as rollers which act to reduce the friction of the load against the ground.

@varyolla435 With funding, we could produce a stone of 1650 tons and test the theories . But without that testing, it is guessing

It seems you are very proud of your ignorance.

Yes they did, and so did every other race within Homo Sapiens.

LMFAO Nope, it’s the other way around. Every fossil ever found has been proven to be transitional. The burden of proof is on creatards to find one that isn’t. The “missing link” argument is based on a laughably outdated version of the fossil record that no educated person uses anymore.

And nobody is saying monkeys are our uncles. 😂 We evolved alongside modern apes. Of course there’s no half-monkey creature you clueless dolt! Evolution is going forward, not sideways.

where is your proof, magic man believer? Or did you pull it out of your ass?

@@xXPotato_Salad_eaterXx Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories all of which must be backed by evidence. Magic books with collections of Iron Age myths don't cut it as evidence. It shouldn't be that hard to understand, but unfortunately, childhood indoctrination is difficult to overcome. Religion is not based on empirical observation, or questioning, of testing a hypothesis against nature, as is science. Instead, it is based on dogma, authority, revelation, scripture, and faith. Religions are based on stories from ancient cultures seeking explanations for the many things they did not understand. Those stories become religious dogma that is not to be questioned.

It seems you are very proud of your ignorance. In Charles Darwin's 'On The Origin of Species, first published in 1858, he lamented the dearth of fossils available at that time. However, within 2 years, the first of the now 13 fossil specimens of Archaeopteryx lithographica was discovered in Germany. The famous anatomist. Aside from that, there are rather complete fossil specimens of many evolutionary lineages; Equids, Cetaceans, Camelids, and Sirenans, to name a few. EDUCATE YOURSELF! It beats the hell out of ignorance.

WRONG!!!! Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories all of which must be backed by evidence. Magic books with collections of Iron Age myths don't cut it as evidence. It shouldn't be that hard to understand, but unfortunately, childhood indoctrination is difficult to overcome. Religion is not based on empirical observation, or questioning, of testing a hypothesis against nature, as is science. Instead, it is based on dogma, authority, revelation, scripture, and faith. Religions are based on stories from ancient cultures seeking explanations for the many things they did not understand. Those stories become religious dogma that is not to be questioned.

… Except Science isn’t faith…

@@Gorgonopsidcommenter think again

@@cuLirefWdym?

As can be freshly quarried limestone in areas of moisture.

Turned you on, didn't it?

You believe this nonsense?

@@mohamedsadik4789 Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories all of which must be backed by evidence. Magic books with collections of Iron Age myths don't cut it as evidence. It shouldn't be that hard to understand, but unfortunately, childhood indoctrination is difficult to overcome. Religion is not based on empirical observation, or questioning, of testing a hypothesis against nature, as is science. Instead, it is based on dogma, authority, revelation, scripture, and faith. Religions are based on stories from ancient cultures seeking explanations for the many things they did not understand. Those stories become religious dogma that is not to be questioned.

How does evolution disprove creation theory?

Think about what you argue here - in a rather verbose manner at that I must note. If a government says _"we do not know"_ = does that then automatically mean "aliens" - and if so based upon what exactly......... How about a history lesson. During the "Cold War" a lot of top secret military tech development occurred obviously. Yet in the West you have _"freedom of the press"_ whereas in the USSR - and today I'm afraid it still exists in Russia = the press is suppressed by the government. As a result the USSR regularly monitored = American press - looking for anything "unusual" which might indicate secret testing/technology in play. Moral: people jump to the conclusions of "aliens" of course because of = decades of the entertainment genre which has perpetuated via movies and televisions this idea. Thus employing "confirmation bias" via narratives "planted" into their imaginations thanks to years of exposure to this nonsense they take an admitted "unknown" = and they assume away........ Yet as alluded to above there is also the reality that the US Government luvs the whole "UFOs/Aliens" nonsense because it serves to = throw the scent off of their own often top secret military tech development. If people because of fantastical reporting in the news leap to the conclusion of aliens = they will not consider top secret testing - which is often "compartmentalized" such that say Navy pilots who see something unusual would not know a test might be occurring. Conversely if some foreign power was responsible the government would never admit this as it might reveal _"sources and methods"_ on intelligence collection putting the responsible party on notice that the government was aware of their activities. Thus "unknown" simply means = _"unknown"_ - or sometimes we know but cannot openly say. p.s. - there was a doco about above from years ago: _"Mirage Men."_ USAF counterintelligence during the Cold War sometimes actively = promoted the UFO nonsense to as noted throw the scent off of their own top secret testing......

​@@generallobsterThe answer is in the first letter of UAP. Jumping to conclusions is not the answer. Regardless, there is no relevance to the topic of this video. No monuments or artifacts that we see in history required extraterrestrial assistance.

@@Eyes_Open I know, it's just every video is full of mockery about aliens. So I figure...why not use your scientific mind, to explain the case that dumbfounds everyone with a scientific mind.

@@generallobster First learn to = read............ Your answer is in my comment to you = neurobiology and the impact of the entertainment genre accounts for most UFO claims - while as I noted during the Cold War the US Government "encouraged" those claims as a way to throw the scent off of their secret testing in the media. Man sees something "unusual" -------> man *ASSUMES* it to be alien in nature ------> man tells others and it finds its' way into the local paper -------> Soviet intelligence monitors US media -------> US Government responsible for said testing does not wish undue attention of strange sightings in proximity to US military installations = so they "encourage" people to think it is a UFO........ Moral: scientists - read Cosmologists - do not doubt the existence of life "somewhere". That however *IS NOT* the same as believing it is = visiting Earth........ - *THAT* is where the entertainment genre kicks in. We have decades of movies and television about aliens/UFOs - and before that print pulp media. All that "exposure" results in people's imaginations = getting the better of them......... Remember Orson Welles' famous _"War of the Worlds"_ radio broadcast in 1938. It created panic as many assumed = it was real........ _"Mass Hysteria"_ is a real and documented medical phenomenon. So the impact of "UFO/Aliens" in the popular media _"planted the seed"_ in the mind of the public which manifests when someone makes an extraordinary claim. In Psychology it is known as = _"priming."_ Now you have your answer - even if you do not believe it. p.s. - as noted by others this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject-matter here.

@@RegularFlyGuy over 5,000 years of engineering development, and they struggle like this with such a small load? I’m sure you’re aware that the larger the rock gets the exponentially harder it gets to move that rock it’s not just like you apply the same force to a 1 ton rock and take that x20 to move a 20 ton rock.

​@@cleanpiecington23191000s of years of engineering development allows us to use huge diesel powered machinery with hydraulic mechanisms. This video was about not using the advanced tech that we currently have at our disposal. Unless you have a theory about how the laws of physics were different in ancient times, mechanical advantage will be the answer.

So nothing useful to add we see.......... 🥱