There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

The strongest element of your thesis, that shines through each post, is personal incredulity. It's not a good look and a weak foundation for an argument.

How so. I have argued that even others on this thread recognise the signatures are modern. My pics earlier on were of those signatures I thought were hard to explain by the conventional story of the tools claimed and the experiments done.

Others say the signatures look modern and point to some sort of lathe. Certainly different from the wall paintings and experiements done. So much so they say they must be modern forgeries.

Thats all I have said. I have not made spectualtions that there is some sort of alien tech, or magic, or gods are doing this. Only that in the context of the OP these examples suggest knowledge is not what we think it is or has progressed compared to idea that it evolved simple to complex in todays material sciences.

But going into these specific examples seems a side tracked that has to happen as its one way of showing this. Well its the way demanded by the material sciences.

While its good to go into specific its still not dealing with the point that the orthodox way knowledge is understood (epistemics) excludes alternative knowledge and conflates this as conspiracy, imagination and pseudoscience ect.

Perhaps what your sense is that this thread has no formal basis and has changed in what is the OP. To some extent I agree and I have had to navigate this while trying to keep some basis as to what we are actually trying to find out or establish. Hans came up with a suggestion which I agreed with about breaking things down and setting a more formal debate.

I don't know I think its too late and I have opened another thread on this rabbit hole topic. But thats ok like I said so what. It is sort of establishing the OP point by looking at what people think is good evidence, seeing if people are denying obvious evidence, doing observations ourselves, looking at the logic and reasonableness of arguements ie it seems others see what I see but just dont agree its ancient.

Then we can keep going and see if its provedence is real. Then deal with that ect ect. I think the vase example is good and it is getting into the evidence and I think epistemics. If the findings hold up then it shows that at least some who dispute the findings may be doing so because of their preconscieved beliefs about what can and cannot be real.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And what do they claim made these precision vases in the hardest of stone. The method on the wall. Yet we have already agreed that the method on the wall does not match the signatures and some other method such as a sophisticated lathe was used. Where is the lathe on the wall pictures.

We have? Perhaps you didn't get my drift a few days back in post #327. I think both object V18 and M8 are modern imitations given the turned nature of their interior, especially the bottoms.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

First of all a correction the link: https://unchartedx.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/VASE-REPORT-METRIC.pdf Relates to scanning done by PolyWorks software on the vase which is professional software not Blender and OpenScad as I had erroneously assumed. Unlike the other mob who decided to...

www.christianforums.com

The wall pics show vases being made in softer stone like alabasta which we have plenty of inferior works as examples from all over the world. But they don't explain the precision granite vases which strangly enough happen even before the potters wheel.

You are getting hung up on fact that of the few illustrations of stoneware making the earliest are from a few centuries past the peak of hard stone vessels and in the era of vessels of alabaster and other soft stones. It is also the era of copper chisels.

Actually you also recognised the modern signatures. So did others. You don't have to be an engineer or an archeologists to recognise this.

In what I believe to be a reproduction.

Actually Flinders Petrie was the first archeologist to discover these before the onset of modern tech and he thought no existing tech or method available in his time could have made those signatures.

He spoke of there being tremendous pressure on the cutting mechanism to be able to cut into the granite yet remain perfectly still. He more or less came to the same conclusion as those proposing some sort of advanced tech and knowledge before there was advanced tech and knowledge.

There is 100 years work done since then and we have all sorts of new techniques for probing objects and dating sediments.

What, we just worked out what sort of device may have been used such as some sort of sophisticated lathe. We certainly went beyond the wall painting method.

LOL.

I don't know how the vases were made. All we have is the witness marks which point to some sort of sophisticated lathe tyo be able to achieve such precision.

You certainly seem to imply if not outright claim what those methods are and the sources of those claims are cranks who believe all sorts of nonsense about Ancient Egypt and other ancient civilizations

Yeah I have seen this one. They once again show the wall method into softer stone which no one is saying did not happen. As I mentioned it seems it was like there were two different industries. One with plenty of common softer imprecise vases and one with a smaller amount of precision vases.

The "wall method"? I thought that was the one with the drill/grider on the end of a shaft with a balance weight and an offset handle (cued up to example of such a device):

Or with the vessel firmly attached to the shaft and rotating against grinding stones like this one we keep posting (cued up to example of method in action):

These are all being demonstrated with HARD STONE.

As though like a specialist sector in precision works that everyone tried to copy. That happened in the earliest times in predynastic Egypt.

This is cope.

How do you know its from a drill bit. Its a pretty big one. It may be just a design. A glyph. Is is a perfect circle lol. So was this made on a lathe.

If you actually read the article at

Ancient Egyptian Copper Coring Drills

you would see that it is all about *obvious* core drilling includng at the center of both the Sabu bowl *and* the one I posted, plus other artifacts and buildings.

