There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[sjastro]

After I had reviewed and responded to the vase links supplied by @stevevw in post #271, it crossed my mind there is another factor which makes the youtubers methodology for measuring deviations patently ridiculous, the screen resolution of computer monitors.

The highest resolution monitors available are 8K and typically have screen pixel sizes of 92 microns.
Since they used the software package Blender which relies purely on visually placing the scanned mesh data over the perfect model, it is impossible to have the quoted deviations of 0.05 mm (50 microns) when the lowest values are governed by the screen resolution of the monitor.

I asked GPT-5 to expand on the use of Blender and OpenSCAD which was also used by the youtubers.

Blender and OpenSCAD are very different in their purpose and capabilities, especially compared to professional metrology or CAD packages. Let me break them down:

---

Blender​

• Type: Open-source 3D graphics and modeling software.
• Main use cases: Animation, rendering, visual effects, artistic modeling.
• Capabilities relevant to 3D models:
  • Can import and manipulate meshes (e.g., scanned vase models).
  • Allows manual alignment of primitives (cylinders, spheres, cones) with imported geometry.
  • Has modifiers (boolean, shrinkwrap, etc.) for mesh editing.
  • Can generate cross-sections and overlays for visual comparison.
• Limitations:
  • Blender is not a metrology tool — it has no built-in functions for:
    • Calculating RMS deviation from an ideal primitive.
    • Reporting tolerances, uncertainty, or accuracy.
    • Generating certified deviation maps.
  • Accuracy is effectively limited to mesh resolution + user’s manual manipulation (and the display resolution of the monitor).
  • Results are visual, not quantitative.
    

---

OpenSCAD​

• Type: Script-based CAD (Constructive Solid Geometry).
• Main use cases: Parametric modeling for 3D printing, simple mechanical parts.
• Capabilities relevant to 3D models:
  • Models are defined by code, not manual editing.
  • Very precise for ideal mathematical shapes (cylinders, cubes, spheres, extrusions, etc.).
  • Great for generating perfect primitives to compare against scanned data (if imported).
• Limitations:
  • Not designed for handling scanned meshes (point clouds, STL from archaeology).
  • Very limited mesh analysis functions — cannot compute deviations or fit primitives to arbitrary data.
  • Outputs perfect models, but does not evaluate how well real data fits those models.
    

---

⚖️ Blender vs. OpenSCAD vs. Professional Tools​

Feature	Blender	OpenSCAD	Professional Metrology (e.g., GOM Inspect, PolyWorks)
Import scanned meshes	✅ Yes	⚠️ Limited (STL import only)	✅ Yes
Create perfect primitives	✅ Manual	✅ Script-based	✅ Automated fit
Fit primitive to scan data	⚠️ Manual alignment only	❌ Not possible	✅ Mathematical best-fit (least squares, ICP)
Compute deviations (RMS, max)	❌ No	❌ No	✅ Yes
Generate heat maps	❌ No	❌ No	✅ Yes
Accuracy	Limited by mesh + screen	Exact for math shapes, but no mesh analysis	Calibrated, micron–tens of micron scale
Intended purpose	Art, animation	Code-based parametric CAD	Metrology, engineering QA

---

✅ Bottom line​

• Blender = great for visual demos (“look how round this vase looks when I overlay a cylinder”), but not a measurement tool.
• OpenSCAD = great for coding precise ideal shapes, but it cannot analyze how well a scanned artifact matches that shape.
• Professional metrology software = the only category that can actually measure deviation values with traceable accuracy.

---

Would you like me to make a table of what Blender and OpenSCAD cannot do that professional metrology software must do when analyzing stone vases? That might give you a clear checklist for critiquing YouTube claims.

 

[sjastro]

GPT5 said:

Would you like me to make a table of what Blender and OpenSCAD cannot do that professional metrology software must do when analyzing stone vases? That might give you a clear checklist for critiquing YouTube claims.

Perfect — here’s a clear checklist-style comparison showing what Blender and OpenSCAD lack compared to professional metrology software. This directly highlights why YouTube workflows can’t claim micron accuracy:

---

​

What Blender & OpenSCAD Cannot Do (vs. Professional Metrology Software)

Critical Task for Accurate Vase Analysis	Blender (art tool)	OpenSCAD (script CAD)	Professional Metrology Software (e.g., GOM Inspect, PolyWorks, Geomagic Control)
Acquire calibrated 3D data (scanner integration, probe data)	❌ No	❌ No	✅ Yes
Fit ideal geometry mathematically (least squares, best-fit ICP)	❌ Manual eyeballing only	❌ Only creates perfect shapes, no fitting	✅ Automated, with statistical residuals
Calculate RMS deviation (average distance from surface to ideal)	❌ No	❌ No	✅ Yes
Report max deviation (largest error point)	❌ No	❌ No	✅ Yes
Generate deviation heat maps (color-coded surface accuracy)	❌ No	❌ No	✅ Yes
Account for measurement uncertainty (scanner calibration, error propagation)	❌ No	❌ No	✅ Yes (traceable to standards)
Cross-sectional analysis (slice object at intervals, fit circles/ellipses)	⚠️ Manual workaround only	❌ Not possible	✅ Built-in, automated
Large dataset handling (millions of mesh points)	⚠️ Can import but slow, not analytical	❌ Not designed for meshes	✅ Optimized for dense scan data
Export certified QA reports (used in aerospace, automotive, archaeology labs)	❌ No	❌ No	✅ Yes
Accuracy level	Limited by monitor & mesh resolution (~0.1–0.3 mm)	Exact math for virtual shapes, but useless for real artifacts	Microns to tens of microns, depending on scanner/probe

---

​

✅ Summary

• Blender: can visualize scanned vases and overlay shapes, but can’t measure or compute deviations.
• OpenSCAD: can create perfect primitives by code, but has no way to fit them to real-world scans.
• Professional metrology software: integrates with scanners, computes deviations, produces statistical reports, and operates at micron–tens of micron accuracy with traceability.

---

​

This is why YouTube “micron accuracy” claims using Blender or OpenSCAD overlays are misleading: the software itself simply does not contain the measurement tools that professionals use.

Would you like me to also show you a real example of how professional software reports vase deviation (like an RMS table or a heatmap explanation), so you can see the difference in reporting style?

 

[stevevw]

You don't know that. Even if the illustration represents the use of the technique at a time where they were making vessels from softer stone, it tells you nothing about the undocumented techniques of earlier craftsman.

We do know it for a number of reasons. The big one is the methods on the wall paintings don't match the signatures of the hard stone vases.

Logically if the depictions on the wall have produced the inferior vases by its very method. Then it follows that the same signatures will also be produced in the hard stone vases. In fact if anything the soft stone vases should be more perfect being easier to cut and shape.

Oh, so you have seen the video I link at the end of this post. Your standards for "good enough" are ridiculous. Their goal wasn't to make some specific, stupid vase measured by a conman, it was to discover and demonstrate the techniques used.

Of course its about replicating the originals. Every experimenter who does this states themselves that they are trying to match the signatures.

Even before these vases were being tested there were mentions of the precision and quality of these vases compared to later ones. Its not a con job, or conspiracy. Its real science repeated which is good science.

Before the pyramids, the originas of Egyptian civilisation
https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp33.pdf

Which is a meaningless sentence.

You get the gist. I will spell it out for you. They were of a markedly inferior quality verified by the science.

I have seen and read a lot of content from the lost ancient advanced civilization crowd and I can't say I've ever seen a more condescending statement from a supporter of their stuff. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and put into your favorite search engine "hand thrown pottery". You'll find all sorts of things made with nothing more than a pottery wheel and a few simple shaping tools that are just as axisymmetric as the vases and bowls you keep touting. All done by artists just "feeling their way to perfection". (We'll talk about this precision business further down.)

Please stop the moral outrage lol. Let me ask you a question which may help you understand what I am saying which has nothing to do with morals or questioning an artists ability.

Could an artist replicate a precision part for NASA. Could they do it freehand without any guide. Is there any difference between the engineering in architecture and artwork for its style and looks. Are these two seperate things.

That's how museums work. They tend to sort objects by period and place of origin. What I see mostly is differences in style. The old ones look like well-crafted stone versions of pottery for storage. The newer ones are tall and thin and look more like decorative pieces such as those used to hold cut flowers. (We'll talk about this precision business further down.)

