"freehand" is the term *you* keep using. You speak of it as unguided, so using anykind of guiding mechanism, from a frame to a lathe, is not 'freehand'. Let me ask a clarifying question.
If a potter uses a wheel and their hands, is that "freehand".
No because there is an aid to help the hands achieve a certain shape. As compared to the hands creating that shape without the wheel. Its really simple. We can determine that the specific symmetry and circularity needed something beyond the unaided hands.
Thats called tech. Like a calculator aids in calculating complex numbers for the mind tech aids help achieve complex precision in 3D objects.
Frankly, yes.
The devices I have seen in the experiments, and archeological record *ARE MACHINES*.
Ok so is there a difference with those machones or devices. Do they help achieve the end result or not. Would not having them make a difference even if they are primitive and rudimenary. Would more sophisticated 'machines' make any difference to the outcome.
The frame or other guiding device is to keep the axis of rotation aligned.
Yes an aid to achieve precision ot a shape.
Guiding mechanism for rotated working of stone is clearly demonstrated. You push it aside because of the precision of one small group of experiments that are *NOT* aiming to replicate that "precision". The objection is not justified.
First just getting the small group has been an effort. Second with more testing it may be many vases. Just on looks alone all the vases in museums look like they have similar precision.
Second I am not pushing aside the mechanism shown to produce such rotated precision. I don't think your seeing the forrest through the tree. Just this simple signature itself is amazing. That some form of lathing was around at such an early time. When the orthodox view was the method was the result of the examples on the walls. That is the exact way they made the devices like on the walls because this was the consensus.
Now this is being walked back and some more sophisticated method is now being acknowledged such as lathing with bearings for stability ect to achieve such precision and roundness. That is well beyond the rudimentary method that was claimed.
The fact that Olgas vase is presented as an example of the rudimentary method and that she used aids to achieve this beyond the claimed method is evidence for this ie
This remarkable circularity was achieved due to the use of the ball-bearing supported rotary table, which is a contemporary piece of technology that was not available to the ancient Egyptians.
https://maximus.energy/wp-content/u...ptian-Stone-Vessels_-A-Metrological-Study.pdf
You keep getting the argument and proof claims backward. you have repeatedly claimed that the experimentally demonstrated can't be by such methods when that is simply not true. The experimenters were not trying to make a "precise vase", they were trying to use and recreate the ancient techniques to make a hard stone vase of the ancient Egyptian type. They did a remarkable job.
You keep saying this but then use the method to claim this is how the precision vases were created. Or at least the orthodoxy does. Whenever it is asked how these precision vases were made it is the method presented.
Only in recent years has there been an acknowledgement that a more sophisticated lathing was involved. Thats because the signatures from the wall methods even if just trying to recreate them is inadequate fullstop. There is no way no matter how long they take that it will produce the same results fullstop.
The only "leg" you (and Dunn et al.) have to stand on is this "precision" claim. Nothing about the experimental techniques tell us that further refinement isn't possible or likely. You keep leeping from
Yes it does. The rudimentart method as proposed on the walls, as used in experiments does not have the required stability to achieve such levels of roundness. You have acknowledged that a sophisticated lath was used. Not just any wobbly lathe but one with bearings and fixed points to ensure that precision.
The current experiments just in basic terms of mechanism are potentially incapable because they are not a stable way of cutting the interior let alone the mechanism that somehow does the outside. Which would require applying the same roundness stablity from the outsidfe.
In otherwords a lathe. I cannot see any lathes on the walls or in any Egyptian accounts. Especially at a time which did not even have the potters wheel let alone some sophisticated lathing.
I was talking about the one she made in the video I have linked several times and been clear that that was the vase I was talking about. You claim to have watched the video. I have seen that picture, but never have seen any videos featuring it. As I understand it, the pottery wheel was used in the first attempt to make a stone vase in the Egyptian style using stone tools. The vase I keep mentioning was done with harder stone and no pottery wheel. There could be further experiments to come, but we don't know that. You are assuming that those experiments fail before they happen.
I don't know. All I know is that the two vases used as handmade on the traditional tools are from Olga the same one who made the vase you refer to.
