So I'm going to start off with a map. This is kind of a mash-up between average income and population density. And the fact of the matter is global brands, they know their future revenue and earnings growth. They're not coming from these blue regions, North America and Western Europe. But rather, there's this newfound emphasis on the purple and red regions. These are the regions of the home of this new emerging middle class. And this new class, we're talking about 2.4 billion people. And it's growing, right? I mean, since 2000, the aggregate wealth in India has tripled. In Indonesia, it's more than quadrupled. And by 2020, we're going to see over a billion middle class consumers in India and China. So this is retail as we know it. I mean, this is a photo that we took in Carrefour back in 2012 when Carrefour announced that they're actually pulling out of Indonesia. Now why would an organization pull out of a country of 250 million consumers that's projected to be one of the largest economies in the world by 2020? It's two words. It's system D. System D is this phrase that has been kind of pirated from Francophone Africa and popularized by Robert Neuarth. And it basically talks to these entrepreneurial resourceful merchants in this informal economy, an economy that's not necessarily regulated. One that's not necessarily has much registration or taxes at all. But it's massive. There's 1.8 billion people who are working in system D, almost half of the workers on the planet. And this is something that is, again, going to be growing. And it's challenging because these are people who are operating outside of the traditional regulations. But it is massive. It is the largest retail channel in the world. There's over $10 trillion. And so people think that Walmart is PNG's largest customer. And the fact of the matter is that PNG's largest customer are these group of informal entrepreneurs. And there's some real challenges associated with going to market in these places, right? Not only do you have to figure out all of these, how do you get into this fragmented distribution channels? But there's clear issues associated with copyright that a lot of global brands are very tentative about. The other major challenge associated with system D is how do you provide discounts to consumers? Like if you're selling your product in system D in India and you want to give 10 rupees off across the board, do you think that rural merchants actually going to take 10 rupees back from his till and give it to that consumer? Ultimately, system D, the D could stand for the shortcomings. There is a real lack of data. There's no way to discount. So at JANA, what we believe is that the mobile phone has a real opportunity here to make a difference into this massive retail channel. Now, as we heard earlier, there's over 7 billion active mobile subscriptions on the planet today. More than 5 billion of them are coming from emerging markets. This is the fastest growing technology adoption ever. And so we started the company actually in East Africa. We were giving prepaid air time to people to give us some data about themselves and their shopping patterns. And this was so popular that we started thinking about what other types of actions can we start incentivizing in these underserved, understudied markets? And so that's the opportunity we're going after. So you're buying a bar of soap in Bangalore. We can give you 20 rupees of air time. You fill out a survey in Shanghai. We'll give you one RMB worth of air time. You even watch a video in San Paulo and you can start earning air time. And so you're starting to basically start engaging with brands and providing data. And so while you start, when you think about this technology as something that drives promotions in reality, it's something that really is focused on data. And we're relatively big now. We've integrated with 237 mobile operators, which means we can instantly compensate all 2.4 billion emerging middle class consumers. And what does that mean in practice?  So the consumer goes to our system D merchant. She buys the shampoo. She types in the unique ID on the inside of the pack. And instantly her phone receives 10 rupees worth of credit. So we're bypassing that traditional retail channel. And the real value is not the sales lift that we're driving, but rather the data, right? We're finally being able to start quantifying the world's largest retail channel. We're starting to create a dialogue between these global brands and these next billion consumers. And it's something that, you know, can bypass that traditional retail channel. So the average consumer in emerging markets spends upwards of 10% of their days wage on mobile air time. You know, if we can redirect half of that $200 billion that's being spent on advertising right now in emerging markets, if we can redirect it away from the people who own the billboards and directly into the pockets of the very consumers that these global brands are trying to reach, we could give a billion people a 5% raise. And so, you know, that is, from my perspective, the future of retail. You know, we have more insights, you know, more efficient marketing and ultimately economic empowerment on an unprecedented scale.  Thank you.