But I think you meant this one

View attachment 370211

No. I didn't mean that one. I chose the bowl I did because it *wasn't* that one yet has some resemblance to

I am pointing out how an antiques expert is no more knowledgable on precision tooling and engineering than an archeologists.

So the alternative is to get modern tool guys that don't know squat about archeology? I don't think so. The evidence for advanced tools needs to be something other than the flights of fancy of non-archeologists.

Note I did not ask Ai if there was advanced tech and knowledge. Only if archeologists pocessed expertise in engineering and precision tools. It just spat that out like its a commonly known possibility when it comes to the precision found in ancient works. A natural follow on.

AI Overview
Archaeologists use modern engineering principles and technology to analyze ancient engineering, but they are not inherently experts in engineering or precision tooling; instead, they collaborate with engineers and use high-tech equipment like 3D scanners and lidar to study and understand the incredible precision and advanced engineering found in ancient monuments, which continues to puzzle experts and suggests lost technologies or advanced knowledge beyond what is currently known.

It is a bit ironic that one of the previous extended discussion of these objects was a contamination of one @sjastro 's thread about AI analysis and problem solving that you now show us some muddled AI's response. These text large language models work by finding correlations between phrases and statements and trying to determine which things are most likely to be next to others. This response you post is clearly poisoned by all of the garbage posted making the kinds of claims in the "AI" did.

I don't know your exact query, but it does seem that you asked something about "archeologists pocessed expertise in engineering and precision tools". This combination of terms and used together only appear in the websites you keep quoting and people responding to them, so of course it generated something based on those sites to your liking.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How could an archeologist build a precision tool device. They don't know about engineering and precision tools.

What evidence of a "precision tool device" is there besides the fantasies of a few people on the web?

Where is the remnant of a machine?
Where is a text describing something like it?
Where is art depicting the use of such a machine?

There is nothing, zip, nada, null, zilch, no such evidence anywhere in the archeological record of Egypt of such a device, a depiction or description of it.

Besides they have built devices in the experiments. They used the methods they claimed were how the vases was made already. Are you saying they were wrong in what they think is the method of making granite vases.

No.

Here we are scrutinising the methods in the articles I linked and yet the ones claimed to be the methods have not been scrutinised in the same way. Just blindly accepted as the method.

What?

Yet as we have discovered the method is inadequate as I said pages ago. Now we are stepping through the process and the signatures we can see that a more sophisticated method is needed.

So say your numerologists that insist that the vertical profile encodes "numbers". The "coaxality" of the objects is within the reach of refined versions of the experimental methods tested. Further experiments would be needed to show what is needed to be more "precise". That is what meant, not that they were "wrong".

But then to do that, for archeologists to reproduce the ancient vase they would need to use some sort of modern lathe and flexible cutting arm which they would never admit to using because they blindly stick to the primitive methods on the wall paintings.

We can already buy modern replicas made with 20th/21st century machine tools. Why would we need to make experiments to make the kind of vase you seem to think (Upper) Egypt was making? (Sadly, Atlantean vase fan Ben Davidson is selling mere 3D printed replicas, not stone replicas. Sigh.)

Why do we need to reproduce the vase signatures. We already have this with modern CNC cut vases.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sorry, I assumed you had already seen this. I posted this a few times. This has the metrology, guage and light scanning and go through the measures and math.

New Video! Updates to the Vase Scan, Responses, and the STL file! – UnchartedX

Video: "The properties of DNA..." LOL

"... the orbits of the planets..." LOL LOL

Missing narration: "the ratio of my height to weight", "the mass of an iPhone 12 in African swallows", "the ratio of the width to height of Wyoming"

I think we can stop this viewing as the seriousness of the YTuber is clear.

 

[stevevw]

You must be living in a dreamworld.
Who exactly in this thread is agreeing with you, I have clearly underestimated your degree of delusion.

Ah I am living in my world and what you imagine is my world is not my world. I don't expect you to check every post I recieve from every poster so you would not not my world and what is said to me and not you. If anything what you imagine is my world according to you is a dreamworld itself.

I will just mention the words said that are to me and not you that help make what I say real as to me and not you. This is my observation of what has been said that causes me to think that others understand as I do that the signatures point to something beyond the orthodox (wall pics and experiments) and to some sort of lathe.

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.

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

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.

This is total rubbish, it is clearly obvious you have zero comprehension of what cylindricity means. Cylindricity is a 3D property determined by two parameters, the roundness of a cross section and the straightness of the central axis.

And the roundness of the cross section is determined by what. The central axis. The central axis is determined by the inside opening of the neck.

