There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[sjastro]

But if individual slices of the vase are taken and measured for roundness as to a perfect circle and they pretty well on average all align it would not matter. The roundness is calculated for the entire circle to all outside and inside walls. How far they deviate from a perfect circle.

Why would they conclude that the circularity and concentricity was near perfect. Also your fogetting that the predynastic vases were compared to actually real 3D CNC modern made vases. For which they feel within and even exceeded in a couple of vases.

If the modern CNC vases for which we know have good 3D roundness have the same or even less roundness as the predynastics. If they meet or beat the modern CNC vases and have the same signatures what exactly are you saying is not advanced in them.

I have come to the conclusion the repudiation I gave is beyond your capacity for comprehension and I am not going to repeat myself a third time knowing the penny will never drop.

You seem to be whinging about something that is not there. The vases have been deemed high precision on par with modern CNC machining by several independent tests with different methods. That is good science.

The procedures from unchartedX , unsigned.io and maximus.energy are not even compatible with each other which is the antithesis of good science to use as supportive evidence.

Ok so all these independent tests and findings are wrong and your unqualified and unsupported findings are correct. Write a paper and send it in and let me know so I can see if it stands the test and scrutiny lol.

All I can go on is the actually published work and findings which state the complete opposite. They clearly say that these vases are on par with modern CNC machining. If you think they are wrong then submit a refutation. Thats what you demanded from me that only peer reviwed and actual submitted science counted.

If you think these are examples of published works you are even more ignorant than I gave you credit for.

But then I don't even have to go that far. The fact that the symmetry and roundness is enough that most people acknowledge some sort of sophisticated lathing was needed well beyond the rudimentary method on wall paintings and proposed in experiments is enough.

This shows that to achieve such results took more than the orthodox methods which are unstable and wobbly or can even work on the outside of a vase with precision. Almost like they want to build a precision lathe out of sticks and stones lol.

Its just a case now of to what degree the level of tech was need now. Just like the orthodox is jumping from rudimenary wobbly device to a more sophisticated lathing. So it may continue to be acknowledged.

It also lays the ground that perhaps other works and results may not have been caused by the orthodox methods as well. I guess its a case of more and more results so that we get a bigger data base.. More independent testing.

You keep on telling us to the point of ad nauseum but only in your silly little deluded world would these be considered to be independent tests.

In the real world of science Egyptian vases from different periods would be tested as double blind experiments where neither the person collecting the data nor the person interpreting it knows which vases belong to which period until after the analysis is complete.
This is to eliminate possible bias which is clearly evident in the case of unsigned.io and maximus.energy where the conclusion comes first followed by force fitting the evidence into created 'ideal' vase models.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Do you mean as a 3D object as in this case the 3D vase roundness. The question would be in the qualifying comments on method the basis for determining the precision was premised on tolerances in CNC machining.

No matter how you want to frame the methods the signatures, the measures are made consistent across the three examples (predynastic, modern CNC and handmade). The measures for the predynastics were the same as the modern CNC vases and a couple exceeding them. The handmade fell well below.

But we don't know that the findings are true for other way to measure the vases and/or if the quality value is consistent over different definitions.

That the signatures (machining marks) matched the modern CNC vases and not the nandmade is evidence in itself. In fact the opposite sort of experiment was done in getting a vase manufacturer to make a copy of a predynastic vase and the results were similar with the predynastic exceeding the CNC vase.

The evidence is more than someones interpretation of the measures. I would like to see a paper or scientific analysis submitted on critiquing the measures and findings.

They haven't published any papers or scientific analysis, so don't expect others to do it.

Lathe Marks
Given these results, I conclude that the ‘PRECISE’ vases in Matt Beall’s collection were machined using advanced tools since the lathe marks are clearly visible on the inner surfaces of the vases where they were not polished away completely – Fig. 20.

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

As far as I know there are 3 main tests by independent sources. I have given two which are from UnchartedX which has several links to different tests. Other tests include Gamma and X ray. One test looking for metals and magnification of tool marks.

Vase Scan Resources – UnchartedX

Also maximus.energy on the optical and CAT scans processed into 3D models

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

3D Scans of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archeology

I hereby publish nineteen 3D scans of Naqada period (predynastic) Ancient Egyptian stone vessels that I captured during my research visit to the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology o…

maximus.energy

This a STL file from this source (UC5607-lo.stl) This can't be used as evidence for Matt Beall's vase 18.

