Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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 keep making these claims, but you have no basis on which to make such an argument. Just saying "it's unguided" means nothing.

 

[stevevw]

What makes you think they were dumb? You have to be just as smart as we are now to be a successful hunter-gatherer. Much of the technology which allowed later people to create societies which were capable of creating the stonework you seem fixated with was developed by hunter-gatherers--textiles, ceramics, plant and animal breeding and much more.

Come on you know the mainstream story. There was a gradual evolution from caveman to civilized man. Mesopotamia was said to be the birthplace of civilization around 6,000 years ago. Before this we were primitive hunter gathers, not settling of building much.

Gobekli Tepe changed all that. Even mainstream archeologists acknowledge this pushed back the date for human advancement and that we were more knowledgable than we thought.

Yes they may have still practiced H&G but there are H&G all through history. This is a misrepresentation as H&G is always seen as primitive and stereotyped. The destinction needs to be made these were much more advanced. That's what these new discoveries are changing from the stereotypical mainstream understanding.

Reshaping previous ideas on the story of civilisation, Gobekli Tepe in Turkey was built by a prehistoric people 6,000 years before Stonehenge.

An immense mystery older than Stonehenge

Reshaping previous ideas on the story of civilisation, Gobekli Tepe in Turkey was built by a prehistoric people 6,000 years before Stonehenge.

www.bbc.com

Only because you don't know how it is done, but your ignorance is showing. You couldn't do any of that yourself even now.

Not knowing how it was done doesn't change the fact that its impossible for anyone to do to that perfection. It is machine perfection and thats the point. Its not human perfection as humans are incapable. We can't see the magnification of the surface to be able to get perfect lines and spheres and other geometry to within a hairs width.

Then you have to say they just happen to feel their way to perfection or just got lucky. At what point does the evidence count. If it shows machine or computer precision then humans can do that even today and thats why we use computers and machines.

If you say they have some idiot servant ability to create their precision then thats a different kind of tech knowhow but still amazing.

They don't. You do, by insisting that they weren't smart enough to do the work they did with the tools and techniques known to be available to them.

No this is not my opinion. This is just science. Its not deminishing them personally its that no human could achieve this. Only machines could achieve this. But if they could have achieved this with the tools they have then they have gone beyond what the tools could possibly achieve.

Its not that they can't shape and smooth stuff off. Its that the finished product is too perfect to be made by chisels and smoothing off. You can't get that by human sight and feel. You need fixed reference points to follow and theres 1,000s of them.

I'm a retired machinist and teacher. Sometimes I teach a short course in metalworking with hand tools--chisels, files and hand drills. The course is for foreign aid workers, not to make craftsmen out of them, but to familiarise them with capacity of local metalworkers they may have to employ while working in developing countries. In two days each student makes a simple padlock with a key. They reason I am telling you this is that it is convincing evidence to me that your opinion about what can be accomplished with simple hand tools is 100% pure weapons-grade Bolognium. It is a considered insult to all skilled craftsmen throughout the world and throughout history.

OK so if your a machinist then you will agree with the analysis on the vases. Take a look at it. You would know that you set the parameters of the shape each time and in relation to other points on the item. That can involve many turns.

But each one is perfectly straight or curved due to a fixed point being guided along a certain line and not free hand. Its impossible to copy the machined precision free hand or by sight. Now consider these vases were analysed over 77,000 reference points and all within a hair of perfection as far as their curvature, straight lines in reference to opposing sides, top and bottom.

Nonsense. Tech, then and now, was and is intented to increase the quality of life.

If that was the case then why cut and lug Megaliths requiring a whole lot of hard ork and discomfort which they could have used smaller blocks. Why build a Blocked Dorrway in a granite wall which appears everywhere. Why build these strange bubble walls where every single block is a different shape and each cut to perfection into those shapes. Why not just build a uniform block wall.