The lake this morning boys and girls. There is not one car at the bow ramp. We're here pretty early The Sun is just coming up. It's a beautiful day. It feels amazing now right now I believe it's like low 60s maybe like 63 degrees. This is the first step today. We got to get this cover off Finally on the boat. Yes, we're on the boat ramp. It's time to get off here and go catch the fish. Let's go Such a soft bite. It has been Three or four hours three hours, maybe then we're creeping up on three hours first bite of the day Not even like first fish. It's literally first bite of the day beautiful Higichi chunky bass Pretty colors on him That's a nice little fish Start off today. Welcome back to another video today. We're out on the Higichi River Searching for some big bass. Just got our first fish of the day You know what I always say it doesn't matter about the size of the first one Just gets us started.  Hold up Projected to rain in the next like 20 minutes. So I'm hoping it doesn't but right now it's been high tide all morning This is the toughest tide in my opinion for me to catch fish So once this tide drops water gets lower. I think it's gonna get a lot better. It's also super windy today We're kind of tucked in this little tiny canal right now We're gonna keep on fishing along this bank. So it needs some more fish stacked up and see if we can catch us a good one If you guys are wondering what I'm throwing I got a Texas rig right now It's a basic black and red rage curl have it on a 3wg hook with a 1 eighth ounce Lead weight. I usually like to throw a quarter which is 1 fourth But this is all I got for right now. So it's getting the job done had that first bite right there on that Bank so what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna backtrack and fish really good right here because there could be some more fish stacked up One thing to think about is when you find one fish, there's usually multiple So we're gonna work this thing real good along this bank. Hopefully we'll start getting on some good fish There we go.  It's a little thing So you need to pick up on it's high tide these fish push up way up in there And I had to work that thing so slow We've got a solid fish to eat it beautiful markings on this bass It's almost weird little spots on its fins too. It's crazy We're pretty fish. That is a good one shortly after our first fish. Let's go Fishing this little tiny slew I Actually never caught one in this before it looks very juicy. It looks like a good place for a bass to tuck up and I've never caught a fish out of here. That was my first one Ever so that's very exciting and I know there has to be more than one so I'm just Really working this flute good in here. I was working it the first time very slow Even the first fish we had right before this one very soft bite Fishing is very slow right now And I'm just waiting for this water to come out because right now it's this high tide is really killing me It'll be difficult sometimes to catch these fish and I want to get on some good big ones I mean that last fish right there was a good fish, but I want to get on some four and five pounders if I can Nice almost wasn't even gonna work that cast back in I got stuck on one of those little Things hanging from the bank another one on the crawls three fish quick man We've been hunting for hours today got us another pretty little bass nothing big, but hey, he's fun to catch So cool these fish man I swear they had weird sometimes and you just got a hundred round I mean we went up river this morning. We went all the way down. I fished a few spots nothing Came to one of my old reliable spots and and boom, you know, we're catching them so Heck I cannot complain at all we're getting bites steady too So we're gonna stay here for a good bit until that tide starts to drop and then we'll go up river But um right now. I don't really see a reason for us to move You know, it's just painting out, you know, we caught three fish and probably I'd say 25 minutes max So maybe there'll be some more stacked up back here dang goodbye So my curl to back all the way out of we got a pretty far way to go It bends up there. That's not the Let's go Sorry about the wind guys. It is brutal today, but just got our fourth fish right after that other bite Makes sense. We're gonna fish this real good. It might be a timing thing. It might start biting. It's a beautiful little fish right there So what I did is I actually have a different curl on now. This is a green pumpkin I've been on a straight-shank hook because I ran out of EWG's and I ran out of bullet weight So I had to put this big one on but it actually helps in this current. So like I said, I apologize for the wind Let's let's keep fishing. I know there's some more here. Oh I got him. Oh, it's a good one too.  This is a good one He's fighting so well. I really got it. Oh Not bad. He's a lot bigger than that But hey, we're catching them.  I Thought I wasn't going to catch that. I'm about to say I missed two fish in the spot I beamed it way back there in this little tiny canal Pretty fish. I think this heavy weight's actually helping out too. There might be some more in there I could have been a separate fish that bit me, but I doubt it. I mean my whole rod was going He just yanked on my rod Or the Let's throw back in there.  That's the type of stuff that just makes me not want fish I threw perfectly in between this little crack That's annoying No way Okay Just pulled my boat up there, but I guess I didn't spook this one off Oh Tiny dude, but heck he's a fish.  How do you have been a mudfish? That wasn't a bass. I don't think Dude, that's insane. I never saw that fish eat it. It just hit the water. It was already running Had to have been a mudfish man. It's a clean crisp cut Man, I don't have any more EWGs, but hopefully that won't be a problem with this fluke It's a good sign to get a bite even though I think it was a mudfish If it wasn't it was a big big bass. I don't know Pretty positive as a mud though if we're to cut it that clean Oh, that's him. Yep Oh, he's nice big as I thought it's a dang good one though. One of the best today can't complain a Decent little fish right there. What does he have? That's my fluke tail hanging out of his mouth. Speak to me. There we go I think we're getting to one of the good spots back here, but Pretty fish Let's fish wide number number seven We're finishing off in this big fish hole. I'm just praying that that's oh, there's gonna be a big one I think it's about to heat up here in a second. We're gonna catch one in the next five minutes