In your first image the cylindricity of the vase mouth is high at 0.013”, which could be attributed to a bent axis

Thats an assumption.

and is further evidenced by the fact the perpendicularity is not the same at the top and bottom of the vase.

Now your using that assumption as clear evidence when you have not established this.

This contradicts your nonsense of near perfect symmetry and coaxiality.

Ok we can argue about what is deemed near perfection. All I am saying is that the precision is said to be on par with modern lathes/ To even get that close takes more than a potters wheel which was not even invented. Let alone some sophisticated lathe that can produce even those measures.

Once again I refer back to the tests which categorised the signatures of the predynastic vases well above and different to modern hand made and more like modern machining.

A bent axis is a clear indication there was wobbling in the rotation axis during manufacture which would not be expected from a modern day lathe let alone one driven by CNC.
So while you engage in this exercise of hyperbole, the very evidence you have presented indicates there is nothing special with this vase and does not require any modern day technology to achieve.

You are arguing against your own strawman.

 

[stevevw]

Video: "The properties of DNA..." LOL

"... the orbits of the planets..." LOL LOL

Missing narration: "the ratio of my height to weight", "the mass of an iPhone 12 in African swallows", "the ratio of the width to height of Wyoming"

I think we can stop this viewing as the seriousness of the YTuber is clear.

More logical fallacies. Look at the content rather than indulging in your own kind or conspiracies that X = Y by association and meme. Your only proving my point that this is about epistemics not the actual evidence. But what counts as evidence and anything that is contrary is conflated as whackery.

Show me if the tests covered in that video are wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let me break it down simply. If we find a shape, say a cube or tetrahedron.

All should fear Global Tetrahedron .

We find that they are perfect in their measurements ie perfect cube. But they could have been millions of other measurements ie one side slightly shorter, one face of pyramid slightly bigger ect ect ect.

Now things are perfect? This is meaningless.

Then we have cause to ask was this purposely made that way to have landed so precisely on those numbers. Even if it was a simple cube. Its not an unreasonable assumption and question to ask.

Cubes are dangerous. They once invaded England.

Especially if we find several precise measures like the near perfect coaxiality because its about maintaining a near perfect roundness.

Like the Buddha?

Just like if we found a set of near perfect discs. Sure nature may do this but theres a certain threshold where you begin to ask questions of whether there was some intent behind what we see. All we are arguing over is what that line is. I am saying even others on this thread recognise that line in these works.

Its not just the pi. Its the perfect roundness say of the top. Or the coaxiality all the way down the vase. As mentioned the center verticle line was determined at the center of the vase opening. Circles could be formed all the way down the vase to test for roundness to the center line. The average divergence was 0.003 inches. Its this that is amazing.

Have you worked out how much wobble the axis had within the "coaxality limit" of that original Dunn vase in the only units that matter: degrees.

Pi and Phi are also in the vase beyond the circles. Like the Flower of life which is made up of circles and relates top Phi and Pi in the overlapping arcs created which are found in the vase.

What is the meaning embedded by Phi^2?

Its the fact that these circles and arcs could have conformed to less perfect circles and arcs related to the Flower of Life which is what gives it design features.

Our you could get an 8-year-old and a spirograph.

Not sure what that means. Perhaps something to do with 'self' or 'subjective' lol.

Shake my head -- a sign of exhausted frustration.

Nothing other than it was the exact electromagnetic wavelength in a vacumn.

Every length could be translated to a frequency of light, it means nuttin'.

Probably a coincident.

Well, yeah.

I think this was referring to a type of wave (microwave) that travels at the speed of light in a vacumn.

That would be light, of any wavelength if it travels at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Subdivision meaning its a type of wave rather than being subdivided into the speed of light.

Gibberish physics.

I think this may be a reference to the electromagnetic microwave generation proposed in the Giza pyramid. Now I have opened a rabbit hole lol.

Rabbit hole? It's more likely to be a stargate.

I refer back to the cube example. If you find a perfect cube do the numbers matter as to creating a perfect cube. If you measure something human made and a perfect cube or triangle or elipsoid or sphere is found. Do the numbers matter.

For meaning take the ratio of any two sides and subtract 1 from the ratio.

We just had others on this thread arguing numbers do matter when they said that because there is near perfect symmetry that a lathe must have been involved. Numbers do matter as to how something is made. If it was poor symmetry or off center or line then it makes a difference.

That discussion was about the wobble of the measured vases on the "spindle" (of whatever type, it was clearly rotated), the rest of this about ratios of one circle to another or designs drawn on pictures of vases being powers of sqrt(1.50) or phi is just numerology and is about as interesting as canker sore.

 

[sjastro]

But they did not just calculate the ends but the entire vase and the concentricity averaged at around a human hair. The biggest deviation was at the most bulging part of the vase that was the furthest away from the center line B. It was 0.017.