Here is another UC4354-lo.stl

Also gamma spectroscopy

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

XRF spectra

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

I hereby publish twenty-three XRF 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 Ar…

maximus.energy

Another set of tests was done at the Petrie museum using a micron-accurate 3D structured light scanning. Said to be the most accurate scanning method with a precision of around 5 to 10 microns. Alco CT scanning of around 1 micron. I think similar to those done at Maximus above.

OG Vase | Artifact Foundation

www.artifactfoundation.org

This video covers most of the different indeendent tests done with links. The good thing is that its presented so that you can do your own investigation and see for yourself.

The problem is because this is a relatively new sector its yet to be established. Especially in mainstream journals who already reject the idea of ancient advanced knowledge and tech. First you have to have access to vases and equipement which is not cheap. Museums are reluctant. Others can certainly do tests if they want to replicate or not.

But the tests and papers are there in the links. They are open sources so anyone can have acess and check the results an dthen refute them. I am not sure a forum is the right place. No more than it would be for determining the findings of tests in physics.

No the right place would be in scientific journals. But since they won't publish in them, they won't get good responses.

Write a paper refuting the findings and publish it in some way with independent support. At least then its formal and published like the original tests for everyone including the original testers so they can respond to criticism of their own work.

They haven't published any papers or scientific analysis, so don't expect others to do it.

Otherwise I have two conflicting claims and one comes from a formal and published scientific source, done at Petrie museum meaning they have gone through the protocols of at least formalising the process. Compared to someone on a social thread.

They haven't published any papers or scientific analysis, so don't expect others to do it. Publishing it on their own websites carries exactly as much weight as discussing on a forum.

Not just that as I linked above there are several tests, in different methods by independent sources all coming to a similar finding. That is the peer review and verifiation itself. Good science is replicated science.

So which vases have been independently replicated? How many different researchers have measured Matt Beall's V18, how many researchers have looked at its authenticity.

They have and they found lath marks. They are different to chisel marks for example. But regardless its just plain common sense that good symmetry is usually the result of lathing and not freehand. You don't need to go out and try different tools.

Its just a well acknowledged sign of lathing. We don't usually say that something with such good roundness or symmetry was done freehand without a lathe. We immediately relate this to lath. Why then change this because its found in a time that should not have lathes.

So what would you say is the likelihood that it the lathe marks are ancient vs modern (at least 19th century)? Without findings of ancient tool it seems that it is more likely be a modern reworking than evidence of ancient technology.

 

[sjastro]

Perhaps I'm not understanding @sjastro but this is what his post got me thinking about. I would guess that the best measure for the 0,0 point of each slice is not correctly appointed by minimizing the RMSE and dR for the perfect slice best fit to each slice. Instead the 0,0 point should be appointed by the best rotational axis for the whole vase, and then you would calculate RMSE and dR for a suitable number of slices or finite elements.

This is the very point that is beyond @stevevw level of comprehension.
Suppose a U-tube was scanned, slices through the straight portions might be relevant to the circle fitting code for RMSE and dR, but in the curved region where the angle of the axis changes with every slice the value of dR will be larger due to the displacement of the axis along with the difference between the actual cross section and the best fitting circle.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

This is the very point that is beyond @stevevw level of comprehension.
Suppose a U-tube was scanned, slices through the straight portions might be relevant to the circle fitting code for RMSE and dR, but in the curved region where the angle of the axis changes with every slice the value of dR will be larger due to the displacement of the axis along with the difference between the actual cross section and the best fitting circle.

Thank you, this have been educational for me at least Even though I trained as an engineer a lifetime ago, it was of the electrical kind.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Good. Then we will NEVER hear you claim these vases were "freehand again, right? (That devices were used to impose symmetry around an axis of rotation is NOT in dispute and NEVER has been.)

Thats called tech. Like a calculator aids in calculating complex numbers for the mind tech aids help achieve complex precision in 3D objects.

Agriculture is "tech". Writing is "tech". Stone scrapers are "tech". "Tech" is a useless term in this context.

(Most of the calculators I have used weren't very good a complex numbers.)

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.

Of course they would.

Yes an aid to achieve precision ot a shape.

No one is disputing aids to hold the asymmetry of the shape. Not one of us. We dispute the claims of machines that didn't exist for more than 4000 years.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK, let's talk about your response to my call for you to define the "tech" used to make these vases. (We'll discuss the experiments later.)

I have given my spectualtion about how these out of place works may have been achieved.

You have certainly implied it. You have claimed things like "CNC machines were needed". But, you have not been specific about the method in this post, thus you have not answered my query.