You missed the point. Its not about the function or shape or height ect. Its about the level of precision and quality that determines the advanced knowledge and tech.

You could go and learn about the actual history of Egyptian stone vessels. The development of technique, style, materials, function, etc. As you can see:

Stone vessels in ancient Egypt - Wikipedia

Yep I've done this. By the way Wiki though a useful general reference is not a good source. I only had to read a few sentenses and spot a significant falsehood ie The earliest stone vessels in Egypt date as far back as the Late Neolithic (c. 5100 – c. 4700 BC).[1]

We have evidence of stone vases from going back at least around 10,000 years ago. Its widely accepted that Djsor either inhereted or usurped the many precision vases found in his pyramid and that they come from predynastic times. Which makes them even more incredible.

Egypt, 8000–2000 B.C.

Egypt, 8000–2000 B.C. | Chronology | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

“The Nile Valley is first inhabited in the Lower Paleolithic Period, later the pyramids of Giza and Saqqara arise in the Old Kingdom. Power decentralizes during the First Intermediate Period, only to be unified again by the Theban king Mentuhotep II in the Middle Kingdom.”

www.metmuseum.org

Before the pyramids, the originas of Egyptian civilisation
https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp33.pdf

Also this statement from Wiki is very interesting.

Unfortunately, we have no really satisfactory evidence of the method of manufacture of these [early dynastic] stone vessels, and, although certain processes of the work are known to us, others remain a complete mystery. How did they achieve such accuracy that when we 'swing' a shallow bowl or dish, no deviation from a perfect circle can be noted? How did they cut rock crystal tubular jars with walls not more than a millimetre thick? Although we have no evidence, it would appear almost certain that the craftsman had some method of rotating the material against a fixed tool, for it would be impossible to obtain such accuracy purely by hand chiselling and grinding by measurements, no matter how numerous or how painstakingly done.

Stone vessels in ancient Egypt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

PS should include pre dynastic stone vessels. But still its question how they could make such precision vases based on the existing tools and story of later softer vases. So even the established narrative admits these are out of place works.

Earlier bowls and vases have simpler, more geometric shapes. Some of the later ones on that page get quite "artistic" and fancy.

Yes later works are artistic and fancy and even trying to replicate the earlier works to the point of making them in softstone and then painting them artistically to mimick the earlier ones.

These later vases are not mechanically or technically simpler but more complex and designed into the vases. Technically its actually the other way around.

As we have noted many times, high accuracy axisymmetry is quite achievable when you rotate the object during crafting even "freehand".

Actually its not. The "freehand" is not stable and will move and estimates according to well being a human and not a mechanical device that is fixed even under high pressure to cut and shape according to the device and not human freehand. .

As to the particular axisymmetric shape, no one has demonstrated that any of the "precise" shapes had special meanings or purposes beyond the basic functional needs for basic forms.

I don't think that explains the precision and quality. I would say one motivating factor we can establish is that it was religious or spiritual. They believed these were for the gods or given by the gods. As we see in most religious works they are usually given higher priority.

But even that does not explain the precision geometry and maths within the vases.

Why would a vase be a "precision part". That whole claim makes no sense.

I am only comparing the level of work that is needed to reproduce and not that they were precision parts for any bigger mechanical whole like aerodynamics ect. You could say they were precision parts for the gods. If they believed that they were for the gods then it would be aimed at prefection. But how we don't know.

Geometry *IS* math. As I discussed in those old threads the "special numbers and ratios" aren't actually meaningful. (And the ancient Egyptians aren't known to have found the "golden ratio" as it is Greek in origin.)

Which makes it even more interesting as the Golden ratio is all over these vases. Actually I think they are meaningful. They fall within certain math and in fact the link I gave reduces these vases down to a single math equation through a parametric CAD model that seems to overlay near perfectly with some of these vases.

They include Pi, Phi (Golden Ratio), the Flower of Life, other known sacred ratios. Which is interesting in itself as to the methods. Why such geometry. We see these reflected in nature. Why natural geometry and how does this relate to the precision and method.

It is just numerology. They made a bunch of measurements of circles they drew on a picture of the vase and looked for combinations that they could assign meaning too. That's how numerology works. It is meaningless. Any "math" Dunn and his merry band of pranksters find are just illusions. There is no evidence that any of them were intentional.

Your forgetting one thing. How did they then take those numbers and shape and then make it into a 3D vase which adheres near perfectly to those ratios and numbers.

The experimental vase linked in the YT video I posted earlier is almost that level. It is not some sort of spectacular achievement.

lol, I like how skeptics make what is amazing just everyday stuff and what is everyday stuff amazing. Just looking at the vases speaks amazing and precision compared to ones actually made by the orthodox method in the records.

It's a vase, not a part for a rocket motor. Why compare it to such a device?

Because the precision within the vases is on par with precision parts in aerodynamics which by the way requires specialised machining with perfectly fixed cutting to not go away from that precision. Making a vase in such a primitive way in no way can replicate this.

Good grief. It was an experiment to examine the techniques. Not to reproduce the product of a master artisan. Who cares if they didn't spend weeks polishing it to a fine sheen? (Well, you apparently.)

Hum you are using the experiments to argue that it can be done by said methods. Right.

Other than the alleged embedded math (and set that aside to answer this question), what evidence is there that the form of any of these objects were precisely designed? Are there two objects that match within this "1/1000 inch" tolerance anywhere? If this is some sort of manufacturing process of standard objects, where is a pair of identical objects?

It seems we have two classes or two different industries of producing vases. But I am not sure what you point is. If you take out the maths and engineering then you take out the destinguishing feature which makes these a special special class as destinguished from the common vases all over the world in the primitive methods.

I mean simple observations see they are different to others. You could put them is a special class from all others just on looks of perfection.

Quality of Ancient Egyptian Stone Vases is Inconsistent with Modern Artifacts

The developed metrological analytical technique of evaluation of the quality of ancient artifacts can clearly distinguish between the modern stone vases and those of purported ancient Egyptian origin. As such, the analysis of forty-three 3D scans uncovered three classes of objects:

1. ‘precise’ class, M ≤ 15, characterized by extremely high precision;
2. ‘modern’ class, 15 < M ≤ 50, consistent with modern machining on a lathe;
3. ‘imprecise’ class, M > 50, consistent with manual fashioning.

In terms of the total quality metric M, the ancient Egyptian stone vessels that I deem ‘precise’ are 5 to 10 times more precise than modern-day stone vases made on a lathe and out of softer stones (two modern vases were onyx and three were marble). This is a difference of 500 to 1000 percent!

Quality of Ancient Egyptian Stone Vases is Inconsistent with Modern Artifacts

Support The Research Do you want to know the truth about our past? Fuel the research. Your participation matters and makes the difference. Download Paper For complete details, download my paper: Pr…

maximus.energy

Well there we go... Chris Dunn's fantasy of computer controlled machining. What utter nonsense. You must know that is nuts, right?

Once again you are creating logical fallacies like ad hominems. You said the same thing about Dunns proposal of the Giza pyramid being some sort of energy production and this was verifed by several scientific papers.

Even the establishment you know (the mainstream) lol said before all the so called conspiracies were being made that these signatures pointed to some sort of machining. I just gave you a quote from Wiki that acknowledges this.

it would appear almost certain that the craftsman had some method of rotating the material against a fixed tool, for it would be impossible to obtain such accuracy purely by hand chiselling and grinding by measurements, no matter how numerous or how painstakingly done.

Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels
3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. The analysis clearly shows that the examined Predynastic stone vessels were crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology.
Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels

Conclusions In Summary​

Based on the best understanding we currently have of the object, and on the knowledge of normal fundamental limits of physics and laws of nature, we have to conclude:

• That this object was fabricated on a highly sophisticated subtractive manufacturing system, from a solid piece of granite.
• That the manufacturing system would require, at the very least, sophisticated mechanical technology and high-precision components.
• That the manufacturing system would necessarily have been guided by an automated control system, which could read the design as input, and produce the required motions as output.
• That a turing machine, of considerable sophistication, would most likely have been employed to create and operate on the design, and to finally transfer it to the manufacturing system.