There are many things built that are obviously not for comfort or for anything other than some sort of cultural expression. The Pyramids are massive only to hold a King in one small tomb. Why go to all that trouble if not for religious reasons. I think the majority of reasons was religious. Even where they could hunt, what animals to hunt, where they lived, most things back then.

We even see this in AD where all these cultures built their works to the gods, went on crusades, for King and God.

So what?

 

[stevevw]

You keep making these claims, but you have no basis on which to make such an argument. Just saying "it's unguided" means nothing.

I literally linked the evidence a couple of posts back lol. Did you even look at it. Here #940. Look at the videos they have the reference to the test papers and analysis.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I literally linked the evidence a couple of posts back lol. Did you even look at it. Here #940. Look at the videos they have the reference to the test papers and analysis.

I don't care about the video or your supposed evidence. You say it's unguided. How can you make such a claim? What makes you think that the creation of that vase was unguided and to what standard?

 

[BCP1928]

Come on you know the mainstream story. There was a gradual evolution from caveman to civilized man. Mesopotamia was said to be the birthplace of civilization around 6,000 years ago. Before this we were primitive hunter gathers, not settling of building much.

You really are being bigoted. A society that doesn't build big things out of stone is just crap under your shoe.

Gobekli Tepe changed all that. Even mainstream archeologists acknowledge this pushed back the date for human advancement and that we were more knowledgable than we thought.

Yes they may have still practiced H&G but there are H&G all through history. This is a misrepresentation as H&G is always seen as primitive and stereotyped. The destinction to be made these were much more advanced. That's what these new discoveries are changing from the stereotypical mainstream understanding.

I would change "stereotypical mainstream understanding" to "ignorant popular understanding."

Reshaping previous ideas on the story of civilisation, Gobekli Tepe in Turkey was built by a prehistoric people 6,000 years before Stonehenge.

An immense mystery older than Stonehenge

Reshaping previous ideas on the story of civilisation, Gobekli Tepe in Turkey was built by a prehistoric people 6,000 years before Stonehenge.

www.bbc.com

Not knowing how it was done doesn't change the fact that its impossible for anyone to do to that perfection. It is machine perfection and thats the point. Its not human perfection as humans are incapable. We can't see the magnification of the surface to be able to get perfect lines and spheres and other geometry to within a hairs width.

Then you have to say they just happen to feel their way to perfection or just got lucky. At what point does the evidence count. If it shows machine or computer precision then humans can do that even today and thats why we use computers and machines.

If you say they have some idiot servant ability to create their precision then thats a different kind of tech knowhow but still amazing.

No this is not my opinion. This is just science. Its not deminishing them personally its that no human could achieve this. Only machines could achieve this. But if they could have achieved this with the tools they have then they have gone beyond what the tools could possibly achieve.

Its not that they can't shape and smooth stuff off. Its that the finished product is too perfect to be made by chisels and smoothing off. You can't get that by human sight and feel. You need fixed reference points to follow and theres 1,000s of them.


OK so if your a machinist then you will agree with the analysis on the vases. Take a look at it. You would know that you set the parameters of the shape each time and in relation to other points on the item. That can involve many turns.

But each one is perfectly straight or curved due to a fixed point being guided along a certain line and not free hand. Its impossible to copy the machined precision free hand or by sight. Now consider these vases were analysed over 77,000 reference points and all within a hair of perfection as far as their curvature, straight lines in reference to opposing sides, top and bottom.

If that was the case then why cut and lug Megaliths requiring a whole lot of hard ork and discomfort which they could have used smaller blocks. Why build a Blocked Dorrway in a granite wall which appears everywhere. Why build these strange bubble walls where every single block is a different shape and each cut to perfection into those shapes. Why not just build a uniform block wall.

There are many things built that are obviously not for comfort or for anything other than some sort of cultural expression. The Pyramids are massive only to hold a King in one small tomb. Why go to all that trouble if not for religious reasons. I think the majority of reasons was religious. Even where they could hunt, what animals to hunt, where they lived, most things back then.