That is like Indigenous knowledge for which science now acknowledges is far more sophisticated and even scientific then was realised.

This isn't about the casually racist assumptions made about "primitive" people. It is about the techniques used. Spill.

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.

Which is not relevant to *how* the object were made.

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.

We know the ancients loved to write about their gods on objects, you people haven't changed even to this day. What was the method of manufacture?

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.

Irrelevant. State the method used for manufacture.

What we see in the ancient out of place and amazing works was the visible expression of this.

I'm not interested in the cultural interpretation of these object, just how they were made.

At the very beginning of this section of your text that I quoted you called these objects (the vases) "out of place". They aren't. The archeological context shows the growing sophistication of the hard stone vessel industry right up to the peak. When it declines, there is a focus on using other materials and methods in making object of these purpose. I personally suspect this is because new tools made the crafting of very fancy (these are all rather plain) stone art objects using softer stone, so the hard work to make plain(ish) objects like these wasn't "worth it" any more.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't think your understanding the difference between the limits of human ability and what is required for precision tooling or engineering. The reason we don't use human naked eyesight, feel or artistic expression which precision and engineering is not necessarily a requirement. Because we know its beyond their capability.

It's a good thing I'm retired and don't have to do that kind of work any more. It's a good thing you didn't come along sooner to tell me I don't know how to. I would have had to quit my job.

For example the micro precision required is beyond human eyesight. We cannot even see at that level to know that the lines being crafted are line in with such precision.

That's why stupid machinists like me measure periodically as we work. I'm so stupid I even measure the work when I'm using a CNC tool.

Thats why we use programmed computer tech connected to guiding arms that eliminate this human inability.

The human inability to measure?

The fact that most people on this thread acknowledged that the precision in symmetry and circularity was caused by some sort of lathing and not just naked eye and feel is evidence of this.

Because it probably was, but that's a far cry from a modern CNC machine tool

Or do you say acknowledging that some sort of mechanism that helped them achieve such roundness is denying their skill. It was an aid afterall that helped them achieve such roundness and not their unguided artistry by naked eye or feel.

No, you are denying their skill.

All some are doing like myself are applying this same logic to other precision in the objects that is beyond human ability and pointing to some sort of guidence, template, stencil or fixed cutter or knowledge that ensured that precision.

Using those things are all aspects of the skill of a craftsmen using hand tools. How about periodic measurement as the work progresses? That's probably the most important.

I refer back to the articles which categorise the different methods being handmade and CNC made. There are certain thresholds determined beyond handmade with the primitive and I call it primitive compared to CNC and machining. Even if the bow type methods are included because they are no where near as the same as verified by categorising such results in the imprecise.

How do you explain the success of the industrial revolution, which occurred before CNC was available?

But scientific testing has placed these in destinct categories with different signatures according to the methods and not whackos.

Once again if everyone can acknowledge precise or even near precise symmetry and circularity requires a lathe (not freehand unaided artistry). Then the same logic can be allplied to other signatures that definitely don't come from the rudimentary methods attributed by orthodoxy.

I cannot see how this is so controversial lol.

It's not controversial, it's ignorant fatuous nonsense. No controversy about that at all.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Alien ship disguised as Comet 3I/Atlas is coming to Earth to explain how the pyramids were built and granite is cut.

​

The crew is bigger than we thought.

3I/ATLAS, comet hurtling toward solar system, much bigger than previously thought, astronomers say​

The diameter of the nuclear of the comet is likely more than 3.1 miles, [larger than] two other interstellar objects previously recorded, Loeb said.

After September, 3I/ATLAS will pass too close to the sun to remain visible, according to NASA.

That's when they make their move.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Loeb said.

 

[stevevw]

I have come to the conclusion the repudiation I gave is beyond your capacity for comprehension and I am not going to repeat myself a third time knowing the penny will never drop.

Then why don't you write up a paper and send it in to the authors exposing this simple and obvious mistake. You would think experts in their fields would spot such a simple mistake.

Also tell me if the vase was light scanned in 3D are not the slices being measured of the 3D model. They are slices of the vase from above. The full roundness in slices all the way down that we could make a 3D model with those slices. The circular slices changing in diameter as the vase changes in shape. The roundness of slices related to the center axis Z.

The procedures from unchartedX , unsigned.io and maximus.energy are not even compatible with each other which is the antithesis of good science to use as supportive evidence.

I think thats the advanatge. That different and independent methods all come to the same findings. How can one mess up a 3D light scan. It is what it is. It is measuring the object it scans. It does not create false objects so the measurements are the measurements.

