I suggest you proof read before posting because you thoroughly contradicted yourself later on by adamantly stating “No it is 'the predynastic vases, obelisks, sarcophagi, statues or drill cores which cannot be explained with lowly Egyptian tools”.
You were correct before you contradicted yourself, the early Egyptians were amazingly good with their lowly tools as supported by the evidence for the tools they used, instead of mechanization as proposed by your links that have never been found.
I haven't contradicted myself because the evidence shows that for example the vases could not have been done without some guidence. No one has ever demonstrated they can achieve near perfection by sight and touch un guided. Many of these vases come from the pre Dynasty period.
You want to go down this line, the search function states otherwise…………..
Look its probably something I seen in one of the videos I have linked. If you would have watched them you probably would have seen it. I am not going to go back through them all. What I have said comes from that evidence.
I even forgot what your point was. I stated the difficulty in lifting these megaliths off the ground and referred to some evidence I had seen. I thought I had already mentioned it. But why does it matter. It was in response to your claim that loading these megaliths on slays solves the problem of logistics.
I then pointed out how it would be near impossible for a bunch of primitive people could achieve such a feat in lifting the block out of the pit and onto said ship or slay. Let alone up hills and over mountains. You need to provide evidence for all these examples.
Not only is your response pure self denial it doesn’t even make sense.
Egyptian reliefs and tomb paintings depicted life in Egypt and if they showed obelisks being moved by the use physical labour and transported on ships that is exactly what happened.
No depictions on a wall don't explain how they transported these 1,000 ton plus blocks some 1,500 ton. They may be of smaller blocks or they may represent something as did many depictions. Pharohs often used hyperbole and mystical ideas into their reliefs and Steles. But to make the jump from a couple of depictions explains the logistics is nowhere near enough evidence.
This is the same absurd situation like Egyptian tools should not exist if mechanization occurred, why would they make reliefs of the use of physical labour which you claim is impossible yet they do not depict the use of machines?
Its not the physical labor. Its the technique and precision that it mimicks machines. Thats why I said does it really matter what they used. Its the end result that we attribute to advanced tech because it matches what we would expect from advanced tech and not tech back then.
So if they managed to produce such technique and precision by hand and simple tools then that is still advanced because it achieved well beyond what we would expect from such simple tools compared to other periods where the same simple toold were used.
But I don't think it was just the simple tools. They may have been used in conjunction with some other technique. Because you cannot achieve such perfection without some sort of guidence. We have proven this. The perfection is to the level of machine because we have to deconstruct its complexity with computers and humans cannot achieve such levels unaided. But if they can then we have a different kind of advanced knowhow which in some ways is even more amazing.
Now you are contradicting yourself conversely “Another way to look at advancement is that even if the Early Egytians could have made these precise results by their primitive tools they were amazingly good at making the finished product so good that it looks like it was done by modern machines.”
This does not address the issue that scientists produced helical patterns similar to Petrie’s core samples.
Ok I was referring to the Vases mainly. Petries evidence is not about perfection but about what pattern the marking leaves in the first place.
The evidence I linked does address the claim that scientists produced the helical pattern because it proved that the test core patter if any as it was very light on the surface. But it was horizontal and not spirial.
There is now a baseline for comparison which has not been done such as measuring pitch variation, groove widths/depths and deviations in the outer diameter at the top and bottom of the core samples of the scientist and Petrie core samples.
Yes thats the tests that I linked. Dunn and others have done extensive tests with core winds, latex molds of the cores rolled out and other measurements and it was proven beyond doubt that the core pattern was helical. Which contradicted the experimental results which showed a faint if at all horizontal patter from the copper pipe.
We have Petries original tests which confirmed the spiral pattern.
Then as I posted earlier we have Dunns more extensive tests which confirm Petries original findings.
Where a comparison has been made is on the subject of predynastic vases.
The video that I posted on the vase which was constructed using existing Egyptian tools was compared to a predynastic vase where deviations from sphericity in the horizontal plane in various areas was measured for each vase and compared.
The lower the deviation in the horizontal plane the more spherical the vase which is the ideal case.
What this tells you not only is the experimental vase superior in a one to one comparison but reveals a fundamental flaw in the your video that no competent scientist would make, is to draw conclusions on the scanning and measuring of a single predynastic vase.
This was not just one vase. Around a dozen or so have been done now by just one collector seperate to the one I linked. They all come within around a hair or two width from perfection.
Not just that but scans have revealed evidence some vases were turned. In other words were fixed onto something while spinning and then worked on. This may explain the pricision as you need a fixed point to work from.
Astonishing Results! More Ancient Egyptian Granite Vases Analyzed! More STL's available.
The hypothesis is predynastic vases were machine produced would require a large number of vases to be scanned and measured to see if the quality is statistically reproducible which would be expected from machine produced vases.
Humans on the other hand are not so consistent.
I think its a false equivelence to say that a large number of vases need to be produced to verify some sort of guidence. Just 1 near perfect vase is an out of place artifact. The chances of someone getting things perfect across 77,000 references points is very slim and in fact impossible. But when you get a number having such high precision it begins to be more than luck.
The point is there may have been several methods going on at once. Some high precision wares and then many less precise wares being common due to the fact more people could produce them. But also it appears the quality decreases rather than increases from the pre Dynasty period. You stop seeing these high quality and precise works during the Dynasty Pharoahs.
What a load of rubbish, your comments were specifically directed towards me when you took offense after I questioned your reading comprehension skills.
Yes exactly. I thought you were someone else who made that charge and so when you said I had a problem with comprehension I took it as a ad hominen and therefore mentioned the ad hominen I thought you said about Petrie and Dunn. I got you mixed up with someone else.
How convenient to confuse me with someone else but it is the depiction of individuals whom you support as being “good scientists”.
Its not a convenient, it was a mixup. And no its not the depiction of the scientist I am linking. If this is the case are you not now doing exactly what the other person was doing to me that I confused you with. That is making an ad hominem and attacking the scientists reputations I linked. No wonder I am confused lol.
Maybe they are good in a moral sense but technically they are bad scientists by not only drawing conclusions on a single scanned result but assuming vases, obelisks, core samples etc are evidence of mechanization while not being able to show what type of mechanization is involved and the evidence for it.
Your creating logical fallacies again. They have tested more than one vase and item. The findings on the core have been confirmed by more than one scientists including Flinders Petrie the original archologists who was one of the worlds finest. Dunn is also one of the worlds best engineers. But other scientists in my links did tests as well.
Your more or less doing the same as the other poster that I confused you with. Even one vase made to perfection should be addressed. Your making logical fallacies everywhere.
You continue to waffle on incessantly, this is about questioning my credibility by claiming I made up the story of the decline in pyramid building due to a decentralisation of political power.
You are further building the case for poor reading comprehension skills or refusing to admit your comment was a strawman attack.
No I said you are using the decline of the pyramid building and the authority to achieve that is the reason why we see a decline is quality works. I said this was a false representation as it wasn't just about pyramids. The other works continued. They just got less precise and big.
www.thearchaeologist.org