The best double majors for engineering, that's what we're gonna be talking about today. This was a highly requested video. I get these requests all the time, talking about Shane, can you do videos on these different random double majors? And so I'm doing an entire series on these just to talk about the different double majors that go really well together. But before we get into that, gently tap the like button in order to defeat the evil YouTube algorithm. On this channel, we talk about personal finance, college degrees, careers and opportunities that are gonna lead you success and we also go over how you can avoid some of the common financial traps that so many people fall for.  Only about 18% of you have at this point and then hit the notification bell as well so that you never miss out. So first, let's jump right into it. Let's talk about engineering degrees and technology degrees. This is one that I get all the time people ask me about different engineering degrees and whether they should double major in computer science for instance, just because I mentioned that one so much on the channel. Well, if you look into it, an electrical engineering degree plus a computer science degree, you're gonna start off around $101,000 a year and then it's gonna be $152,000 in mid-career pay.  That's like one of the best on the entire list. Starting off right after four years of college, right after your bachelor degree at $101,000 a year is just nuts. A little bit more realistic one would be computer science plus engineering and that one you're gonna start off around $74,000 a year and then mid-career pay would be 124,000. Now one career path that you might go down is becoming a computer network architect and they make around $112,000 a year. There's 160,000 jobs available and it's growing at 5% which is faster than average. I remember there was one time and I've told this story before on the channel but very briefly I'll just kinda tell it again. There was one time when I was studying in college and there was always this McDonald's that I would go to in order to study because they had free wifi and cheap coffee and a lot of the time there would be this other guy who was there working on his laptop. Eventually we started talking to each other and he told me what he did for a living and he was a computer network architect. It turned out that he was kinda one of the world's foremost experts on his specific niche in computer network architecture. He worked for one of the biggest companies in the world and he only worked like maybe 10 to 20 hours a week. It kinda depended on which week it was. Yet he was getting paid in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So he was basically just semi-retired and he was kinda just consulting for the company maybe 10 hours a week. Sometimes it would be a little bit more and then there would be some weeks where you pretty much wouldn't do anything. So as you can see, these are skills that are highly, highly valued.  However, I will say here that a computer science degree is already pretty difficult on its own and an engineering degree is probably one of the most difficult degrees that you could do. There are many people that aren't able to finish their engineering degree or even their computer science degree in four years and they have to take an extra year, sometimes even two years. So double majoring in these would be even more difficult. So you definitely wanna know what you're getting yourself into if you try to do something like this. Realistically, the average person is probably not going to double major in computer science and engineering unless you're some kind of genius or child prodigy. But if you do, you are gonna be good to go. And one test that I always like to do is type in what degree you want to get onto monster.com. So for instance, when you type in computer science degree about 142,000 job listings pop up. That means 142,000 jobs mentioned the keyword computer science degree. You can compare that to a theater arts degree where only about 235 job listings list that keyword. And an electrical engineering degree is somewhere in the middle, still pretty good. And that's around 23,400 job listings. So even if you just got an electrical engineering degree on its own, you'd be good to go and same for computer science. Realistically, you probably wouldn't wanna get both of them together unless it was a very specific situation where you're trying to go for a very specific job that actually wants people to have both of those skills. Next on the list, we're gonna talk about something that might be even more difficult, which would be an engineering degree plus another engineering degree. So for instance, you might get a chemical engineering degree and a good combination with that would be a material science engineering degree. With that one, you would expect to make around $74,000 a year starting out and 137,000 in mid-career pay. Another great combination might be a mechanical engineering degree with an aeronautical engineering degree and with those, you would expect to make around $66,000 a year starting out and 119,000 in mid-career pay. Another one that I think would be very synergistic, it would be a good combination, would be a computer engineering degree and an electrical engineering degree where you would expect to make around $73,000 a year starting out and 123,000 in mid-career pay. So one career path that you might go down if you got that last one, for instance, would be a computer hardware engineer. They make around $117,000 a year. There's 71,000 jobs available and it's growing at 2%, which isn't that great, especially when you consider it's in the technology industry. However, with that being said, the skills that you learn as a computer hardware engineer, it wouldn't be very difficult for you to just transition into another type of technology career. And I'm just gonna mention this again. This is very subjective, of course, because everybody has their strengths, but whenever I