But what needs to be understood is that this was the most deviation and to even achieve that means that every other point had to be within that over 10s of 1,000s of points in a 3D shape. Being its at the point of the furtherest away is amazing I think for a human made vase. If freehand this is astonishing I think.

They did not measure perpendicularity over the entire vase and stop confusing perpendicularity with concentricity.
Since you have brought up concentricity here it is.

​

Since you don't understand what concentricity is, it impacts on the variability of wall thickness and a value of 0.313 mm is yet another clear indication the vase is nowhere near the levels of technology you claim it is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

More logical fallacies. Look at the content rather than indulging in your own kind or conspiracies that X = Y by association and meme. Your only proving my point that this is about epistemics not the actual evidence. But what counts as evidence and anything that is contrary is conflated as whackery.

The video in the post made some of the most ridiculous claims I've heard on these threads of yours on Egypt. (And that takes a lot.) Those claims are nonsense and I responded with the seriousness they deserve.

Show me if the tests covered in that video are wrong.

What tests? I watched about 10 seconds from the point you cued up which was full on nonsense about stars and DNA in vase measurements.

 

[sjastro]

Ah I am living in my world and what you imagine is my world is not my world. I don't expect you to check every post I recieve from every poster so you would not not my world and what is said to me and not you. If anything what you imagine is my world according to you is a dreamworld itself.

I will just mention the words said that are to me and not you that help make what I say real as to me and not you. This is my observation of what has been said that causes me to think that others understand as I do that the signatures point to something beyond the orthodox (wall pics and experiments) and to some sort of lathe.

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.

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

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.

This gibberish doesn’t hide the fact you are deluded if you think posters in this thread have come to your way of thinking.

And the roundness of the cross section is determined by what. The central axis. The central axis is determined by the inside opening of the neck.

Thats an assumption.

Now your using that assumption as clear evidence when you have not established this.

It’s only an assumption to you because of your failure to comprehend anything that is even remotely technical in nature.
The dead giveway was their failure to measure perpendicularity over the entire vase.

Your pathetic attempts to now handwave away the very data you presented as evidence of some superior technology is noted.

Ok we can argue about what is deemed near perfection. All I am saying is that the precision is said to be on par with modern lathes/ To even get that close takes more than a potters wheel which was not even invented. Let alone some sophisticated lathe that can produce even those measures.

Once again I refer back to the tests which categorised the signatures of the predynastic vases well above and different to modern hand made and more like modern machining.

Apparently in your dreamworld English is not the universal language, I cannot make it any clearer the data you presented on the vase is nowhere near the level of modern machining.
In the real world of psychology it's called cognitive dissonance which you display in spades.

You are arguing against your own strawman.

This doesn't even make any sense.

 

[stevevw]

All should fear Global Tetrahedron .

Now things are perfect? This is meaningless.

How is it meaningless if we find a block of granite cut in a perfect cube. If you found such a block would it not stand out as different to random stones in the landscape. Would it no provoke the thought that this is out of place.

Cubes are dangerous. They once invaded England.

Like the Buddha?

Yes especially when they point to some sort of advanced knowledge it seems.

Have you worked out how much wobble the axis had within the "coaxality limit" of that original Dunn vase in the only units that matter: degrees.

Why degrees. Do you mean 360 dgrees or part there of. Why does not coaxiality matter.

Coaxiality refers to the alignment of the central axes of two or more cylindrical or rotational elements along a common axis, ensuring minimal deviation between them to maintain precise function in rotating components.

If theres minimal coaxiality then theres minimal deviation and more precise ratiation. The average devaition in coaxiality was 0.003 mm.

What is the meaning embedded by Phi^2?

Phi^2 equals Phi + 1. But that was not the point. It was that some features in the vase contain both Pi and Phi thus have a double equivelance.

Let me ask. Do you think there is anything special about this geometry. It is well know that ancients knew about such geometry. Why is it so suprising that they would reflect this in the works they create. It may be some way of ensuring the precision.

Our you could get an 8-year-old and a spirograph.

Lol and what allows an 8 year old who would not have any chance of drawing such a perfect circle but a stencil, a guide that directs the pencil to follow a specific line rather than the freehand of the child.

Shake my head -- a sign of exhausted frustration.

Its a wonder when we keep having to work through all these fallacies.

Every length could be translated to a frequency of light, it means nuttin'.

I think the point was that the specific length of a electromagnetic wave in a vacumn was the exact same measure of the vase opening

Well, yeah.

You just said so what above. Now you acknowledge the exact measures being the same but its just a coincidence. Isn't the whole point of this to dispute that its just a coincident. On what basis do you say its a coincident. Is this just a hunch.

That would be light, of any wavelength if it travels at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Specifically microwaves.