There is no way, in which we can attribute the production of this artefact, to anyone who do not possess, at minimum, the level of technological sophistication and capabilities mentioned above.

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

 

[stevevw]

What nonsense are going on about now? All I see is a collection of vases of different sizes which is the stark difference.
Do you possess super vision and can discern micron level variations in an image??

You don't need magic vision. Even you (observed) without going into how the cuts were made that they resembeled modern cuts. When open to these works without predetermined ideas you begin to (observe) these signatures quite easily.

Now they may turn out to be good close replicas. But thats because they look close to the precision. Thats the determinin g factor as opposed to the obviously inferior ones. Even inferior ones sitting next to this completely different signature in museums ie inferior softer ones or painted to look like the harder ones and then say they were made by the same methods and people.

For example here we have a precision vase on the left sitting next to a copy in softer stone that is suppose to be made by the same method. You can see without micron measures theres a destinct difference. It is these special precision vases that speak of a seperate and different signature.

For me its like putting a precision NASA part among parts from say 1900 and saying they were made by the same tech or people. You will look at the precision part and know there is a destinct signature overall eminating from it intuitively that is different from primitive methods.

This leads to my previous post.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Though I have a graduate history degree, I've largely given up on discussing history in this forum. I saw this thread when it was first posted, but didn't bother to watch the video. Now, because I was bored, I did. I'm not surprised by what he said. I'm not saying I agree with his specific...

www.christianforums.com

The naivety you display in blindly accepting the results from some youtuber's amateurish efforts when compared to mainstream science who have never been able to reproduce micron levels on their certified museum samples.

First of all your creating a fallacy, a strawman that these are just 'Youtubers'. These are qualified metrologists, analysts using scientific equipment producing scientific results and repeatedly so therefore being good science.

Metrology does not use light scanning and yet produces similar precision results down to 1,000th of an inch. The geometry and maths incorporated from this does not depend on light scanning and shows signatures of modern tech and knowledge to acheieve.

The measurements and the geometry and maths found are simple based on verticle and horizontal central axis. From this they can determine the precision to most points. As for the cyclinders and curves they were determined or rather found consistent with known geometry like the Golden ratio and Pi or the Flower of Life ratio. This was not random shapes to be determined by the subjective eye. They were inherent geometry found in nature.

Then the problem is how do you transfer that into a 3D object near perfect. Not any object but the hardest of stone. Thats a completely different matter and one that points to the advanced tech and knowledge.

But what you are doing here in offering your personal opinion and claiming authority is a fallacy. It offers no backup and seems subjective as to what you think and not the actual science behind the geometry and how it aligns so well to what seems like a preset shape that is designed in the method somehow and not just any artistic freehand shape.

Or any other shape that may be different to the common preset geometry and alignments we see in these vases.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It seems we have two classes or two different industries of producing vases. But I am not sure what you point is. If you take out the maths and engineering then you take out the destinguishing feature which makes these a special special class as destinguished from the common vases all over the world in the primitive methods.

I mean simple observations see they are different to others. You could put them is a special class from all others just on looks of perfection.

Quality of Ancient Egyptian Stone Vases is Inconsistent with Modern Artifacts

The developed metrological analytical technique of evaluation of the quality of ancient artifacts can clearly distinguish between the modern stone vases and those of purported ancient Egyptian origin. As such, the analysis of forty-three 3D scans uncovered three classes of objects:

1. ‘precise’ class, M ≤ 15, characterized by extremely high precision;
2. ‘modern’ class, 15 < M ≤ 50, consistent with modern machining on a lathe;
3. ‘imprecise’ class, M > 50, consistent with manual fashioning.

In terms of the total quality metric M, the ancient Egyptian stone vessels that I deem ‘precise’ are 5 to 10 times more precise than modern-day stone vases made on a lathe and out of softer stones (two modern vases were onyx and three were marble). This is a difference of 500 to 1000 percent!

Quality of Ancient Egyptian Stone Vases is Inconsistent with Modern Artifacts

Support The Research Do you want to know the truth about our past? Fuel the research. Your participation matters and makes the difference. Download Paper For complete details, download my paper: Pr…

maximus.energy

Oh, I took a quick look at this website an found this doozy of a plot:

If I ignore the oval "classes" and the colors it looks like a pretty clear continuous linear regression. I'd like to know what statistical test they performed to assign to distinct groups. (This is even more clear if the orange dots are removed. (I presume that the color has some meaning.

Once again you are creating logical fallacies like ad hominems. You said the same thing about Dunns proposal of the Giza pyramid being some sort of energy production and this was verifed by several scientific papers.

You need to learn what an ad hom is.

Chris Dunn's idea is stupid because the idea is stupid. My argument was not "Dunn is bad, so his idea must be wrong." That is an ad hom. It is possible that Dunn's bad ideas and poor conclusions demonstrate that he lacks critical thinking skiills, but it is the idea that is dumb and not supported by evidence.

Even the establishment you know (the mainstream) lol said before all the so called conspiracies were being made that these signatures pointed to some sort of machining. I just gave you a quote from Wiki that acknowledges this.

it would appear almost certain that the craftsman had some method of rotating the material against a fixed tool, for it would be impossible to obtain such accuracy purely by hand chiselling and grinding by measurements, no matter how numerous or how painstakingly done.

In the immortal words of the wikipedia (not "the wiki"): [Citation needed]

Also, as is quite clear in all of the reproduction attempts, the shaping of circular vases is not done by "chiselling".

Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels
3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. The analysis clearly shows that the examined Predynastic stone vessels were crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology.
Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels

Conclusions In Summary​

Based on the best understanding we currently have of the object, and on the knowledge of normal fundamental limits of physics and laws of nature, we have to conclude:

• That this object was fabricated on a highly sophisticated subtractive manufacturing system, from a solid piece of granite.
• That the manufacturing system would require, at the very least, sophisticated mechanical technology and high-precision components.
• That the manufacturing system would necessarily have been guided by an automated control system, which could read the design as input, and produce the required motions as output.
• That a turing machine, of considerable sophistication, would most likely have been employed to create and operate on the design, and to finally transfer it to the manufacturing system.

There is no way, in which we can attribute the production of this artefact, to anyone who do not possess, at minimum, the level of technological sophistication and capabilities mentioned above.

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

We've discussed this before, last year in detail. It's just a bunch of simple shapes drawn on 2D picture of a vase and the a handful of simple formulae with multiple solutions that allow for "solutions" with out meaning.

 

[sjastro]

You don't need magic vision. Even you (observed) without going into how the cuts were made that they resembeled modern cuts. When open to these works without predetermined ideas you begin to (observe) these signatures quite easily.

Now they may turn out to be good close replicas. But thats because they look close to the precision. Thats the determinin g factor as opposed to the obviously inferior ones. Even inferior ones sitting next to this completely different signature in museums ie inferior softer ones or painted to look like the harder ones and then say they were made by the same methods and people.

For example here we have a precision vase on the left sitting next to a copy in softer stone that is suppose to be made by the same method. You can see without micron measures theres a destinct difference. It is these special precision vases that speak of a seperate and different signature.

View attachment 369871

For me its like putting a precision NASA part among parts from say 1900 and saying they were made by the same tech or people. You will look at the precision part and know there is a destinct signature overall eminating from it intuitively that is different from primitive methods.

Are you totally bereft of any basic comprehension skills?
Here again are the images in question.

You cannot tell from these enlarged images whether the vases are constructed to micron level accuracy let alone millimetre accuracy.
Instead you waffle on about irrelevant nonsense.

First of all your creating a fallacy, a strawman that these are just 'Youtubers'. These are qualified metrologists, analysts using scientific equipment producing scientific results and repeatedly so therefore being good science.

Stop making up rubbish.
If these individuals are qualified metrologists then why did they use Blender and OpenSCAD which are downloadable software from the internet instead of the tools of trade such as GOM Inspect, PolyWorks, or Geomagic Control.
It is bad science to use inferior downloadable software for the micron level analysis for the reasons given which you fail to comprehend and ignore.

Metrology does not use light scanning and yet produces similar precision results down to 1,000th of an inch. The geometry and maths incorporated from this does not depend on light scanning and shows signatures of modern tech and knowledge to acheieve.

