Today, by just an example, I will show you the unreliability of the modern version of the history of ancient Egypt.
Near the pyramid of Pepi 2, there is one unusual block of basalt, which is direct evidence of alternative versions of history. On this block, you can see traces of 2 different processing technologies, which are incredibly different.
The first treatment corresponds to the times and possibilities of ancient Egypt and is located on the right, but the left side is comparable to the possibilities of modernity, if not surpasses them.
Take a closer look at this area on the block.
And this is a trace of an instrument, but which one? What instrument could have left such a mark several thousand years ago? Yes, no!
If you take a closer look, you can generally fall into a stupor, because it turns out that the tool cut off the basalt layer, after which a well-processed surface remained.
Promotional video:
When the official history can explain the process of creating such traces and the presence of traces with primitive processing in the neighborhood, then it will be possible to talk about belief in the official versions of history.
You can also think about how you can achieve such a state of basalt as on the left side of the block in question. On the right side, you can see how it was tapped, as a result of which the basalt acquired its characteristic appearance and color from this type of processing.
But the left side can only acquire this appearance from a rotating tool at high speed, which clearly could not have been with the Egyptians in those distant times.
Thus, we get a fact that contradicts the official version of history. Well, who then becomes a storyteller? Researchers of alternative history with facts in their hands, or official historians with speculation and authority?