Gibberish physics.

Rabbit hole? It's more likely to be a stargate.

Yes you said this before of Dunns ideas and yet they have been verfied scientifically. It seems it is you who are now creating stargate.

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

An international research group has applied methods of theoretical physics to investigate the electromagnetic response of the Great Pyramid to radio waves. Scientists predicted that under resonance conditions, the pyramid can concentrate electromagnetic energy in its internal chambers and under...

phys.org

Electromagnetic properties of the Great Pyramid: First multipole resonances and energy concentration
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/articl...-of-the-Great-Pyramid?redirectedFrom=fulltext

For meaning take the ratio of any two sides and subtract 1 from the ratio.

Yes = 0. Thats part of the point isn't it. Even getting 1 single line in a side out will not come to zero. It will throw the entire perfect cube out. So if the overall or average deviation is say 0.003 of an inch. Which is around a human hair or two from all ratios being also perfectly aligned to equal very, vert, vert close = 0. Especially for a supposed vase made by hand.

For a human-made object, the numbers (measurements) must be an integer or a value that, when cubed, results in a perfect geometric cube, regardless of whether the number itself is a perfect cube in the mathematical sense.

So that precision in the end is the result of something planned from the start.

That discussion was about the wobble of the measured vases on the "spindle" (of whatever type, it was clearly rotated), the rest of this about ratios of one circle to another or designs drawn on pictures of vases being powers of sqrt(1.50) or phi is just numerology and is about as interesting as canker sore.

But why. We can acknowledge that symmetry and coaxiality or circlarity is a signature of rotation. You can't get such near perfect symmetry by naked eye and feel.

Why not the same for say a sphere or an elipsoid. Or a circle in the vase itself. Why not the relations between these geometric shapes. Why not their relation to the reference points of the veriticle and horizontal.

Just like the symmetry and circularity can be seen and then determine what could produce such a signature. The same with other geometric shapes and relationships in the vase. Which we may determine what could produce such precision shapes. Or whether this was part of the basis for the shape.

ie the sphere being the body in relation to a cone at the neck and in relation to a cyclinder in the neck in relation to the flatness of the top and the central horizontal axis of the opening. All can be measures for precision against each other or a set reference.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Update: September 16th, 2025​

I was wrong here! High-precision artefacts, and the Radial Traversal Pattern revisited:

When originally released, this article proposed embedded patterns and mathematical ratios in the most precise of the supposedly ancient Egyptian artefacts in the private collection of Adam Young (now running the company "Artifact Foundation"). However, recently this article on ArcSci.org has refuted some of these claims, while confirming others.

While the discovery of the embedded π and φ ratios have now been convincingly substatiated, the existence of the Radial Traversal Pattern has been comprehensively, unequivocally and definitively refuted and dismissed. The proposed pattern was indeed a confirmation trap fluke - unquantifiable even within the extraordinary precision envelope of the object. I applaud the comprehensive, rigorous and on-point analysis, and I completely accept the refutation as valid.

This changes the probability calculation of this object substantially.

Back in 2023, I initially witheld judgement as to authenticity of the PV001 object. With the limited information available, I found it impossible to ascertain its authenticity, but simply shared my findings with the clear belief that it was important to investigate it further.

But given the overall picture of everything we now know, and the demonstrably horrible track-record of the "Artifact Foundation", I cannot escape openly stating my current personal opinion, as to the authenticity of this "artefact":

• The object itself, or at least its current form, is definitely not 5,000 years old.
• It is either a modern replica, contemporary piece, or:
• It was acquired as an ancient article, but later reworked to achieve its extraordinary qualities and features.

For transparency and the full history of everything, I have will not make corrections in the original article, but instead include this preface so it is clear what can be considered valid observations and what cannot.

Abstractions Set In Granite

It seems its not that old as previously thought.

 

[stevevw]

They did not measure perpendicularity over the entire vase and stop confusing perpendicularity with concentricity.
Since you have brought up concentricity here it is.

View attachment 370267
​

Since you don't understand what concentricity is, it impacts on the variability of wall thickness and a value of 0.313 mm is yet another clear indication the vase is nowhere near the levels of technology you claim it is.

Enough of this and I will refer you back to the findings of the tests doen. Which puts the dynastic vases in the high precision category on par with modern machining. It puts hand made ones, that is the ones made by experimenters many times inferior. Full stop.

 

[stevevw]

Update: September 16th, 2025​

I was wrong here! High-precision artefacts, and the Radial Traversal Pattern revisited:

When originally released, this article proposed embedded patterns and mathematical ratios in the most precise of the supposedly ancient Egyptian artefacts in the private collection of Adam Young (now running the company "Artifact Foundation"). However, recently this article on ArcSci.org has refuted some of these claims, while confirming others.

