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.
I suggest you reread my post and furthermore you contradict yourself on a regular basis suggesting you are being disingenuous for not sticking to the same story.
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.
I don't believe you unless you produce this video and point out where it explicitly states 21 cranes are required to lift the obelisk as it implies the load carrying capacity of these unidentified machines in known.
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 has got to be one of the most ridiculous handwave jobs I have ever come across. If Egyptians had machines to move obelisks, why do they depict scenes where obelisks are moved using manual labour?
The answer is very simple and logical because they did not have machines to move obelisks.
You also have the gall of claiming this is not enough evidence when your own standards are based personal incredulity and zero evidence.
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.
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.
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.
View attachment 357236
Then as I posted earlier we have Dunns more extensive tests which confirm Petries original findings.
View attachment 357240
View attachment 357242
View attachment 357244
For crying out loud do you try to comprehend your own links?
What you are referring to are issues that were raised in the 1990’s, the ancient Egyptian drilling experiment I linked to was conducted in 2016 and the measurements of the spiral pitch on their granite core sample were as high 2.0 mm.
According to Dunne this would be “impossible” as it would require an ultra sharp cutting tool, a high RPM or a combination of both.
The scientists based their rig
on an Egyptian relief which used a variation of the bow drill and used a circular stone weight which acted both as a flywheel making rotations easier due to inertia and as a weight to apply pressure on the granite.
Clearly Dunne has been proven wrong.
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.
View attachment 357245
Astonishing Results! More Ancient Egyptian Granite Vases Analyzed! More STL's available.
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.
So now you are an expert on statistics.
First of all these extended number of vases were not tested using a laser scanner but were metrologically tested.
Secondly unless I am missed something there was no statistical analysis performed on this sample size of 12.
The whole point of the exercise should have been to show the element of luck being very low particularly if the Egyptians were aided by machines where the standard deviation would be expected to be small as would be the chances of outliers.
Instead it appears the vases were analysed in isolation which says nothing about the vases being made by hand or machine.
The other problem is the sample size itself, to obtain a 95% confidence level you need a minimum sample size of around 30, but since your extended number includes vases of various dimensions the sample size needs to be considerably larger to be statistically significant.
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.
Wrong late period vases some 3000 years later are clearly superior to predynastic vases particularly surface finishes which have a polished appearance which predynastic vases do not.
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.
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.
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.
So while you go on about others logical fallacies you are blissfully unaware of your own, this latest one being the appeal to authority fallacy.
Your latest link confirms my suspicions that these so called scientists of which one clearly is not a scientist but an engineer while I have no idea of the others qualifications, have not analysed the results in a professional way.
Despite the sample size being too small, they could have provided an average value and standard deviation for the various measurements to give some indications of the variances involved.
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.
You still don’t get it.
Let me try to make it as simple as possible for you to understand , the history books tell us the decline in pyramid building is associated with a decentralisation of the political power of the pharaohs.
Whether this is right or wrong is immaterial, I did not make it up as you falsely asserted and if you continue to play dumb, then either it is not an act or you are trolling.