Frederick Bott
2 min readApr 6, 2023

--

btw Dave, here is something you might find interesting; I started talking to it about the pyramids, which since I visited as an Engineer, have always been skeptical of the standard narrative on how and why they exist. Within a few minutes, I got from it what conventional (Profit driven!) science currently considers to be the method used to cut the stones of the pyramids - a copper bladed saw, manually drawn back and forth. So we went through me asking what was the wear rate of the saw blade, what equipments were used in the lab experiments used to "prove" the techniques, establishing that (a) they used a motor of unknown characteristics, to draw the blade back and forth, (b) the stone dimensions were 1m x 0.5 metres, they didn't record how much energy the motor used to do the work, but it took 70 hours to cut through the stone, with an unknown number of copper blade replacements.

Within another few minutes I had it calculating the total surface areas cut in the great pyramid, it was a stupendous number, got it to divide that out by the 70 hours it took to cut the stone in the experiment, and the answer was more than 3000 years.

Add to this that would have been if they used a motorised saw, driven continuously, non stop, then add the time to move these humungous machined stones around, and it is obvious, they were not done by any technology we know.

It only took us maybe ten minutes to cover that ground, effectively debunking the standard explanation for how the pyramids were constructed. This gives just a tiny insight into the amount of info we think we know, but actually don't know nothing about, because we never dug into it, there was never any profit in it, even the big bang is being overturned, as we speak.

The profit monster is the thing being exposed, I think the sooner we all get our heads around that, the better, it is the thing tying us into energy by extraction, and how we will starve it, of the energy it lives on, is to stop extracting. Sorry extended rambling again, but I hope it is a little interesting :)

--

--

Frederick Bott
Frederick Bott

Responses (2)