While the discovery of the embedded π and φ ratios have now been convincingly substatiated, the existence of the Radial Traversal Pattern has been comprehensively, unequivocally and definitively refuted and dismissed. The proposed pattern was indeed a confirmation trap fluke - unquantifiable even within the extraordinary precision envelope of the object. I applaud the comprehensive, rigorous and on-point analysis, and I completely accept the refutation as valid.

This changes the probability calculation of this object substantially.

Back in 2023, I initially witheld judgement as to authenticity of the PV001 object. With the limited information available, I found it impossible to ascertain its authenticity, but simply shared my findings with the clear belief that it was important to investigate it further.

But given the overall picture of everything we now know, and the demonstrably horrible track-record of the "Artifact Foundation", I cannot escape openly stating my current personal opinion, as to the authenticity of this "artefact":

• The object itself, or at least its current form, is definitely not 5,000 years old.
• It is either a modern replica, contemporary piece, or:
• It was acquired as an ancient article, but later reworked to achieve its extraordinary qualities and features.

For transparency and the full history of everything, I have will not make corrections in the original article, but instead include this preface so it is clear what can be considered valid observations and what cannot.

Abstractions Set In Granite

It seems its not that old as previously thought.

Yes all he is doing is stating now that he did the work, foound the precision based on the vase being an authentic predynastic vase. That more info would come out to authenticate it. It hasn't come. But he is not changing his findings on the precision found. Just qualifying that he cannot guarentee the vase is authentic.

But the fact he found the precision does not change. This is the other part in not only showing the precision but proving they are genuine and from that predynastic or old kingdom period.

The thread earlier was arguing about whether some of these works belong to old, middle or new kingdom. We had some saying the modern looking signatures such as circular saw cuts were modern forgeries.

But the author has not said this is not a genuine vase. Only that it has not been verified. Luckily we do have additional vases which are genuine and their provedence verified. Some coming from the Petrie museum which show the same precision. In fact there are several now.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Yes all he is doing is stating now that he did the work, foound the precision based on the vase being an authentic predynastic vase. That more info would come out to authenticate it. It hasn't come. But he is not changing his findings on the precision found. Just qualifying that he cannot guarentee the vase is authentic.

But the fact he found the precision does not change. This is the other part in not only showing the precision but proving they are genuine and from that predynastic or old kingdom period.

The thread earlier was arguing about whether some of these works belong to old, middle or new kingdom. We had some saying the modern looking signatures such as circular saw cuts were modern forgeries.

But the author has not said this is not a genuine vase. Only that it has not been verified. Luckily we do have additional vases which are genuine and their provedence verified. Some coming from the Petrie museum which show the same precision. In fact there are several now.

• The object itself, or at least its current form, is definitely not 5,000 years old.
• It is either a modern replica, contemporary piece, or:
• It was acquired as an ancient article, but later reworked to achieve its extraordinary qualities and features.

Doesn't this invalidate all claims on early precision tooling?

 

[stevevw]

This gibberish doesn’t hide the fact you are deluded if you think posters in this thread have come to your way of thinking.

Its not gibberish but plain spoken words. Others came to the logical and reasonable conclusion that at least pretty good symmetry and circularity as seen in some vases are signatures of a method where the object is rotating to achieve such symmetry.

How is this unreasonable. Others suggest that this would achieve such symmetry and circularity. Tell me how else do you think such symmetry and circularity found could be achieved.

It’s only an assumption to you because of your failure to comprehend anything that is even remotely technical in nature.
The dead giveway was their failure to measure perpendicularity over the entire vase.

Ah they did.

Your pathetic attempts to now handwave away the very data you presented as evidence of some superior technology is noted.

Apparently in your dreamworld English is not the universal language, I cannot make it any clearer the data you presented on the vase is nowhere near the level of modern machining.
In the real world of psychology it's called cognitive dissonance which you display in spades.

This doesn't even make any sense.

Ok lets do some psychology. Where do you think the vase sits. Pretty good for the time, nothing just average, to be expected for the tech and knowledge. Nothing compared to other vases.

Anything at all about them that stands out. I mean you keep saying theres nothing special about the tech and knowledge and yet people look at them and recognise intuitively there is something special about them. You compare them to others and it seems precision or symmetry or just straightness or something sticks out about them.

I think this is a reflection of the knowledge and not just the art. Like I said we can recognise a perfect cube or sphere or pyramid and see some underlying tech as far as how it was created to achieve this rather than something that is off center or line technically.

Maybe some people see this more intuitively than others. But I am certainly not the only one and everyone that does is not crazy I don't think.

 

[stevevw]

Doesn't this invalidate all claims on early precision tooling?