do research on the degrees that are gonna be really hard, engineering degrees are always gonna be at the top of the list. You want to be honest with yourself here and if I'm being honest with myself, I don't know if I would have been able to do an engineering degree at 18 years old. Maybe I would have risen to the occasion, but to be honest with you, I was more interested in just enjoying college. So doing two engineering degrees at the same time would be just crazy unless you're super smart or maybe it's your passion, it's like you just can't stop thinking about it, it's the number one thing in your life. Other than that, you probably don't wanna do it. A better idea, especially when it comes to engineering, would be to get a dual degree, something like electromechanical engineering, where you're gonna be learning something about electronics, but also about mechanical engineering at the same time. Next on the list, we're gonna be talking about an engineering degree plus a science degree. So one synergistic combination that you might consider here would be materials, science, and engineering. With this combo, you'd make around $69,000 a year starting out and 111,000 in mid-career pay. Another one you might consider would be polymer science and engineering and with this one, you'd make around $69,000 starting out and 103,000 in mid-career pay. So one career path you might consider going down is becoming a chemical engineer. They make around $108,000 a year. There's 32,000 jobs available. It's going at 4%, which is around average. Now one great thing that I will say about engineering degrees is just the fact that they're so well respected. So let's say you get a chemical engineering degree and then you want to become a chemical engineer and then maybe five years down the line, you decide, hey, I don't really wanna do this anymore. It's actually relatively easy for you to go into different career paths. The reason for this is because first of all, the skills that you learn as an engineer are just extremely practical. And then second, a lot of companies have the philosophy of just hiring the smartest people. They know that if you're an engineer, you're able to get through that curriculum.  Now the big problem with science related degrees and you see this popping up over and over again and I've talked about this in quite a few videos is the fact that it's not as good as the other STEM related degrees. So for instance, with a lot of science related degrees, you'll end up having to go back to school, get a master's or a doctorate, just to be able to start your career. There's not gonna be that many jobs available, especially in that career path. If you want to go down the science route when you get a science degree. Now of course there are some exceptions there and if you do your research and you plan ahead, you can definitely avoid that trap but it does seem to be a common theme. So it might be a good idea for you to consider mixing a science related degree with an engineering degree just because it's a little more practical and it'll be easier for you to find a job. Again, science degrees are no walk in the park. They're probably not as hard as math or engineering but they're still pretty tough. And so it would probably be very difficult for you to do this and you have to take that into consideration. But let's say you became a chemical engineer for instance, they have a 1.7% chance of being automated. So the skills that you would learn there are pretty much future proof. And even if that job was automated, the skills that you would learn would be transferable to all kinds of different types of careers. Next one on the list is probably gonna be a little bit more realistic for most of the people watching this video and that's going to be a business degree mixed with an engineering degree. Business degrees in general are extremely good for double majoring in and minoring in. They tend to not be as difficult as a lot of the other types of degrees like math, science, engineering, and technology, et cetera. Yet you're going to learn skills that are going to be evergreen and the statistics show that business related degrees and business graduates do tend to do pretty well. So one combination you might consider would be an industrial engineering degree and a management degree. And they would make around $63,000 a year starting out at 106,000 in mid-career pay. Now as an industrial engineer you would make around $88,000 a year. There's 295,000 jobs available and it's growing at 10% which is much faster than average. I do think industrial engineering in general is a little bit underrated and it is one of the better engineering degrees in my opinion. It's gonna be focused on streamlining and automating different processes within businesses. And I also think this would be a really good combination if you thought that you might wanna start a business yourself in the future. After getting a few years of work experience and learning really valuable skills, you might notice that there's a huge opportunity out there for you to start a business. And when I did my research on the degrees that produced the most millionaires engineering did come up as the number one degree and then six out of the top 10 degrees were business degrees. And I think one of the main reasons for this is a lot of them do end up starting their own business down the line and of course you can make quite a bit more money starting your own business than working in a salary job. And then I think the second big reason that business degrees tend to earn more throughout a lifetime, they tend to become millionaires is because you learn the basics, the fundamentals of personal finance at a young age. If you can run the numbers for a huge company it would be very easy for you to learn how to budget for yourself because you're gonna be exposed to and learning skills that are extremely valuable like budgeting, saving and investing at a young age. Most people don't start investing until they're in their 30s and so you're gonna have a huge leg up on the competition. The next one on the list is going to be an engineering degree plus any degree that interests you. And the reason for this is again engineering is hard enough on its own so you really don't need to take another hard or