We even see this in AD where all these cultures built their works to the gods, went on crusades, for King and God.

Yes, we know what you think, we see you jumping through hoops trying to justify what you think, but you still haven't answered my question: So what? Here you are once again with a map of the Mississippi trying to use it to prove that Tom Sawyer was a real boy, but you never say why you want Tom Sawyer to be a real boy.

 

[stevevw]

You really are being bigoted. A society that doesn't build big things out of stone is just crap under your shoe.

No its the exact opposite and I have mentioned this on this thread several times. Whether its buidling in Megalith or smaller stone or the many other expressions of culture like the vases and pottery or their knowledge of nature and the universe such as the Sacred geometry in the vases its all relevant to understand the level of advancement.

What I said about mainstream archeology and other sciences being surprised by finds like Goblekli Tepe being more advanced than we thought is fact. There is no bigotry in facts. I never said it as a personal statement but rather a statement of fact.

I would change "stereotypical mainstream understanding" to "ignorant popular understanding."

Ok yes ignorance is definitely the case. The more you research the more information you get to make informed determinations.

Yes, we know what you think, we see you jumping through hoops trying to justify what you think, but you still haven't answered my question: So what? Here you are once again with a map of the Mississippi trying to use it to prove that Tom Sawyer was a real boy, but you never say why you want Tom Sawyer to be a real boy.

Ah the good old map of Mississippi logical fallacy again. When you can't refute the evidence revert to undermining and misrepresenting the method.

 

[BCP1928]

No its the exact opposite and I have mentioned this on this thread several times. Whether its buidling in Megalith or smaller stone or the many other expressions of culture like the vases and pottery or their knowledge of nature and the universe such as the Sacred geometry in the vases its all relevant to understand the level of advancement.

What I said about mainstream archeology and other sciences being surprised by finds like Goblekli Tepe being more advanced than we thought is fact. There is no bigotry in facts. I never said it as a personal statement but rather a statement of fact.

No reputable archaeologists or anthropologists have maintained that hunter gatherers were "dumb."

Ok yes ignorance is definitely the case. The more you research the more information you get to make informed determinations.

Ah the good old map of Mississippi logical fallacy again. When you can't refute the evidence revert to undermining and misrepresenting the method.

And you still haven't answered the question.

 

[stevevw]

I don't care about the video or your supposed evidence. You say it's unguided. How can you make such a claim? What makes you think that the creation of that vase was unguided and to what standard?

I am not saying the vase is unguided. I am saying its guided by something. If someone drew a circle unguided such as free hand we would find many deviations from a perfect circle. Thats just how humans are. Now there may be great drawers of circles who may do a lot better than the average. But they will be no where near perfection on the micro level.

What we find in an increasing number of vases and these are the oldest vases is near perfection, within a hair width on average 1/1000 to 1/5000 of an inch. On many specific points within 1/1000 of a mm.

You cannot possibly get that level of perfection from a human using copper chisels and rubbing the vase into perfect shape down to the micro level.

But not just that the measurements within the vase follow complex mathmatical formulas such as the Sacred Ratio, Radiant base, Pi and the Golden Ratio.

To have such complex geometry and mathmatics and to be almost perfect in shape and the difficulty of transferring that into a physical object is impossible without some sort of pre fixed guide.

What we would call computerised machining where the perfect parameters are preset and cut by machine and not the freehand of humans which cannot know where perfection is without any guide..

But thats not to say that this is the way these items were produced. But to say this is the evidence fo9r what it shows on the level of tech in the vase. How thsi was made is a complete mystery.

Abstractions Set In Granite​

We are confident that our reverse-engineered model does indeed represent the actual mathematics, interrelations and constraints present in the original design.

Maintaining absolute precision and consistency by chance, between all the interlinked systems present in the object, is - simply put - an impossibility.