No because the provendence is not verified one way or the other. If your talking about the vase that was tested then it certainly has not been shown to be a fake. Its provedence goes back to the 1980s at least.

So its still up in the air. Because it looks and measures so much like the genuine such as those in the Petrie museum which show similar precision it may well be genuine. Here is the vase tested.

Reportedly from a private collection, its discovery location and date are undocumented, with vague references to it surfacing decades ago, possibly linked to early 20th-century excavations or illicit trade. This lack of provenance fuels skepticism. Mainstream archaeologists, while acknowledging the skill in predynastic hardstone vessels—found in sites like Saqqara’s Step Pyramid caches—attribute their creation to labour-intensive methods using copper tools, abrasives, and manual lathes, not advanced machinery.
Belief in UnchartedX’s hypothesis hinges on the vase’s precision, which some engineers argue is nearly impossible without modern tools, suggesting a reevaluation of ancient capabilities. Sceptics counter that such quality reflects artisan mastery, not lost technology, and demand concrete archaeological context.

Archaeology and Ancient Worlds | The predynastic Egyptian rose granite vase has become a centrepiece of fascination thanks to UnchartedX, a research initiative led by Ben van Kerkwyk,... | Facebook

The predynastic Egyptian rose granite vase has become a centrepiece of fascination thanks to UnchartedX, a research initiative led by Ben van Kerkwyk, who has extensively explored its implications...

www.facebook.com

Heres the vases tested from the Petrie museum.

Astonishing Precision of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study

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

There is no doubt that precision vases were found under Djosers pyramid and others in predynatic tombs.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/197032552431395690/

 

[Stopped_lurking]

No because the provendence is not verified one way or the other. If your talking about the vase that was tested then it certainly has not been shown to be a fake. Its provedence goes back to the 1980s at least.

So its still up in the air. Because it looks and measures so much like the genuine such as those in the Petrie museum which show similar precision it may well be genuine. Here is the vase tested.

View attachment 370269

heres the vases tested from the Petrie museum.

View attachment 370270

There is no doubt that precision vases were found under Djosers pyramid and others in predynatic tombs.

But isn't it just the exact vase that was so painstakingly measured that the writer of unsigned.io now believes to be modern or changed in modern times?

Do we have the measurements for any of the other vases? By eye, they don't seem to contain the same ratios.

 

[stevevw]

But isn't it just the exact vase that was so painstakingly measured that the writer of unsigned.io now believes to be modern or changed in modern times?

Do we have the measurements for any of the other vases? By eye, they don't seem to contain the same ratios.

Yes the link below those many other vases is the tests and measurements to those vases at the Petrie museum. There are others in private collections that have good provendance. One going back to the 1800s.

When you start getting vases from early 20th and 19th century you have to ask why on earth someone would bother making such precision vases at that time to fake them when the precision of these vases was not even known or something important as far as value.

Or how forgers could even do it as precision machining is not exactly readily available to forgers even today let alone early 20th or 19th century.

Anyway the following video shows vases with proven provedance such as from carbon 14 dating from the dig layers they were found in and another dating back to 3500BC that have also been tested to high precision.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How is it meaningless if we find a block of granite cut in a perfect cube. If you found such a block would it not stand out as different to random stones in the landscape. Would it no provoke the thought that this is out of place.

A cube is a cube. Few things in nature make cubes naturally and granite is not one of them. A granite cube would only demonstrate that the person who made the cube wanted to make a cube and knew how to do it.

Yes especially when they point to some sort of advanced knowledge it seems.

Their was an alien intellegence behind it and a documentary film. Come back when you are more familiar with that event.

Why degrees. Do you mean 360 dgrees or part there of. Why does not coaxiality matter.

The units used to measure the angle between the base and rim structures and the axis of the various circles that make up the horizontal cross sections. That angle tells you how stable the rotation was during manufacture. What do the angle values from any specific "ancient precise vase" tell you.

Coaxiality refers to the alignment of the central axes of two or more cylindrical or rotational elements along a common axis, ensuring minimal deviation between them to maintain precise function in rotating components.

If theres minimal coaxiality then theres minimal deviation and more precise ratiation. The average devaition in coaxiality was 0.003 mm.

Angles, Steve, we need angles.

Phi^2 equals Phi + 1. But that was not the point. It was that some features in the vase contain both Pi and Phi thus have a double equivelance.

If you find a few more "formulae" to test, you can get even more equivalences. They are as meaningless as the patterns in the stars.

Let me ask. Do you think there is anything special about this geometry.

No.

It is well know that ancients knew about such geometry. Why is it so suprising that they would reflect this in the works they create. It may be some way of ensuring the precision.

You haven't show that the Egyptians did at the time.

Lol and what allows an 8 year old who would not have any chance of drawing such a perfect circle but a stencil, a guide that directs the pencil to follow a specific line rather than the freehand of the child.