difficult degree. Most types of engineering degrees are practical and you're probably not gonna have that part of the time finding a job. And engineering degrees tend to teach you hard skills, very specific and measurable things like how to design an engine if you're a mechanical engineer for instance. Whereas there's a lot of other types of degrees out there things in social science for instance that tend to teach you the soft skills. Things like how to formulate an argument, how to think critically in real life and how to communicate with other people. So for instance, three subjects that I'm really interested in and I took extra classes on were film, history and philosophy. I didn't double major in them but I voluntarily took extra classes just because I find these subjects extremely interesting. So one career path you might consider going down is becoming an environmental engineer. They make around $88,000 a year. There's 55,000 jobs available and it's growing at 3% which is around average. But the truth is if you become an engineer you can pretty much go down any different type of career path. So for instance, engineering degree graduates who go into all occupations earn around $3.5 million over a lifetime whereas all majors and all graduates earn on average around 2.4 million. Engineers that go into management are gonna earn even more at around $4.1 million over a lifetime and even engineers that go into art are gonna earn around $3 million over a lifetime which is much higher than average. So the truth is you can get an engineering degree and you'll likely make pretty good money no matter what career path you decide to go down. Now there's a lot of argument here on why exactly that is. It could be because the skills that you learn getting an engineering degree are going to be transferable to just about anything that you do out there because it's basically just practical problem solving. It could also be that engineering degree graduates are just universally respected and so companies just want to hire them in general because they know they're pretty smart and they're probably pretty hardworking or it could kind of be a chicken or the egg scenario where people who tend to go for engineering degrees and ones who are able to actually graduate get through that very difficult curriculum are also people who are probably very smart and they're good problem solvers and so they tend to do really well when it comes to finances. Nobody really knows for sure whether it's correlation or causation but I think it probably has a little bit to do with both. And the next one on the list is going to be maybe you should consider not double majoring especially when it comes to engineering related degrees they're already going to be difficult enough as it is but if you put more work on yourself if you double major instead of doing something that might be more important like getting an internship, networking, learning valuable skills you probably are going to be kind of wasting your time. I see this all the time in the comments people will ask me like Shane should I get a computer science degree and a computer engineering degree and a management information systems degree and should I triple major? And 99% of the time the answer to that is going to be no. First of all, you'd have to be a genius in order to do that and you probably still, even if you're a genius you still wouldn't be able to do it in four years. Second of all, your time would probably be much better spent doing other things like getting internships, learning skills or networking. What I always recommend doing is figure out what career path you want to go down or maybe even just choose a few different career paths and then figure out what steps you need to take in order to get there. The best way for you to do that is to contact somebody who's currently working in that career path and then ask them what you should do in order to get there. Most of the time, they're probably not going to tell you that it would be a good idea for you to double major or triple major in something. I'm sure there's a few exceptions here and there where it might be a good idea for you to get like a computer science degree and an engineering degree at the same time that would be a really cool combination. I'm not going to lie. But for most people, depending on what job you're trying to go for it's not going to be necessary. And when you reach out to these people they're probably going to tell you to just get like one degree and then spend the rest of your time networking maybe doing projects, learning extra skills. And then most importantly, getting some real life work experience by either doing an internship or getting a job. But that's just my two cents here. This was a highly requested video. So, you know, make sure you do your research on your own. This is just my opinion. Most of the time, if you're really interested in learning about another subject it would be really easy for you to just maybe take extra classes, study it on the side or just study it on your own. A lot of the top universities like Harvard for instance, offer tons of classes for free where you can get lectures from the smartest people in the world for absolutely free. You can also just buy the textbooks that they use that semester for like 20 bucks off of Amazon and then go along while you're going through the class.  Now I've been working on this really exciting project over the last few months. It's not yet completed. It's only in version 1.1 right now but I'm basically trying to make the best and most complete list of college degrees in the world. I'm also gonna be posting things on my Patreon that don't really make sense to put on YouTube. Like for instance, I'm gonna put my stock portfolio investments on there. So check that out. Link is down in the description below. If you haven't done it already, go ahead and gently tap the like button in order to defeat the evil YouTube algorithm. Hit that subscribe button. Only about 18% of you have done it right now. What the heck's going on with that? Ring the notification bell. Comment down below any thoughts, comments, criticisms, et cetera. Share the video with all of your friends and before you leave, make sure to check out my other videos right here. I made them just for you.