Ok so I just checked the specific vase being used by Olga and the video definitely shows the use of a blue plastic potters wheel with consideratle stability and speed.
This is the point. This specific vase by Olga though very good any near precision she achieved in roundness was due to the aid of a lathe type mechanism to ensure roundness. She uses a marker to highlight the uneven surface and then works on those areas to achieve good roundness. Without it she would not come near this.
This pic is from her video and coincidently it is hosted by the same guy who I seen in the Scientists against Myth series who was trying to reproduce granite cores and they also cheated.
You can see the spin of the wheel and the use of a pencil to find imperfections. This may not be your video but this is the vase that was tested with the one in your video from the same Olga.
By the way the video below actually states that the purpose of the experiment was to show that the traditional method could produce the predysnastic vases.
[
youtu.be]
That vase *was* made with a rudimentary turning device. (It's also a bit rough.)
The vase in the video you linked is from the same women Olga. The vase in that video seems made from marble and not granite. It looks like the one included in the testing here. One on right. But the one I am talking about was Olgas best effort and closest to precision is on the left.
But like I said it was aided by modern tech which only supports that something beyond the primitive methods was used. The examples in your video will never achieve such precision without some modern tech that stablises and fixes or guides the cutting to be so precise.
I don't think you are understanding my firm claims. It is difficult to respond to your precision notions as they are a graspable as seal in an oil spill.
I disagree. Its really simple. Precise or near precise roundness takes more than the rudimentary methods claimed. The wonkiness of the primitive methods excludes them. Something more elaborate or sophisticated was required and the tests are evidence of this.
In fact the simple acknowledgement by everyone that some sort of fixed lathing was required for the symmetry and roundness regardless of anyithg else is enough evidence that it took more than what the orthodoxy claims from the wall paintings and methods tried in replicating such.
You imply or infer "lost technologies" that compare to the quality of modern CNC machining and then *NEVER* make any direct claim of what that technology is or why we have ZERO of such technology.
Does that somehow negate that such witnes marks point to that level of knowledge or tech or way of achieving such precision. Its only a forensic analysis of marks and what can cause marks. Its just as much a refutation of the orthodox methods as it is in pointing to something advanced.
Either way it refutes the rudimentary methods claimed. That we cannot determine what actually caused such marks is another issue. Maybe its on a completely different realm as to how such results can be achieved from the gradualist and reductive and material sciences.
Like I said one possibility could be messing with nature. With the chemistry or physics or stone that allows such manipulations. But this is mere spectualtion in an attempt to understand how. I think this is ongoing research and investigation.
Yes the same as signatures. The marks that give witness to what caused them. You can tell the difference in the withness marks of a bullet hole or a knife mark. In fact nowadays we can tell the type of bullet from the marks.
The circular saw cuts in ancient stones that some recognised on this thread and said they were modern forgeries. The mark was a witness as to being modern and not ancient. Or at least something primitive tools could produce. Therefore its witness caused people to say its a modern forgery. The marks give witness to the method.
The tell us what that "tech" is. As the ancients say: put up or shut up.
I have given my spectualtion about how these out of place works may have been achieved. That is like Indigenous knowledge for which science now acknowledges is far more sophisticated and even scientific then was realised.
But not scientific as in western sciences which look from the outside in. These ancients were immersed in nature. They experienced nature and therefore gained knowledge that is deeper than the scientific materiams today which tries to mimick nature from the outside.
How this specifically works and translates into reality, into these works I don't know. But as they have common aspects such as natural geometry and astrology ect this has something to do with it.
You have to remember that these ancients did not have the modern world view of enlightenment. Everything was within a transcedent reality that seems very spiritual. Everything was related to the gods or some transcedent reality that aligned their world.
Modern material science relegates this is make believe and superstition. But I don't think so. I think there is some connection which gave a deeper knowledge of reality that we have lost.
And I know what skeptics will say. This in itself is fantasy and make believe. So lets see the empiricle evidence lol. But still this is the developing idea that ancient and Indigenous knowledge was more than make believe and contained advanced knowledge we have lost.
What we see in the ancient out of place and amazing works was the visible expression of this.