The measurements and the geometry and maths found are simple based on verticle and horizontal central axis. From this they can determine the precision to most points. As for the cyclinders and curves they were determined or rather found consistent with known geometry like the Golden ratio and Pi or the Flower of Life ratio. This was not random shapes to be determined by the subjective eye. They were inherent geometry found in nature.

Then the problem is how do you transfer that into a 3D object near perfect. Not any object but the hardest of stone. Thats a completely different matter and one that points to the advanced tech and knowledge.

This is incomprehensible nonsense, the two links you supplied are about scanning vases for dimensional analysis.
Furthermore go learn the difference between accuracy and precision.
The issue is around accuracy not precision and I cannot make it any clearer the internet programs of Blender and OpenScad are not up to the job for measuring accuracy at a micron level.
Only professional software which does not rely on visual alignments between scanned data with a theoretically perfect model will work at this level.

But what you are doing here in offering your personal opinion and claiming authority is a fallacy. It offers no backup and seems subjective as to what you think and not the actual science behind the geometry and how it aligns so well to what seems like a preset shape that is designed in the method somehow and not just any artistic freehand shape.

Or any other shape that may be different to the common preset geometry and alignments we see in these vases.

Given your total lack of comprehension of the subject matter including going into denial mode you are in no position to judge whether I am offering personal opinion or a more informed comment based on evidence.

Frankly I find your comment about having more discussions on topics like this dishonest.
You are not interested in having discussions, this is all about preaching which puts this thread in the wrong forum.

 

[stevevw]

Are you totally bereft of any basic comprehension skills?
Here again are the images in question.

View attachment 369874

View attachment 369875

You cannot tell from these enlarged images whether the vases are constructed to micron level accuracy let alone millimetre accuracy.
Instead you waffle on about irrelevant nonsense.

First I never said I can tell at the micro or mm level the difference. This is another conflation and fallacy you've created.

I said just observing them points to their precision. We can see the precision compared to a softer vase not at the micro level but in the rogher finished, the crooked and uneven lines. The overall look. Its more that the precision ones don't show a hint of imperfection. Its harder to find with basic observation. But can be found in the imperfect ones even if thats just one imperfect line or distortion.

Can you honestly say you cannot see this difference. Look at the alabasta ones in how they lean and have crooked lines. Thats all I am saying. That on first observation we can see this signature overall and sort of know which vases are more likely to be precise all the way down to the micro level. Put it this way I certainly would be be choosing the alabasta ones.

Stop making up rubbish.

Stop being so morally outraged over granite vases lol.

If these individuals are qualified metrologists then why did they use Blender and OpenSCAD which are downloadable software from the internet instead of the tools of trade such as GOM Inspect, PolyWorks, or Geomagic Control.

Because this made it more open and not restricted so that the average person could download the analysis and do it themselves.. In no way does it reduce the application for 3rd parties. This open source enabled seperate testing of the measurements of the vases finding the maths and patterns within the vase. None of your complaints negates the precision and maths in the vases.

An extremely accurate and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured-light scanning, has just recently been released of vase-like object, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt. Have a look at this update demonstrating how Pi was integrated to near perfection into the design as well.

Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Granite Artifact

An interesting geometrical analysis of an extremely precise and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured light scanning of a granite artifact, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt.

unsigned.io

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED
All CT scans were captured by a 3rd party service company, EMS, Inc., using a Nikon 4M-RTSS CT scanner. Optical scans of the modern objects were captured by the author using a Keyence VL-500 optical scanner. The 3 scans of the replica vases made by Olga Vdovina were captured by antropogenez.ru using an optical scanner.

Scan Validation
To ensure the validity of measurements, the CT scanner accuracy was validated using a T-styli sphericity set, a NIST traceable metrological standard containing two small ruby beads with the radius R = 1.99820 mm.

The Keyence VL-500 scanner was validated using a Zeiss 1.00000” reference sphere.

The 3D scans of the metrological standards were analyzed, and the radii of the reference spheres were found to be within 0.0044 mm or 0.00017” of their certified values.

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED

Abstract Predynastic Egyptian stone vessels (c. 4000–3100 BCE) offer unique insight into the remarkable technological sophistication of a culture that significantly predates Egypt’s unification. Hu…

maximus.energy

Gamma Spectra of Naqada Period Stone Vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archeology

Gamma Spectra of Naqada Period Stone Vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archeology

I hereby publish eight gamma spectra of the Naqada period (predynastic) Ancient Egyptian stone vessels that I captured during my research visit to the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeo…

maximus.energy

Vase Scan Resources

Vase Scan Resources – UnchartedX

It is bad science to use inferior downloadable software for the micron level analysis for the reasons given which you fail to comprehend and ignore.

Seemed good enough for further testing in finding the math and geometry patterns in the vases.

The results have been consistent across several areas by independnt testers and applications whether through micrometers, which offer the highest accuracy for linear measurements, and dial gauges or Vernier calipers, or 3D light scanning. Or the follow on analitic results of the geometry from the metrology. All converge on the same results which is good science.

This is incomprehensible nonsense, the two links you supplied are about scanning vases for dimensional analysis.

Thats what I am talking about. Think of it logically. How can they be analysing the precision maths and dimensions if they have no scans with the micro analysis. What about the guage testing does that count lol. The mathmatical analysis was also based on this showing similar results.

Furthermore go learn the difference between accuracy and precision.
The issue is around accuracy not precision and I cannot make it any clearer the internet programs of Blender and OpenScad are not up to the job for measuring accuracy at a micron level.

This seems to be complaining about a strawman. I think its the other way around. If you first looked at the evidence I supplied you would not be coming to these misrepresentations.

All this to try and undermine, make muddy the evidence. The fact is the tests were legit, scientific, some done within the Pterie museum, others done in independent facilities one which makes precision parts for NASA, All made by qualified experts in their fields.

Only professional software which does not rely on visual alignments between scanned data with a theoretically perfect model will work at this level.

Despite all your complaining the tests are valid.

Given your total lack of comprehension of the subject matter including going into denial mode you are in no position to judge whether I am offering personal opinion or a more informed comment based on evidence.

Frankly I find your comment about having more discussions on topics like this dishonest.
You are not interested in having discussions, this is all about preaching which puts this thread in the wrong forum.

Then don't reply lol. All this appeal to morality, ethics, honesty ect seems more ideological. If it upsets you then maybe it is something you need to look at. But don't take it out on me lol.

I am merely a messenger who is relaying the evidence. First look at it and address its content. I have not linked the detail. That is for you to look at. First look at that to see exactly the method. Then make an arguement that this method is faulty. Not about me but the evidence linked. Just like its not about you, your personal opinion but teh evidence linked.

This is the only way you will be able to deal with the evidence to determine its legitimacy rather than attacking the messenger. I could be wrong, the tests could be wrong. But you won't determine this unless you engage in the actual content.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

First I never said I can tell at the micro or mm level the difference. This is another conflation and fallacy you've created.

I said just observing them points to their precision. We can see the precision compared to a softer vase not at the micro level but in the rogher finished, the crooked and uneven lines. The overall look. Its more that the precision ones don't show a hint of imperfection. Its harder to find with basic observation. But can be found in the imperfect ones even if thats just one imperfect line or distortion.

Can you honestly say you cannot see this difference. Look at the alabasta ones in how they lean and have crooked lines. Thats all I am saying. That on first observation we can see this signature overall and sort of know which vases are more likely to be precise all the way down to the micro level. Put it this way I certainly would be be choosing the alabasta ones.

Stop being so outraged lol.

Because this made it more open and not restricted so that the average person could download the analysis and do it themselves.. In no way does it reduce the application for 3rd parties. This open source enabled seperate testing of the measurements of the vases finding the maths and patterns within the vase. None of your complaints negates the precision and maths in the vases.

An extremely accurate and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured-light scanning, has just recently been released of vase-like object, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt. Have a look at this update demonstrating how Pi was integrated to near perfection into the design as well.

Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Granite Artifact

An interesting geometrical analysis of an extremely precise and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured light scanning of a granite artifact, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt.

unsigned.io

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED
All CT scans were captured by a 3rd party service company, EMS, Inc., using a Nikon 4M-RTSS CT scanner. Optical scans of the modern objects were captured by the author using a Keyence VL-500 optical scanner. The 3 scans of the replica vases made by Olga Vdovina were captured by antropogenez.ru using an optical scanner.