Today, I'm very proud to announce the first of the three pillars of the family's first agenda. This pillar is one we call Protecting Vulnerable Families. We have a duty in this wealthy province to protect and care for BC's most vulnerable citizens. And our government takes that duty very, very seriously. That's why the policies laid out in this plan are designed to help families continue to progress and thrive and become more self-sufficient. We're working to reduce poverty across the province in many ways, like providing low-income families with enhanced supports to help them get by. Getting back into the workforce for a lot of people with disabilities is a really important way for them to become part of the society and a way to break out of the cycle of poverty that a lot of people with disabilities find themselves in. So I thank both the minister and the Premier for making those changes happen today. And like always though, there's still a lot of challenges for people with disabilities and I really love the changes that were announced this morning and I actually look forward to working with the provincial government to look at what else we can do to ensure that the proper supports and the proper employment services are there to fully make sure that people with disabilities get all the opportunities that they need to flourish in our society here in British Columbia. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Minister Kudu and Premier Clark really at a national level. This is an example, I think, for other provinces which need to take the same sort of step in order to improve the lives of many of these women. But this is an extremely positive move on the part of the province and one that we're very, very happy to be here to endorse. There will be an opportunity for a lot of public input and engagement on the family's first agenda in the coming months and I want to encourage and invite every single British Columbian to share their ideas with us if they haven't already done so. I hope that British Columbians will join us in implementing this agenda so that we can create a better British Columbia for every family. Thank you.


Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus issued an updated Department of the Navy Diversity and Inclusion Policy Statement, the first update since 2010. Mabus also released a short video highlighting diversity and how the Navy and Marine Corps are stronger when they reflect the nation they serve. We need diversity in all sorts of things, but mostly we need diversity of thought. We don't want everybody coming into the Navy, coming in the Marine Corps to think exactly the same way, to remain the greatest expeditionary fighting force the world has ever known, which is what the Navy and Marine Corps are today. We've got to have that diversity, we've got to have that inclusiveness, we've got to be able to recruit that diversity, we've got to be able to retain those great sailors and marines that we get here, and one of the ways we do it is by being inclusive and by making the force more diverse and so stronger.


Over a hundred years ago, a curious discovery was made in a town now named after this upart, Rockwell within Texas. An ancient wall was unearthed, and although it was clearly of an artificial nature, its possible age predictably made a number of people in the academic world deny its artificial origins in favor of a far less likely scenario involving natural formation. Although magnetic exploration suggested that the Rockwell had been where it lay for over 100,000 years, its origins have been heavily debated ever since its initial discovery. In 1852, farmers in Texas were digging a well when they discovered the wall. Conservative estimates have placed its creation some 100,000 years ago. Yet now, many believe it to actually be an antediluvian relic left by a now lost civilization some 200,000 to 400,000 years ago. Dr. John Geisman of the University of Texas, Dallas, tested the Rocks as part of a history channel documentary, giving credence to the denial of its artificial origins, suggesting they formed where they were, claiming that they were all magnetized in the same way. This tremendous age has led many to believe in modern paradigm, to deny a man-made origin as this does to cooperate with the Bering Strait theory and currently upheld timelines in regards to evolution. However, there are others in similar fields who have found curious characteristics of the wall which do indeed suggest artificial origins. Geologists James Shelton, for example, and Harvard's architect John Lindsay, have focused on its unique design features, including architectural elements, archways, lintel portals, and square doorway and window openings, which all suggest not only artificial creation, but functionality for humans, which nature would simply not create. The depth or past height of the wall is also an impressive legacy. The family of T.U. Wade, who moved to the area and initially made the discovery, dug to a depth of 40 feet to try and find the bottom of the wall. This excavation, however, was abandoned without finding the bottom. Years later in 1949, Mr. Sanders of Fort Worth took up the baton and continued excavation exploration of the wall, finding a number of megalithic stones at considerable depth and weighing several tons. After bringing them to the surface, mysterious pictographs were found upon them, further supporting the thesis of artificial origin. In addition, curious metal rings of modern composition were found embedded in rocks, suggesting the presence of lost technology. It would appear that the wall is indeed an antediluvian relic, one possibly submerged and subsequently buried in ancient sediment