Here, at least 15 levels of interrelation exists, and they are all precisely in harmony, down to microscopic scales.

As far as we know, no human beings, trained animals or naturally occurring phenomenae, modern or ancient, take mathematical formulae and equations as input, and produce lathe-operating motions as outputs.

Abstractions Set In Granite

This article will describe the preliminary results of our ongoing analysis of the Granite Artefact scan data, our CAD reconstruction, and some remarkable insights into the design of the object.

unsigned.io

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am not saying the vase is unguided.

You very much did. Post#940:
"I haven't contradicted myself because the evidence shows that for example the vases could not have been done without some guidence."

I am saying its guided by something.

Yes: human hands and human experience.

If someone drew a circle unguided such as free hand we would find many deviations from a perfect circle. Thats just how humans are. Now there may be great drawers of circles who may do a lot better than the average. But they will be no where near perfection on the micro level.

And this is just a load of nonsensical bull from you. Why does it matter to you so much to claim that ancient humans somehow couldn't do a thing worth a damn with their own hands, that you have to keep repeating this tired, outrageous and frankly stupid view that every ancient civilization somehow had great and grand technology, yet it all mysteriously disappeared and not one contemporary person bothered to write down or illustrate it being used? Why is it seemingly impossible for you to accept that simple, normal, regular humans could do the amazing things you're saying were impossible for them to do?

 

[stevevw]

No reputable archaeologists or anthropologists have maintained that hunter gatherers were "dumb."

Ok they thought they were not as knowledgable as they actually are. That is why they say discoveries like Goblekli Tepe push human civilization back a further 6,000 years before Mesopotamia which they said was the birth of civilization.

And you still haven't answered the question.

What question. I have answered all your questions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok they thought they were not as knowledgable as they actually are. That is why they say discoveries like Goblekli Tepe push human civilization back a further 6,000 years before Mesopotamia which they said was the birth of civilization.

It really doesn't though. One singular site a civilization does not make.

 

[stevevw]

You very much did. Post#940:
"I haven't contradicted myself because the evidence shows that for example the vases could not have been done without some guidence."

Yes and that shows I did not say the vases were made unguided. It literally says " the vases could not have been done without some guidence." Therefore they could not have been done without guidence. In other words the vases were not made by an unguided process but a guided one beyond human capability.

Yes: human hands and human experience.

No the tests show thats impossible. If they did not have a mathmatical or geometric template to follow not just by free hand but one set to guides like a compuer then it cannot be done. No human tests have ever produced a perfect freehand circle let complex multidimensional objects all conforming to specific geometric and mathmatical equations.

As the engineers stated
Maintaining absolute precision and consistency by chance, between all the interlinked systems present in the object, is - simply put - an impossibility.

And this is just a load of nonsensical bull from you. Why does it matter to you so much to claim that ancient humans somehow couldn't do a thing worth a damn with their own hands, that you have to keep repeating this tired, outrageous and frankly stupid view that every ancient civilization somehow had great and grand technology, yet it all mysteriously disappeared and not one contemporary person bothered to write down or illustrate it being used? Why is it seemingly impossible for you to accept that simple, normal, regular humans could do the amazing things you're saying were impossible for them to do?

You making logical fallacies again. Just deal with the evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes and that shows I did not say the vases were made unguided. It literally says " the vases could not have been done without some guidence." Therefore they could not have been done without guidence. In other words the vases were not made by an unguided process but a guided one beyond human capability.

And there's not a single shred of evidence to back up that claim expect for bad post hoc logic.

No the tests show thats impossible. If they did not have a mathmatical or geometric template to follow not just by free hand but one set to guides like a compuer then it cannot be done. No human tests have ever produced a perfect freehand circle let complex multidimensional objects all conforming to specific geometric and mathmatical equations.

As the engineers stated
Maintaining absolute precision and consistency by chance, between all the interlinked systems present in the object, is - simply put - an impossibility.