Scan Validation
To ensure the validity of measurements, the CT scanner accuracy was validated using a T-styli sphericity set, a NIST traceable metrological standard containing two small ruby beads with the radius R = 1.99820 mm.

The Keyence VL-500 scanner was validated using a Zeiss 1.00000” reference sphere.

The 3D scans of the metrological standards were analyzed, and the radii of the reference spheres were found to be within 0.0044 mm or 0.00017” of their certified values.

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED

Abstract Predynastic Egyptian stone vessels (c. 4000–3100 BCE) offer unique insight into the remarkable technological sophistication of a culture that significantly predates Egypt’s unification. Hu…

maximus.energy

Gamma Spectra of Naqada Period Stone Vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archeology

Gamma Spectra of Naqada Period Stone Vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archeology

I hereby publish eight gamma spectra of the Naqada period (predynastic) Ancient Egyptian stone vessels that I captured during my research visit to the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeo…

maximus.energy

Vase Scan Resources

Vase Scan Resources – UnchartedX

Seemed good enough for further testing in finding the math and geometry patterns in the vases.

The results have been consistent across several areas by independnt testers and applications whether through micrometers, which offer the highest accuracy for linear measurements, and dial gauges or Vernier calipers, or 3D light scanning. Or the follow on analitic results of the geometry from the metrology. All converge on the same results which is good science.

Thats what I am talking about. Think of it logically. How can they be analysing the precision maths and dimensions if they have no scans with the micro analysis. What about the guage testing does that count lol. The mathmatical analysis was also based on this showing similar results.

This seems to be complaining about a strawman. I think its the other way around. If you first looked at the evidence I supplied you would not be coming to these misrepresentations.

All this to try and undermine, make muddy the evidence. The fact is the tests were legit, scientific, some done within the Pterie museum, others done in independent facilities one which makes precision parts for NASA, All made by qualified experts in their fields.

Despite all your complaining the tests are valid.

Then don't reply lol. All this appeal to morality, ethics, honesty ect seems more ideological. If it upsets you then maybe it is something you need to look at. But don't take it out on me lol.

I am merely a messenger who is relaying the evidence. First look at it and address its content. I have not linked the detail. That is for you to look at. First look at that to see exactly the method. Then make an arguement that this method is faulty. Not about me but the evidence linked. JUst like its not about you, your personal opinion but teh evidence linked.

Are there any peer reviewed articles regarding these vases? It would be interesting to read what the experts say.

 

[stevevw]

Are there any peer reviewed articles regarding these vases? It would be interesting to read what the experts say.

What I just linked is from the experts. Read the reports. Despite all the objections first look at the testing and then we can discuss their results as to whether they are valid. Thats the idea.

I have clearly linked quotes from those links throughout this thread that are clearly supporting the findings for advanced tech and knowledge in those vases based on the science and not personal opinion. They may be wrong who knows.

The problem is with this whole testing vases is that most are reluctant. Your lucky if you can get access to them. So its rare and theres not a lot out there at the moment. I have linked in the last few pages a fair few different sources from even before this whole thing blew up into some conspiracy. Which acknowledges the precision before rigorious tests done with the instruments that were available over 100 years or more.

Its not new and has been recognised for a long time. But now we have more sources such as private collections and now access to Petrie museum just recently. More people with funds who are willing to put them to the test. If all museums were willing and more scientific testing then great. Bring it on.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

What I just linked is from the experts. Read the reports. Despite all the objections first look at the testing and then we can discuss their results as to whether they are valid. Thats the idea.

I have clearly linked quotes from those links throughout this thread that are clearly supporting the findings for advanced tech and knowledge in those vases based on the science and not personal opinion. They may be wrong who knows.

Name of the authors, article and the journal would be helpful.

 

[stevevw]

Name of the authors, article and the journal would be helpful.

I don't think you understand how this is being achieved. There is no journal officially. Its open sourced so it will be presented by various academics and put back into open source to be analysed and critiqued further.

This has more or less all recent so its a case of scouring journals for the specific info. But some of the best stuff is open sourced and not necessarily put through a journal. The articles I linked are examples ie the Light scanning tests were done directly the experts who are already in the fields.

In otherwords they are coming from the scientists in the labs. Now they need critiquing. All the further findings from this come from the original tests directly from the labs. If you want to scrutinise the methods, equipement ect its all in the original worked linked by open source. I am linking the original links. But also links to further testing once again by the experts in their labs which is directly uploaded to open source.

They have chosen this method I think which is better than peer review because it not only allows peer review but does so on a much wider basis in that its allowing everyone, even the average person to see the original data and follow the results. Like I said it may be wrong but only more data and evidence can show this.

Obviously this is very expensive testing so only specialist industries with specialist equipment would be able to even do the tests and have the experts to use those instruments and analyse the data.

About

Maximus Energy Corporation is engaged in the following activities: Microscopic Thermonuclear Fusion Radiation Detection Equipment Manufacturing Scientific Equipment Sales and Refurbishing Consultin…

maximus.energy

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I don't think you understand how this is being achieved. There is no journal officially. Its open sourced so it will be presented by various academics and put back into open source to be analysed and critiqued further.

This has more or less all recent so its a case of scouring journals for the specific info. But some of the best stuff is open sourced and not necessarily put through a journal. The articles I linked are examples ie the Light scanning tests were done directly the experts who are already in the fields.

In otherwords they are coming from the scientists in the labs. Now they need critiquing. All the further findings from this come from the original tests directly from the labs. If you want to scrutinise the methods, equipement ect its all in the original worked linked by open source. I am linking the original links. But also links to further testing once again by the experts in their labs which is directly uploaded to open source.

They have chosen this method I think which is better than peer review because it not only allows peer review but does so on a much wider basis in that its allowing everyone, even the average person to see the original data and follow the results. Like I said it may be wrong but only more data and evidence can show this.

Obviously this is very expensive testing so only specialist industries with specialist equipment would be able to even do the tests and have the experts to use those instruments and analyse the data.

About

Maximus Energy Corporation is engaged in the following activities: Microscopic Thermonuclear Fusion Radiation Detection Equipment Manufacturing Scientific Equipment Sales and Refurbishing Consultin…

maximus.energy

But do they get the experts to weigh in on their findings? Some of them seem to use light scanning and automatic meshing, and then measuring the mesh and present a suspiciously high amount of significant digits and/or accuracy. There are possibilities to engage with the scientific community and making the data publicly available. They could use preprint servers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think that explains the precision and quality. I would say one motivating factor we can establish is that it was religious or spiritual. They believed these were for the gods or given by the gods. As we see in most religious works they are usually given higher priority.

You need to brush up on Egyptian beliefs in the afterlife. Grave goods were to sustain the dead in the afterlife. The best stone work being found in the graves of the richest and most powerful people meant that they wanted to have the "good stuff" in the afterlife. They were not offerings to their gods or gifts from them. Egyptians literally thought you *could* take it with you.

But even that does not explain the precision geometry and maths within the vases.
I am only comparing the level of work that is needed to reproduce and not that they were precision parts for any bigger mechanical whole like aerodynamics ect. You could say they were precision parts for the gods. If they believed that they were for the gods then it would be aimed at prefection. But how we don't know.
Which makes it even more interesting as the Golden ratio is all over these vases. Actually I think they are meaningful. They fall within certain math and in fact the link I gave reduces these vases down to a single math equation through a parametric CAD model that seems to overlay near perfectly with some of these vases.

They include Pi, Phi (Golden Ratio), the Flower of Life, other known sacred ratios. Which is interesting in itself as to the methods. Why such geometry. We see these reflected in nature. Why natural geometry and how does this relate to the precision and method.

As I have stated at least 5 times in this and previous threads. The numbers and math that those cranks have "identified" are just figments of their imagination. The most "important" work on the "field" is some one literally drawing circles and trianges ON A PICTURE of the vase. I should repeat that -- ON A PICTURE.

Your forgetting one thing. How did they then take those numbers and shape and then make it into a 3D vase which adheres near perfectly to those ratios and numbers.

They didn't. The vase was made to high quality, symmetry, and polish and then some fool started drawing circles on a picture of it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We do know it for a number of reasons. The big one is the methods on the wall paintings don't match the signatures of the hard stone vases.