during the Great Flood. Modern studies have found that the wall is in fact six stories tall and 20 miles in length, with a number of individuals now attributing the wall to a lost civilization of giants due to its inexplicable nature. Quote, It is good when examples like rock wall appear that test our abilities and cause us to question basic Newtonian mechanistic assumptions that have not been modified for over 150 years. Physics had to abandon this approach at the turn of the century, opting instead for relativity and quantum mechanics in order to further their understanding of matter and the universe. Said James Shelton, geologist from New Orleans, it is a relic which we find highly compelling. Although many academic bodies and the individuals funded by said institutions are only allowed to attribute ancient ruins to known heavily researched past civilizations, there exist many features within these sites found all over the world, which tell a very different story. Not only are the indicative of an ancient civilization far more capable than our well-studied more recent ancestors, but many of them share features within their builds, with many other sites who are separately claimed by the as-mentioned institutions as the work of completely different past civilizations, who we feel are far more likely, based on said evidence, to have been mere re-inhabitants of these sites, which allowed these civilizations to flourish, adopting said features into their own cultures, and often claiming said works as their own to outside groups. Not only do the similarities show an undeniable connection with sites currently argued as completely isolated ancient works of architecture, but many of the most astonishing features of said sites are not only ignored, but often overlooked by the world as a result, which we also feel is strong evidence of not only a deliberate attempt to ignore the facts in favor of fallacy, but clear proof of a conspiracy which is largely funded in an effort to keep these particular proverbial smoking guns hidden and under wraps, often avoiding further study as a result, this clearly due to the reality they contain regarding facts about the history of man, which academia is not only responsible for hiding in favor of funding, but are responsible for hiding the true history of man from man himself, in an effort to merely appear all-knowing in the face of things they currently have no explanation for. And the so-called Inca Road is indeed one of these said ancient anomalies, which is of an astonishing size. It is so big, in fact, it even dwarfs the Great Wall of China, an ancient relic so big it can be seen from space. One might ask, how can I not have been informed of such an ancient relic? But once one realizes the current academically baffling accomplishment, this so-called Inca masterpiece must have once been, the conspiracy to keep such a site largely unknown will become clear. It is a road system that not only links nearly every unexplained ancient ruin currently known to exist within Peru, connecting Puma Punca, Saxe Huaman, Machu Picchu, Olante Tambo, along with many others. It, in fact, covers an incredible 25,000 miles, topping the Chinese Wall by nearly 7,000 miles, going all the way through Peru, Chile, and spreading out far beyond, with bridges, tunnels seemingly carved straight through clifffaces, and even following sheer drops, once cut horizontally into near vertical rockfaces with plunging sides dropping at times thousands of meters to valleys below. We strongly believe that although the road has clearly been utilized by an unimaginably large number of travelers, and has been severely eroded away nearly everywhere, the method of construction now hidden by erosion, that this surface, just like that of the roads of Pompeii, were actually formed using a now lost stone technique, now largely known as that of polygonal masonry. Not only a lost, now unexplained technique of stone building, indicative of a lost civilization and technologies, but the sheer size of the road, and the features accomplished along its incredible length, still provides countless unexplained features, which cannot be explained as Inca. Yet not only is it and its features academically ignored, but we feel the proposition of it being an Inca relic, just like all the ancient sites we have already covered in which it connects, are far too advanced to be claimed as Incan. How can one claim that such a relic was built by our more recent ancient ancestors, when not only does this site link much of ancient Peru, and is largely ignored, but not only the road but all said sites currently hold feats of ancient engineering which cannot be explained. It is clearly a feature that is indicative of a far more advanced, far more ancient civilization, which once constructed this road, and the sites found along it, merely re-inhabited by our now well-studied, far more recent ancient ancestors. It is a place we find highly compelling. In 1768, the Thunderstone, an enormous Rappachevi granite boulder currently claimed to have weighed 1,250 tons, was successfully moved many miles by our modern ancestors, a stone which gained its name from a lightning strike having split it from the bedrock. This feat, if true, would alter many attested views regarding the currently understood limitations of ancient civilizations. It would insinuate that the successful movement of seemingly impossibly huge stones used in ancient constructions were done by the claimed civilizations. Sculpted by the French sculptor Itienne Maurice Falconet, and transported by Marinos Carboras, a lieutenant colonel in the Russian army, who was tasked with figuring out how to move the stone from Ladka, 6 km inland