It's not impossible... because it's been shown that people can build it. We have thousands of different works of art from the ancients. Are you going to say that every single one of them had advanced tech and knowhow that somehow mysteriously disappeared only for us to find out about in the 21st century?

You making logical fallacies again. Just deal with the evidence.

You don't even know what a logical fallacy is so stop pretending you do. So answer the question put to you:
Why does it matter to you so much to claim that ancient humans somehow couldn't do a thing worth a damn with their own hands, that you have to keep repeating this tired, outrageous and frankly stupid view that every ancient civilization somehow had great and grand technology, yet it all mysteriously disappeared and not one contemporary person bothered to write down or illustrate it being used? Why is it seemingly impossible for you to accept that simple, normal, regular humans could do the amazing things you're saying were impossible for them to do?

 

[stevevw]

It really doesn't though. One singular site a civilization does not make.

No but it pushes back the timeline of when humans began to think more advanced beyond primitive H&G. It shows that around 10 to 12,000 years ago there were complex social and religious cultures thatn we thought.

Then that advancement was lost along with Megafauna which points to a massive catastrophe back then.

But your right why do we want to continue going down this path. I have said what I said and you disagree. Just leave it at that. Its no longer important to my point and not worth persuing due to the pushback I am getting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No but it pushes back the timeline of when humans began to think more advanced beyond primitive H&G. It shows that around 10 to 12,000 years ago there were complex social and religious cultures thatn we thought.

Then that advancement was lost along with Megafauna which points to a massive catastrophe back then.

But your right why do we want to continue going down this path. I have said what I said and you disagree. Just leave it at that. Its no longer important to my point and not worth persuing due to the pushback I am getting.

You probably shouldn't post in places where you know that you're going to get the pushback then.

 

[stevevw]

And there's not a single shred of evidence to back up that claim expect for bad post hoc logic.

You just provided the evidence by posting my very words which says I did not say the vases were made unguided. After you claimed I did. What more evidence do you need.

It's not impossible... because it's been shown that people can build it.

No not these vases and statues for example. Their level of tech in the dimensions has never been evidenced in any period of history. Not until around 500AD did we begin to have rudimentary Turing machines.

But even that this was not developed until mid 20th century. Then again the level of geometry and maths on these vases is computer level design which did not come around until the 1970s. But not advanced enough until even recently.

We have thousands of different works of art from the ancients. Are you going to say that every single one of them had advanced tech and knowhow that somehow mysteriously disappeared only for us to find out about in the 21st century?

Are you now saying we have 1,000s of examples of perfectly created items like they were done on a computer throughout history before there was computers and machines.

We don't have 1,000s. It doesn't matter how many there are throughout history even if there is. Because its impossible for any of them to be made by freehand with guidence for a machine. If there are 1,000s then its just increasing the evidnece for machine guided tech before machines were invented.

You don't even know what a logical fallacy is so stop pretending you do. So answer the question put to you:
Why does it matter to you so much to claim that ancient humans somehow couldn't do a thing worth a damn with their own hands, that you have to keep repeating this tired, outrageous and frankly stupid view that every ancient civilization somehow had great and grand technology, yet it all mysteriously disappeared and not one contemporary person bothered to write down or illustrate it being used? Why is it seemingly impossible for you to accept that simple, normal, regular humans could do the amazing things you're saying were impossible for them to do?

Ah the question could be turned around and asked, why are you so bothered that you continually want to dispute it.

It matters to me because its part of finding the truth. Get as much evidence as you can and weigh it all up. Thats called science.

I have provided scientific analysis so you need to now dispute that and not create fallacies. I know a fallacy when I see one and your creating a giant one when you keep denying the evidence I linked in clear plain writing and tests by attacking the person and not addressing the content. Its called an ad hominem. Among the many others.

