Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- By stevevw
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 579 Replies
Yes and in this case the poster said the credentials of the archeologists was not good enough. So I quoted on of the world greatest archeologists. I think thats pretty extraordinary as far as credentials.
Fair enough. I knew that and thats why I also linked a direct quote. But why all the red herrings.
Yeah nothin better to do. Though I am starting to get tired of the red herrings lol.
Actually I did. Here it is again and it specifically relates to the vases and that Petrie agreed some sort of sophisticated lathing was involved.
Flinders Petrie
"...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the modern workshops."
Heres another
“The cutting of granite was done by jewelled tubular drills . . . with cutting points . of emery . .. set in the sides of the tube both inside and out . .. every mechanic who has examined the grooves on .. . a core of red granite from Gizeh agrees that nothing but a fixed point could have cut such grooves.”
Expedition Magazine | Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling
<p>More than most technical procedures in the ancient world, drilling of hard stone such as quartz and granite has evoked […]</p>
www.penn.museum
How many do I have to quote before its acknowledged that Petrie agrees that some sort of sophisticated lathing or machining with a fixed point diamond cutter was used. More or less similar to modern maching.
But why add the precision when the precision was not valued back then. Its completely unnecessary. Would not the cost of producing such precision and access to such machines be beyond the black market dealers. It would cost more to pay to get a vase made than what it could sell for lol.
Yes so if we find that precision in a vase and it has good provedence than what are you going to say.
I don't think its a simple as you claim. Such precision was around but it was not common and very expensive and time consuming compared modern tech. It would be a massive industrious project to be pumping out such precision vases like making parts for NASA at that time.
Its completely unreal for some black market fake artefact vases which were just one of 1,000s of artefacts flooding markets to be made at that time and make a profit. It would be like using NASA level tech today to make 1930s crockery.
Who cares, no one worried about whether the vases were micron precise. They could have been well out of alignment and no one would have cared or knew because they never worried about this.
So I guess the vases from the Petrie museum are fakes then. I guess the carbon dating and the registered finds from digs are all falsified. But al least you are now acknowledging that the vases are advanced that they must be forgeries and could not have come from such an early time.
At first you were arguing that these ancients were capable of grinding and rubbing them into precision by freehand and blinding guessing with the naked eye and feeling their way to precision. Or smashing these out by some wobbly rudimentary bent stick cutter like Olga lol.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Another look at the moon landing.
- Conspiracy Theories
- 2813 Replies
But you have also posted pictures of upside down houses, or upside down signs saying "welcome to Australia" - which are obviously nonsense.Well it is on globe
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- By stevevw
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 579 Replies
How is it blind when I see the same findings by 3 independent sources. Thats not blind but good science.
Here we have someone on a social forum not offering one bit of evidence in the form of a paper of article or testing themselves. As opposed to tests with proper equipement, live readouts for us to see showing the precision before our very eyes. Hum I think I will go with the experts who at least have done the work as opposed to someone whinging on social media that they know better and never providing any tests.
Wait a minute. These experts doing these tests have worked with NASA and associated with top industries in engineering and precision tooling. One has over 50 years experience and pioneering precision tool making procedures.
Yet you cite your credentials to bolster your clain while dismissing the testers credentials. If your going to create a fallacy of authority I think their combined experise and experience blows yours out of the water lol. Not just that we have three lots of experts all disagreeing with you. I know which expert opinion I am going with.
Your so picky. I think its the other way around. Anyone who disputes three independent tests from many experts doesn't know what they are talking about.
Once again lets make this simple and cut out all the red herrings. Do the signatures in the vases point to lathing or not. Lets start with a simple finding. Just lathing. Does the near perfect or pretty good symmetry and circvvularity point to the use of a lathe. What about the machine marks in the vase. Theres a close up. Do the signatures look like modern machining marks or not.
What are you whinging about now. More red herrings. If we see a calliper tests that shows near perfect circularily in the read outs. What about the numbers don't you understand. Numbers don't lie. If its a near perfect circle its a near perfect circle. If its near perfect perpendicular angle from flat top to neck or a near perfect flat top.
How can the numbers be changed. These are just cold hard numbers in the vases. Forget about the geometry. Lets just stick with circles, spheres, paralelles and angles. How can anyone fudge these in the vases.