You are claiming images of something being done are evidence that it was an inferior method, particularly centuries earlier. That is not how things work. The images depict workers engaged in activities that look like stone vessel production and show some tools. They don't include detailed instructions of how to do it or to build the tools.

Logically if the depictions on the wall have produced the inferior vases by its very method. Then it follows that the same signatures will also be produced in the hard stone vases. In fact if anything the soft stone vases should be more perfect being easier to cut and shape.

I've already covered the assumptions you built into the premise above, but now you add one about softer versus harder material. That is not necessarily true either. Harder materials should take more effort, but softer materials can be unforgiving if "overwork" a section. Especially since this is subtractive work. Unwanted material is removed, but you can't add on anything that you have accidentally removed.

Of course its about replicating the originals. Every experimenter who does this states themselves that they are trying to match the signatures.

And you (and the "precision vase" nuts you read) think that smoothness of the surface is the defining signature. Anyone who has worked with any material of the sort, from wood to plaster walls to metals to stone knows that you can always get a better polish and smoother surface by working longer with finer grits. What the demonstrated is that the tools available in early Ancient Egypt were suitable to the task of shaping vases of the type depicted out of blocks of hard stone. The only thing missing from them is the fine polish.

Even before these vases were being tested there were mentions of the precision and quality of these vases compared to later ones. Its not a con job, or conspiracy. Its real science repeated which is good science.

No one is saying that simple hard-stone vases of high quality didn't peak early in Egyptian history. As various posts on this and previously mentioned threads have noted, Egyptians moved on in the style preferences and the luxury they dedicated their resources to producing.

Before the pyramids, the originas of Egyptian civilisation
https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp33.pdf

An interesting looking document. I look forward to finding some time to read through it. I did notice some sections on stonework and I did not see anything like the claims you were making here in it.
https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp33.pdf

You get the gist. I will spell it out for you. They were of a markedly inferior quality verified by the science.

Steve, you know how this board works in quoting, etc. At this point I've lost contact with what you were orginally talking about. I do not get the gist (or remember it). As to the rest, I've seen no "science" presented here.

Please stop the moral outrage lol. Let me ask you a question which may help you understand what I am saying which has nothing to do with morals or questioning an artists ability.

I'll have all the moral outrage I want. (The other things I want to expess moral outrage about are forbidden on this site, so the pseudoscience pushers get the brunt of it.)

At its heart, this whole "vases made by machines" denies the actual skilled work of talented artisans working with methods that developed over centuries. Instead they substitute machines that did not exist and invent motives for production.

Could an artist replicate a precision part for NASA. Could they do it freehand without any guide. Is there any difference between the engineering in architecture and artwork for its style and looks. Are these two seperate things.
You missed the point. Its not about the function or shape or height ect. Its about the level of precision and quality that determines the advanced knowledge and tech.

NASA is irrelevant. The Egyptians didn't have flying machines.

 

[sjastro]

First I never said I can tell at the micro or mm level the difference. This is another conflation and fallacy you've created.

I said just observing them points to their precision. We can see the precision compared to a softer vase not at the micro level but in the rogher finished, the crooked and uneven lines. The overall look. Its more that the precision ones don't show a hint of imperfection. Its harder to find with basic observation. But can be found in the imperfect ones even if thats just one imperfect line or distortion.

Can you honestly say you cannot see this difference. Look at the alabasta ones in how they lean and have crooked lines. Thats all I am saying. That on first observation we can see this signature overall and sort of know which vases are more likely to be precise all the way down to the micro level. Put it this way I certainly would be be choosing the alabasta ones.

View attachment 369897

View attachment 369896

This version of events is equally absurd.
Assuming the first image are of alabaster vases and the second are of granite when were they produced? Answer you don’t know.
Isn’t the point of your argument the alabaster vases must have been produced at a later time when this amazing technology you know nothing about had vanished?

Stop being so morally outraged over granite vases lol.

Because this made it more open and not restricted so that the average person could download the analysis and do it themselves.. In no way does it reduce the application for 3rd parties. This open source enabled seperate testing of the measurements of the vases finding the maths and patterns within the vase. None of your complaints negates the precision and maths in the vases.

Complete utter nonsense. You are so profoundly out of your depth you need to make up fairy tales as compensation.

An extremely accurate and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured-light scanning, has just recently been released of vase-like object, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt. Have a look at this update demonstrating how Pi was integrated to near perfection into the design as well.

Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Granite Artifact

An interesting geometrical analysis of an extremely precise and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured light scanning of a granite artifact, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt.

unsigned.io

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED
All CT scans were captured by a 3rd party service company, EMS, Inc., using a Nikon 4M-RTSS CT scanner. Optical scans of the modern objects were captured by the author using a Keyence VL-500 optical scanner. The 3 scans of the replica vases made by Olga Vdovina were captured by antropogenez.ru using an optical scanner.

Scan Validation
To ensure the validity of measurements, the CT scanner accuracy was validated using a T-styli sphericity set, a NIST traceable metrological standard containing two small ruby beads with the radius R = 1.99820 mm.

The Keyence VL-500 scanner was validated using a Zeiss 1.00000” reference sphere.

The 3D scans of the metrological standards were analyzed, and the radii of the reference spheres were found to be within 0.0044 mm or 0.00017” of their certified values.

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED

Abstract Predynastic Egyptian stone vessels (c. 4000–3100 BCE) offer unique insight into the remarkable technological sophistication of a culture that significantly predates Egypt’s unification. Hu…

maximus.energy

Gamma Spectra of Naqada Period Stone Vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archeology

Gamma Spectra of Naqada Period Stone Vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archeology

I hereby publish eight gamma spectra of the Naqada period (predynastic) Ancient Egyptian stone vessels that I captured during my research visit to the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeo…

maximus.energy

Vase Scan Resources

Vase Scan Resources – UnchartedX

Seemed good enough for further testing in finding the math and geometry patterns in the vases.

This exemplifies why you are so comprehensively out of your depth.
Sure you can provide examples of different type of scanners and how they are calibrated.
The type of scanner also determines the resolution of the mesh but what is not getting through because you do not understand and are in denial mode is the use of Blender and OpenScad downloadable software will not work for the reasons given.

The results have been consistent across several areas by independnt testers and applications whether through micrometers, which offer the highest accuracy for linear measurements, and dial gauges or Vernier calipers, or 3D light scanning. Or the follow on analitic results of the geometry from the metrology. All converge on the same results which is good science.

Thats what I am talking about. Think of it logically. How can they be analysing the precision maths and dimensions if they have no scans with the micro analysis. What about the guage testing does that count lol. The mathmatical analysis was also based on this showing similar results.

Another example of being out of your depth.
Even you should be able to understand vernier and dial gauges apart from providing a very limited number of data point measurements cannot access all regions of a vase like scanning.
As a result they are highly unreliable to confirm scanned measurements.

This seems to be complaining about a strawman. I think its the other way around. If you first looked at the evidence I supplied you would not be coming to these misrepresentations.

All this to try and undermine, make muddy the evidence. The fact is the tests were legit, scientific, some done within the Pterie museum, others done in independent facilities one which makes precision parts for NASA, All made by qualified experts in their fields.

Your level of understanding is so poor that you can’t even recognize the dearth of evidence submitted according to your two links.
More of this in my next response……………..

Despite all your complaining the tests are valid.

If these individuals are experts in their fields and the tests are valid, why do we not have this level of detail in their vase reports.

This is when you use professional software, each scanned point of this plastic moulded part is not only measured but also if the point is above, on or below the surface of the ideal model is recorded as a heat map.

By comparison when Blender and OpenScad software are used this is what you get as shown in the UnchartedX scan of a vase.

Note the outer diameter measurement is based on 77,728 points but what is the significance of the 0.313 value, where was it measured?
It cannot be a mean measurement in the coloured region as the diameter is tapered.
It is tells me absolutely nothing about how accurate the vase is when compared to the theoretical model.
This is part of a report that is equally deficient in information and is next to useless in determining the wild claims about the accuracy of the vase.

https://unchartedx.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/VASE-REPORT-METRIC.pdf

If you still think this a detailed professional report, you are deluding yourself.

Then don't reply lol. All this appeal to morality, ethics, honesty ect seems more ideological. If it upsets you then maybe it is something you need to look at. But don't take it out on me lol.