Show them the "idea" of finding circles in the picture of an object and an 8 year old will draw plenty of "found circle". It takes a delusional adult to assign "meaning" to them. Why do you keep following the delusions of these people?

Its a wonder when we keep having to work through all these fallacies.

What? SMH.

I think the point was that the specific length of a electromagnetic wave in a vacumn was the exact same measure of the vase opening

And nothing about that particular wavelength/frequency of light has any meaning. That was my point. I'm not sure what yours could possibly be other than the "roundness" of the 16 in 16 GHz, which is an entirely *arbitrary* system of units established by the French Academy during their revolution.

You just said so what above. Now you acknowledge the exact measures being the same but its just a coincidence. Isn't the whole point of this to dispute that its just a coincident. On what basis do you say its a coincident. Is this just a hunch.

This argument is now that the wavelength of the light with the frequency that matches the wavelength of some measured object dimension is the same as the object dimension. This is just identity. (or a circle).

Specifically microwaves.

No, all light travels at the speed of light in a vacuum when it propagates through a vacuum.

Yes you said this before of Dunns ideas and yet they have been verfied scientifically. It seems it is you who are now creating stargate.

LOL.

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

An international research group has applied methods of theoretical physics to investigate the electromagnetic response of the Great Pyramid to radio waves. Scientists predicted that under resonance conditions, the pyramid can concentrate electromagnetic energy in its internal chambers and under...

phys.org

Electromagnetic properties of the Great Pyramid: First multipole resonances and energy concentration
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/articl...-of-the-Great-Pyramid?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Utter nonsense we have discussed before. The pyramid is not a device built for its electromagnetic properties. Those are accidents of its construction (big pile of limestone), not design.

Yes = 0. Thats part of the point isn't it. Even getting 1 single line in a side out will not come to zero. It will throw the entire perfect cube out. So if the overall or average deviation is say 0.003 of an inch. Which is around a human hair or two from all ratios being also perfectly aligned to equal very, vert, vert close = 0. Especially for a supposed vase made by hand.

In standard binary logic 0 represents "false" not "true", but 0 is also the amount of meaning found in the dimensions of a cube. There is no way to hide special information in a cube because they are all the same.

For a human-made object, the numbers (measurements) must be an integer or a value that, when cubed, results in a perfect geometric cube, regardless of whether the number itself is a perfect cube in the mathematical sense.

Huh? I just said all cubes are the same. The ratio of the lengths of edges to each other is 1, to the length of a diagonal on a face is sqrt(2), to the diagonal thorugh the center is sqrt(3). The ratio of the area of the largest circle inscribed on a face to the area of a face is pi/4. Could the ancient Egyptians have known this basic math? Sure, but we need written evidence because all the manufacture of a "perfect" cube demonstrates is that their craftsmen could make a cube. Do we have cubes from pre-dynastic Egypt that need interpretation or is this just a diversion?

So that precision in the end is the result of something planned from the start.

Part of our problem is that you seem to be defining "precision" in turned object with three factors:

1. The regularity of the circles of various cross sections and angles of flat tops to that axis. These are just products of the level of control of the axis during the clearly spinning formation process. (And that is the case if we are talking about a work piece with a shaft through it spinning against fixed grinding rocks, a spinning lathe, a pottery wheel, a drill, or a robot arm with a cutting tool rotating about a fixed axis to make a circular cut.)

2. The smoothness/roughness of the surface -- mostly a product how much effort is expended to polish the surface.

3. The matching of certain measurement to each other is patterns extracted by these "vase measuring guys".

It seems to me that much of your precision claim is about #3, and none of the rest of this things that #3 is anything other than the delusions of some "vase guys" on the internet (Dunn, etc.).

#2 demonstrates the quality of the workmanship, but isn't super interesting. #1 is the only one of real interest as it demonstrates the stability of the axis of rotation during working of the shape.

But why. We can acknowledge that symmetry and coaxiality or circlarity is a signature of rotation. You can't get such near perfect symmetry by naked eye and feel.

How stable is that axis Steve? What does it tell us about the manufacture??

Why not the same for say a sphere or an elipsoid. Or a circle in the vase itself. Why not the relations between these geometric shapes. Why not their relation to the reference points of the veriticle and horizontal.

Just like the symmetry and circularity can be seen and then determine what could produce such a signature. The same with other geometric shapes and relationships in the vase. Which we may determine what could produce such precision shapes. Or whether this was part of the basis for the shape.

ie the sphere being the body in relation to a cone at the neck and in relation to a cyclinder in the neck in relation to the flatness of the top and the central horizontal axis of the opening. All can be measures for precision against each other or a set reference.

You're talking about things seen, not demonstrated. I don't really care.