Lol I don't even have to prove the method. Others who seek to prove the method on the walls and traditionally accepted have done this for us many times and failed. They have never once produced the signatures we find in the precision vases.
That is why they do the tests because the onus is on them. Do the tests, repeat the methods and show us how the orthodox tools and methods can achieve such precision. So far its failed and the tests I linkled prove this.
Ok then I will also not write a paper and say you are wrong. Your speaking on a social media platform and are wrong lol. I don't believe you. You are biased. There you go. We could go on forever back and forth with non peer claims lol.
We have several independent tests by different methods and all converging on the same findings. Thats better than your non peer claims on a social platform.
So you think all the independent testers are wrong. None are correct. What is it you are trying to say. That these vases were not lathed.
Then why do they say its on par with modern CNC machining. You actually shot down the Uncharted x tests claiming they did not use Polyworks when they did. You claim the one larger reading at the widest portion of the vase is way out when its not. Your exaggerating and making things worse than they are to undermine in any way the clear evidence.
Why is the tests done at the Petrie museum wrong. They used several methods of metrology. Tell me why they are wrong. They come to the same conclusion.
Its like your saying all these scientists are wrong except you lol. Sounds a bit biased.
Login to view embedded media
Not good enough. I don't believe you and I am not going to take your word for it. If you expect me to then your being inconsistent when you demand peer review support for myself. At least these testers have done the tests and explain the analysis.
Ok so if one of those rings/circles represents the roundness of the vase and it proves a near perfect circle. How is this not showing that the vase at that particular layer is not a near perfect a circle. Its using the Z axis which was independently determined. Why is the other tests results the exact same. Why is their 3D light scan results the same showing near perfect symmetry and circularity.
Lastly I will keep repeating myself. Why is there actual lathe maching marks that match the precision. Why do the vase signatures look so similar to modern machined vases. Why did the modern manufacturing on one of the vases turn out mush the same and even less perfect than the predynastic vases. You keep avoiding these facts.
You do like making fallacies. The image attached shows the machining lines all the way down the interior just the same as modern maching. Deal with the machining marks and stop changing the goal posts. The vase I linked that was tested shows modern machining marks. Lets deal with one thing at at time.
I don't think someone can hand polish such marks into granite. This is classic witness marks of lathe machining.
Stop creating red herring. Is the vase precise of not. Did it require lathe maching or not. Or did they use the wobbly bent stick method. Even if we allow your red herrings and say the precision is not as good as people make out. How good is it. Is it good enough that a lathe was needed. If theres pretty good symmetry and circularity. I mean the Unchartedx has the worst measure at I think 0.017 on an inch. Thats like the thinness of 2 or 3 pieces of paper. Other points were as precise as half a hair.
Surely even 3 or 4 paper thiness error at its worst is still upo there with pretty good lathing. Its certainly not from a wobbly bent stick or bow device. We already see the signatures from this and they are far less precise. So what level of tech are you willing to concede was needed to produce these vases.
No I have already linked all these sources. My job is done. They claim the vases are on par with modern machined vases. Thats three if not 4 or 5 independnet testers. My work is done. You have a lot of papers to write to refute these findings. I don't want to hear about complains on a social platform.
Let me know what you have sent it in so I can see how the testers show how wrong you are. Others if you are right then good on you. I will then take seriously your objections.
Thats rediculous. So we can look at a live test with guage devices and see the readouts showing say near perfect thickness of the vase walls all round and we cannot make conclusions until the software.
If the dial indicators show the readout all around the rim for example near perfect then we can know right away its near perfect. I think you are trying to complicate things so as to confuse the clear evidence.
The guage will rise up and down according to the imperfections. You can run the dial indicator over a single hair on the bench and it will register a couple of thousands of an inch. You run it around the vase and you can see the precision as the indicator remains within the 2 or 3 thousands of an inch. .
Once again unsigned did not do any testing which shows you are completely ignorant of what they even did. The tests from Maximum match that of Unchartedx and the other independent sources which used different methods. How can Maximus be wrong whenb their findings match the other independent findings.
Upvote
0
Another look at the moon landing.
- Conspiracy Theories
- 2813 Replies
That's very kind of you; thank you.BTW Happy Birthday
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Another look at the moon landing.
- By Apple Sky
- Conspiracy Theories
- 2813 Replies
I Know but it really in the end went against my true beliefs.
Once a flat earther always a flat earther.
BTW Happy Birthday
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