from the Gulf of Finland, to its final location beneath a bronze statue of Peter the Great within St. Petersburg. Originally embedded deep within the ground in an area of marshy terrain, they had to develop revolutionary methods to transport the colossal stone, waiting until winter to liberate the stone from the earth and attempt to move it over solid frozen ground. This, however, is where diligent research and academic assumption partways. Although there are engravings of the stone nearly in its original shape, seemingly being moved across the earth by manpower, many modern researchers of this event, along with a number of highly capable scholars, believe that these images were taken on the first day of the stone's transport. Many suspect that Catherine the Great, present at the event, was there only to witness the start of this arduous task. After this event, she traveled back to St. Petersburg to await its arrival. What's more, this first day, according to numerous reliable, yet rarely academically shared sources, state that in its original form, these workers were only able to move the stone an inch. A declaration, also according to these same sources, was made by Catherine herself, elated at witnessing this stone move an inch before departing for Russia. Not only do many independent researchers now believe that the original weight was incorrect, but also that when it was eventually moved, had lost a dramatic amount of its body. Falconet had originally intended to cut the stone to a mere 600 tons before its transportation, and as the original stone was seemingly impossible to move when Catherine the Great left for St. Petersburg. Furthermore, now in position and attributed as over a thousand tons in weight, this is also an academic fallacy. As Graham Hancock's website puts it, quote, seen from the back, the stone is about three meters wide at the top and six meters wide at the base. If it were shaped like a perfect cube, its weight would be some 1200 tons. However, because the stone slopes on all sides, its weight does not exceed one third of this, about 400 tons, a far cry from the currently touted 1,250 tons. It's claimed that, at 1,500 metric tons, the Thunder Stone is the heaviest stone ever moved by human power, and that this is supposed to be a proof that no advanced technology was needed for the transport of colossal ancient stones. However, unlike Russians in the second half of the 18th century, Romans and their predecessors had no ball bearings, iron rails, or metal sledges. Those things all benefits of modern technology. As much as one has to admire Falconet's engineering achievement, what he has proved is that technology of the late 18th century was indeed capable of transporting large megaliths, end quote. It seems that the Thunder Stone, being used as a proven example of primitive techniques and civilization, able to have constructed the currently unexplained sites which dot the earth, however, like with many other academic explanations as to the construction of these sites, it is not only contradictory to the facts, but based on a faulty premise. Due to these deliberate twisting of the facts, the story of the Thunder Stone is undoubtedly highly compelling. If we could prove, beyond doubt, that our continued posit of an ancient, once highly advanced, yet pre-Ice Age civilization once existing here on our planet, we would literally have to rewrite our understandings of antiquity. We have covered numerous sites, found submerged all around the world. Yet unfortunately, due to their proximity to islands and the continental regions they are found amongst, many are dismissed as merely being five to ten thousand year old ruins, fitting with modern paradigm and alas avoiding controversy or the questions which inevitably follow. Yet our next side of interest may turn out to not only be that most important of submerged ruins ever found on earth, but the smoking gun previously mentioned. On the 19th of May 2001, India's Union Minister for the Science and Technology Division, Murli Manohar Joshi, announced that the ruins of an ancient civilization had been discovered off the coast of Gujarat in the Gulf of Kambahat. The site was discovered by INOT, National Institute for Ocean Technology. Using sonar, the discovered ruin is now being strongly argued as definitively pre-Ice Age, yet also advanced in nature. An IoT went on to describe an area of regularly spaced artificial structures. Located twenty kilometers from the Gujarat coast and spans nine kilometers, Joshi claims the site as an urban settlement that predates the Indus Valley civilization. Further descriptions of the site by Joshi describe it as containing regularly spaced dwellings, a granary, a bath, a citadel, and a drainage system. According to Wiki, quote, the structures and artifacts discovered by NIOT are the subject of contention. The major disputes surrounding the Gulf of Kambahat cultural complex are claims about the existence of submerged city-like structures, the difficulty associating dated artifacts with the site itself, and disputes about whether stone artifacts recovered at the site are actually geofacts or artifacts. One major complaint is that artifacts at the site were recovered by dredging, instead of being recovered during a controlled archaeological excavation, end quote. Simply put, due to the fact that it has not been excavated properly, and we predict, probably never will, academia are dismissing this ancient city as simply unconfirmed. We feel a quite ridiculous position to take despite NIOT's supporting data of its existence, due to its accidental discovery, presumably via dredging. We find the marine archaeology in the Gulf of Kambahat highly compelling.