I am merely a messenger who is relaying the evidence. First look at it and address its content. I have not linked the detail. That is for you to look at. First look at that to see exactly the method. Then make an arguement that this method is faulty. Not about me but the evidence linked. Just like its not about you, your personal opinion but teh evidence linked.

This is the only way you will be able to deal with the evidence to determine its legitimacy rather than attacking the messenger. I could be wrong, the tests could be wrong. But you won't determine this unless you engage in the actual content.

Here is some Psychology 101.
Firstly there is the projection, you are one who is engaging in ideology and faith and is projecting it on others who incidentally happen to be scientists.
Secondly your responses are clear evidence of cognitive dissonance, your faith has been challenged and rather than countering the real evidence provided, you double down and delude yourself into thinking youtubers are professional scientists, their reports are valid and I have been muddying your so called evidence which is essentially non existent.

It is also the height of dishonesty of claiming I have not engaged in the actual content; your cognitive dissonance is no excuse for making dishonest remarks.

 

[Tuur]

At its heart, this whole "vases made by machines" denies the actual skilled work of talented artisans working with methods that developed over centuries. Instead they substitute machines that did not exist and invent motives for production.

Okay: I took a deep breath and checked this thread again, and saw this. What immediately came to mind are three machines that we might not even regard as such, but can be pretty simple: Drills, potter's wheels, and lathes.

The simplest drill is a point on a shaft. You can twist it or roll it between your hands. A step up is a point on a shaft with a thong wrapped around the shaft and attached to a bow. Use something to press down on the end of the shaft to hold it in place and move the bow back and forth. Need a high speed drill? Put a balance weight on the shaft. attach a couple of thongs to the shaft and connect the ends to a short bow. Press the bow down, being careful to allow momentum to wrap it back on the shaft, and you get bursts of high speed. Cultures have used all three not only to bore holes but to make fire.

Need a potter's wheel? Mount a flywheel onto a shaft; place it where it can rotate with the shaft vertical; run the shaft through a hole in a mount to keep the thing upright; put a small wheel ion the top, and presto! A potter's wheel. Plop something down in the center, get the speed up on the flywheel by spinning it with your feet, and form clay or grind to your heart's content.

Want a lathe? The simplest is what one traveling repairman in the 19th Century used. He needed to make a spindle, so he put two mounts into the ground, secured a length of wood between them, wrapped a thong around it; and had a helper pull it back and forth while he applied a chisel. What something better? Make a raised wooden mount, attach a length of wood between it; mount a spring pole above it; put a foot pedal under it; attach a thong to the spring pole, wrap around the length of wood, attach to the pedal, and pump the pedal to rotate the wood back and forth while you apply the chisel. What something fancier? Build a vertical flywheel, attach to a point to rotate the length of wood; make a rig like for a grind stone; pump the pedal to get up speed, then apply the chisel without worrying about back and forth motion.

Basically, if you can get a piece of wood or a block of stone rotating, you can do all sorts of things with it. Stone needs nothing more than grit and patience. Want an elliptical shape? Make a simple rig to turn rotary motion into reciprocal motion, attach the grinding pad to it, and turn away.

All machines and all simple, and all would have been known to the Egyptians.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Okay: I took a deep breath and checked this thread again, and saw this. What immediately came to mind are three machines that we might not even regard as such, but can be pretty simple: Drills, potter's wheels, and lathes.

The simplest drill is a point on a shaft. You can twist it or roll it between your hands. A step up is a point on a shaft with a thong wrapped around the shaft and attached to a bow. Use something to press down on the end of the shaft to hold it in place and move the bow back and forth. Need a high speed drill? Put a balance weight on the shaft. attach a couple of thongs to the shaft and connect the ends to a short bow. Press the bow down, being careful to allow momentum to wrap it back on the shaft, and you get bursts of high speed. Cultures have used all three not only to bore holes but to make fire.

Need a potter's wheel? Mount a flywheel onto a shaft; place it where it can rotate with the shaft vertical; run the shaft through a hole in a mount to keep the thing upright; put a small wheel ion the top, and presto! A potter's wheel. Plop something down in the center, get the speed up on the flywheel by spinning it with your feet, and form clay or grind to your heart's content.

Want a lathe? The simplest is what one traveling repairman in the 19th Century used. He needed to make a spindle, so he put two mounts into the ground, secured a length of wood between them, wrapped a thong around it; and had a helper pull it back and forth while he applied a chisel. What something better? Make a raised wooden mount, attach a length of wood between it; mount a spring pole above it; put a foot pedal under it; attach a thong to the spring pole, wrap around the length of wood, attach to the pedal, and pump the pedal to rotate the wood back and forth while you apply the chisel. What something fancier? Build a vertical flywheel, attach to a point to rotate the length of wood; make a rig like for a grind stone; pump the pedal to get up speed, then apply the chisel without worrying about back and forth motion.

Basically, if you can get a piece of wood or a block of stone rotating, you can do all sorts of things with it. Stone needs nothing more than grit and patience. Want an elliptical shape? Make a simple rig to turn rotary motion into reciprocal motion, attach the grinding pad to it, and turn away.

All machines and all simple, and all would have been known to the Egyptians.

Perhaps I should have "programmable" as at the deepest and most indefensible the "theory" being pushed by the sources quoted by Steve involve "computerized milling machines".

As a physicist and pendant, I must note that a pry bar is a machine.

From the materials posted in this thread, I believe that the potter's wheel was not developed until after the peak of the high quality stoneware period in Egypt.

 

[stevevw]

You are claiming images of something being done are evidence that it was an inferior method, particularly centuries earlier. That is not how things work. The images depict workers engaged in activities that look like stone vessel production and show some tools. They don't include detailed instructions of how to do it or to build the tools.

It is from the depictions that the experiments have been done. So we took those pics and applied the science with trying to replicate the pics. That gave us the methods of tool making and there have been different experiments with different cutters and agents ect. Followed by micro analysis ect. We understand pretty well how the method on the walls works.

Its the hard stone signatures we cannot fully work out exactly how they achieved a destint and different signature.

I've already covered the assumptions you built into the premise above,

lol and I covered the assumption made of my assumption.

but now you add one about softer versus harder material. That is not necessarily true either. Harder materials should take more effort, but softer materials can be unforgiving if "overwork" a section. Especially since this is subtractive work. Unwanted material is removed, but you can't add on anything that you have accidentally removed.

Actually I think its the exact opposite. If its subtraction then would not the fact that you can't add back make hard stone harder as you can at least turn around and make another. Whereas making another hard stone vase is not easy turnaround. Thats not taking away from softer vases.

But when you consider the abundence of softer works compared to hard stones or even specific hard stones, this is pretty rare and strangly most come from the earliest periods, even predynastic. Based on this idea the fact that these vases are so precise is even more amazing if they had to be careful of misaligning the geometry and the risk of ruining the entire work.

And you (and the "precision vase" nuts you read)

Another ad hominem. They are coming thick and fast.

think that smoothness of the surface is the defining signature.

I think a strawman. I never said such.

Anyone who has worked with any material of the sort, from wood to plaster walls to metals to stone knows that you can always get a better polish and smoother surface by working longer with finer grits. What the demonstrated is that the tools available in early Ancient Egypt were suitable to the task of shaping vases of the type depicted out of blocks of hard stone. The only thing missing from them is the fine polish.

Ok so 2 years for a rough vase. The inside was not attempted to bring any shape. So longer was needed to get the basic shape. Then the rest is polished into precision. Is that what you are saying. That all the precision is polished into precision.

How did they manage to get things so precise by freehand. Do you think they had some sort of guide to ensure they freehand was taking the right amount off and not going a micron over.

No one is saying that simple hard-stone vases of high quality didn't peak early in Egyptian history. As various posts on this and previously mentioned threads have noted, Egyptians moved on in the style preferences and the luxury they dedicated their resources to producing.

I don't think the uniqueness of these vases is about changing styles. That deminishes them. Makes it a fashion change rather than a knowledge and tech change.