You attacked Petrie as some whacko scientists until you realised he was one of the best archeologists in the world. So then you tried to undermine his work by claiming its too old. You attacked Dunn as engaging in fantasies and the evidence I linked as all sorts of misrepresentations. Then you attack me personally questioning my integrity and intellect instead of dealing with the content.

The only way to sort this is to deal with the evidence. At least reason that the evidence is wrong or inconclusive. Show me where its wrong or suggest an alternative explanation for the findings. But don't ignore them and attack the source.

Anyway like I said I don't see any sense continuing. We can agree to disagree and move on to something else and then come back to it. I don't want it to dominate. It is good to now go into other evidence so we have different lines to refer to. Just leave the evidence put so far in the (no conclusive evidence) basket for now until we get more data.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok they thought they were not as knowledgable as they actually are. That is why they say discoveries like Goblekli Tepe push human civilization back a further 6,000 years before Mesopotamia which they said was the birth of civilization.

What question. I have answered all your questions.

You just posted to Warden:

"No but it pushes back the timeline of when humans began to think more advanced beyond primitive H&G. It shows that around 10 to 12,000 years ago there were complex social and religious cultures thatn we thought.

Then that advancement was lost along with Megafauna which points to a massive catastrophe back then."

You have been struggling to make that point for pages and pages, but you never answer my question:

So what?

If we conceded your point, what would you do next?

 

[stevevw]

You probably shouldn't post in places where you know that you're going to get the pushback then.

I don't mind the pushback believe me. I thrive on it as it means we are digging for the truth. Having to constantly recheck and research the matter to make sure which is something I not only enjory but have years of experience in doing.

But that wasn't why I said that. I mean that the disagreement is going around in circles and now meaningless. The pushback is no matter what I say even if its fact you are going to push back due to your beliefs.

Do its time to move on and agree to disagree. If you engaged with the evidence I linked. Perhaps asked questions to challeenge the specific of the evidence I linked then its more constructive. But your not even doing that. Your saying "so what people can still do that", "you don't know" ect. Which are just personal protests and I can't deal with personal protests without any factual support. Anyone can make unsupported attacks on people.

 

[stevevw]

You just posted to Warden:

"No but it pushes back the timeline of when humans began to think more advanced beyond primitive H&G. It shows that around 10 to 12,000 years ago there were complex social and religious cultures thatn we thought.

Then that advancement was lost along with Megafauna which points to a massive catastrophe back then."

You have been struggling to make that point for pages and pages, but you never answer my question:

So what?

If we conceded your point, what would you do next?

Horay we can move beyond.

Like I said earlier there is the evidence which I have been posting which stands seperately and only reveals the facts as they appear on the ground ie cuts in stone, dimensions of vases, weight of stone, compositions and the recorded tools ect. That is an independent and objective measure no one can dispute without objective evdience.

But then once we get the evdience we can make hypothesis which is based on the evidence. What does this evidence tell us about the culture, the people, and the world they lived in. This includes the religious and social aspects we may be able to derive from the evdience.

Its harder to build a case for. But its another type of evdience for the flood myth besides the geological evidence which may work with the geological evidence and then you can build a case for both and your hypothesis.

As I mentioned earlier there is growing support for the idea that ancient cultures were a lot more advanced in a time when perhaps we thought they were more primitive as we are discovering.

They had reached a certain level of advancement and religion and then this seems to have disappeared for the most part along with Megafauna.

That lends support for perhaps a massive disaster and flood that happened around 10 to 12,000 years ago for which the original flood story was created. All other flood stories stem from this original story and real event.

There are other hypothesis for the flood stories and specifically Noahs flood as far as when and where it happened. If we are going to look at Noahs flood we need to understand all flood myths and their relation to each other and what they represent as far as cultural archetypes that may be etched in the psyche of humans for a long time.

To go and measure some giant ripples somewhere and declare they disprove Noahs flood is simplistic and unreal and evidence doesn't work that way.

 

[sjastro]

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.