An interesting looking document. I look forward to finding some time to read through it. I did notice some sections on stonework and I did not see anything like the claims you were making here in it.
https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp33.pdf

If your talking about that particular article thats because I was not using that for the specific claims I was making. Rather to show that even before all this conspiracy came up others were alluding to that precision in the language they used ie page 69, the Naqada II period is often considered the zenith of Egyptian stone vessel manufactoring and page 95 A difference has to be made between mass produced of objects and the great value of objects due to their material, exceptional craftmanship and intellectual implication.

Petrie specifically singles these works out as hard to explain and implied some advanced tech over 100 years ago. Theres several references which I can't be bothered finding that say similar well before all this conspiracy now about pointing out the same thing in more detail.

Steve, you know how this board works in quoting, etc. At this point I've lost contact with what you were orginally talking about. I do not get the gist (or remember it). As to the rest, I've seen no "science" presented here.

Lol what is the rest you speak of. If its the out of place signatures I have posted plenty of evidence. If its how this happened yest I have not posted any evidence.

But as I have mentioned several times This debate over specific examples can go on forever and we have not even begun on other works around the world that are out of place and point to advanced knowledge and tech in ancient times. But this is not the point of the thread.

Its about the overall idea about knowledge and how the orthodoxy makes it a gradual evolution from simple to complex according to material sciences ie archeology, evolution, anthropology ect. The title of the video mentions a "giant flaw in human history". That is is that the story told may not represent what has actually happened.

That knowledge can come and go and may have peaked a number of times and then was lost ie (the knowledge of precision vases) and other amazing works.

That we see our present advanced time as the most advanced when therte may have been a world that was very advanced in other ways and even more advanced and we have actually become less knowledgable as a result. Thus turning the orthodox narrative on its head.

I'll have all the moral outrage I want. (The other things I want to expess moral outrage about are forbidden on this site, so the pseudoscience pushers get the brunt of it.)

But your accusing me of pushing pseudoscience when I am not and I clearly stated to you I am not. So your moral outrage is misplaced on me. Now its going to become proving your moral outrage is justified. Seems rediculous when its simple about alternative knowledge and now your claiming a moral truth.

This seems to be supporting my point that when it comes to peoples subjective worldviews its more about epistemics and metaphysical truths than the actual material evidence. Your claiming a superior knowledge and truth wheich includes how we should see knowledge and truth.

At its heart, this whole "vases made by machines" denies the actual skilled work of talented artisans working with methods that developed over centuries. Instead they substitute machines that did not exist and invent motives for production.

I think this is a misrepresentation and based on false assumptions. The assumption that the lost knowledge and tech must be like todays knowledge and tech. I have not said this. Only that the signatures look like they have been made by todays tech.

Thats part of the problem. That people cannot get outside todays knowledge an dtech in how we understand alternative knowledge and tech.

The other part at least for those who see this modern looking signatures and out of place works is that the idea of artistry as in creating an art piece is completely inadequate to explain the signatures and its frustrating that skeptics keep coming back to this to explain everything. Like its some magic solution.

Its a coverall. No matter how impossible it is somehow human artistic flair found a way. Even if that was rubbing an object into perfection. When art really does not need to be perfection in a tech sense. Why bother if its art. Make it a little crooked, its art afterall.

But this is about tech and knowledge. Artistic knowledge is different to technical knowledge that is restricted to cordinates and needs tech to guide it to achieve the specific object. Yet skeptics are quite happy to conflate them as art and sheer human effort as a coverall to fob off the reality that these works are beyond art and into science.

Really its not too different to belief in God and gods. HUmans having a kind of magic well beyond their capabilities and reality itself. We happily admit that the precision parts for say NASA could never be made by artistic flair or any human freehand. Yet are quite willing to allow these ancients to have such ability.

NASA is irrelevant. The Egyptians didn't have flying machines.

You did not see the point. Why are you focused on NASA and not the point. Or was this a diversion. Could you see the paralelle I was making between precision vases and precision NASA parts that need modern tech to achieve and could never be made by artistic freehand.

Maybe you didn't.

 

[stevevw]

Okay: I took a deep breath and checked this thread again, and saw this. What immediately came to mind are three machines that we might not even regard as such, but can be pretty simple: Drills, potter's wheels, and lathes.

The simplest drill is a point on a shaft. You can twist it or roll it between your hands. A step up is a point on a shaft with a thong wrapped around the shaft and attached to a bow. Use something to press down on the end of the shaft to hold it in place and move the bow back and forth. Need a high speed drill? Put a balance weight on the shaft. attach a couple of thongs to the shaft and connect the ends to a short bow. Press the bow down, being careful to allow momentum to wrap it back on the shaft, and you get bursts of high speed. Cultures have used all three not only to bore holes but to make fire.

Need a potter's wheel? Mount a flywheel onto a shaft; place it where it can rotate with the shaft vertical; run the shaft through a hole in a mount to keep the thing upright; put a small wheel ion the top, and presto! A potter's wheel. Plop something down in the center, get the speed up on the flywheel by spinning it with your feet, and form clay or grind to your heart's content.

Want a lathe? The simplest is what one traveling repairman in the 19th Century used. He needed to make a spindle, so he put two mounts into the ground, secured a length of wood between them, wrapped a thong around it; and had a helper pull it back and forth while he applied a chisel. What something better? Make a raised wooden mount, attach a length of wood between it; mount a spring pole above it; put a foot pedal under it; attach a thong to the spring pole, wrap around the length of wood, attach to the pedal, and pump the pedal to rotate the wood back and forth while you apply the chisel. What something fancier? Build a vertical flywheel, attach to a point to rotate the length of wood; make a rig like for a grind stone; pump the pedal to get up speed, then apply the chisel without worrying about back and forth motion.

Basically, if you can get a piece of wood or a block of stone rotating, you can do all sorts of things with it. Stone needs nothing more than grit and patience. Want an elliptical shape? Make a simple rig to turn rotary motion into reciprocal motion, attach the grinding pad to it, and turn away.

All machines and all simple, and all would have been known to the Egyptians.

I think your sort of on the right track as far as thinking about the bigger picture as to tech. Trying to work out how it could be done. Which we sort of see in the wall paintings.

But what you mention or the implications may go beyond the wall paintings and has never been found. Thus the same arguements would object to any alternative lost tech. Because its not found its all spectualtion. All we have is the depictions so thats all we can go by.

The other way which is also scientific is to reverse engineer the works and examine the signatures to work out what sort of tech would be needed. It is these tests that point to tech and knowledge beyond the convential primitive tools which we could envision with the implements we find. Its explaining these signatures.

For example the signatures of saw cuts display signatures of modern circular saws. Not some device that may be human powered and grinded. But cut like diamond tipped high power very fast circular saws.

Or the precision in vases which points to some sort of contraption or power that could hold a piece in place under massive pressure due to shapes that seem to be cut in one piece to the specific dimensions. Not grinded into those specific. Just like a modern CMC machine would do.

I think its these signatures that are hard to even begin to explain using the conventional primitive ways of creating some flintstone type contraption run on human power.

 

[Tuur]

Or the precision in vases which points to some sort of contraption or power that could hold a piece in place under massive pressure due to shapes that seem to be cut in one piece to the specific dimensions. Not grinded into those specific. Just like a modern CMC machine would do.

You don't need massive pressure. You don't need CMC. All you need is a way to spin it. That's it. Modern urns are made on lathes. Just mount the shaft vertically would simply things. Put tar on top of a shaft, secure the block to the tar, and turn. Use sheep's skin with the wool still on it, and you've got your pad. Mount the pad on a wood frame and spare you hands plus get a better product. That's all that's needed. Would take longer than a modern lathe holding a chunk of stone, like they do it now, but it's still do-able. No steel, no computers, no electricity, just ingenuity.

What? Djoser wants more power? Put a beam on the shaft and hook up an ox. Ox turns shaft. Slow but plenty of torque. Now Djoser really presses that grinding pad against it.

What? Djoser is in a hurry? Forget grinding pads; he's going for MORE POWER! So he replaces the pad with a stone for grinding. He pours water on it as it turns, making a nice, gritty, slurry that cuts into the stone. Now we're talking! Got to make that deadline.

To simply things, Djoser has an idea: bores out the center first, mounts that on the shaft, and now it's more secure. There's a risk he could break it turning it, but it's solidly in place. Then, when the outside is done, he grinds out the inside more.

All it takes is looking at the problem and thinking of ways to solve it with what's at hand.