If it shows near perfect circularity via light scan, guage metrology or X rays its all confirming the precision. Its all measuring up to the same precise circles, lines and angles. Why would several conclusions all clearly state that the precision is there and all be wrong at the same time. As opposed to one opposing claim without any support.

If you think these are examples of published works you are even more ignorant than I gave you credit for.

At least they are published on availabe for others to critique or redo. You on the other hand have not produced such an article but rather are complaining on some social media.

This is what I am saying about the hypocracy. You want me to jump through loops with peer reviewed and duplicated science. Yet you allow a low bar for yourself and others who disagree. They just have to say their own words, just speak a claim without any support and its gospel.

You keep on telling us to the point of ad nauseum but only in your silly little deluded world would these be considered to be independent tests.

Why, are they not independent. They don't collude with each other. They independnetly test the vases. They have no agenda but to test the vases. Who are you to say they are not independent. Can you show how they are not independent besides your complaining.

In the real world of science Egyptian vases from different periods would be tested as double blind experiments where neither the person collecting the data nor the person interpreting it knows which vases belong to which period until after the analysis is complete.

That is rediculous. How on earth does that alter the measurements or make any difference. The precision vases are going to measure the same whether there are other vases or they are on their own.

In fact that complicates the testing and is completely unnecessary. This is not some subjective analysis where you have to reduce bias. This is cold hard factual measures on machines. The important thing is calibrating the equipment on something independent like in the case of guage testing a master ball is used to ensure proper measures.

In the case of the Maximus tests

Calibration​

To ensure the validity of measurements, EMS, Inc. has calibrated the CT scanner by scanning a ruby T-stylus sphericity set (a NIST traceable metrological standard), which contained a small bead with the radius R = 1.99820 mm

This is to eliminate possible bias which is clearly evident in the case of unsigned.io and maximus.energy where the conclusion comes first followed by force fitting the evidence into created 'ideal' vase models.

As mentioned above the equipment was claibrated and the measurements don't suddenly take on a mind of their own and change. These are cold hard readouts from the equipment. It appears your bias is showing in demanding unreal criteria that would not be expected in measurements.

Like somehow a guage calliper can measure the precise circular opening of an ancient vase before our eyes on camera and somehow the measure does not count because it was not compared to other vases and therefore shows bias. Yet we see the calibration and clear readouts showing the precision in a live test.

This is unreal and it shows you did not even bother to investigate but had made up your mind beforehand that these testers are just whackos. Which is bias in itself.

I have 3 or more independent tests all saying these vases are on par with CNC modern machining. We even have images of the lathe marks and readouts and you want to whinge about percieved bias of cold hard numbers somehow being changed due to bias.

This is exactly what has been predicted. That skeptics will themselves relegate everything including cold hard facts to conspiracy, pseudoscience and whackery due to their own bias.

 

[sjastro]

Then why don't you write up a paper and send it in to the authors exposing this simple and obvious mistake. You would think experts in their fields would spot such a simple mistake.

Symptomatic of being totally clueless is the indiscriminate use of the term expert.
There is nothing expert from any of your sources.
If they are experts in their fields than why hasn’t their work found its way into any reputable peer reviewed journal?

Any reviewer of Maximus.energy’s paper would also note the obvious mistake, you don’t make conclusions about a 3D object using 2D data which are all in the same plane.
Perhaps it is for this reason the paper has never been published in a journal.

Also tell me if the vase was light scanned in 3D are not the slices being measured of the 3D model. They are slices of the vase from above. The full roundness in slices all the way down that we could make a 3D model with those slices. The circular slices changing in diameter as the vase changes in shape. The roundness of slices related to the center axis Z.

I see maths is not your strong point.
His circular slices are 0.040" apart on the z-axis but they are assumed to be in the same x-y plane which would result in a cylindricity of zero.
No CNC machine is capable of this.
If he was able to measure the cylindricity of the vase, any non zero value particularly to the degree found in the UnchartedX data, would have invalidated his metric.

I think thats the advanatge. That different and independent methods all come to the same findings. How can one mess up a 3D light scan. It is what it is. It is measuring the object it scans. It does not create false objects so the measurements are the measurements.

If it shows near perfect circularity via light scan, guage metrology or X rays its all confirming the precision. Its all measuring up to the same precise circles, lines and angles. Why would several conclusions all clearly state that the precision is there and all be wrong at the same time. As opposed to one opposing claim without any support.

Since you want continue to perpetrate this bluff they all came to the same conclusions, I’m calling it.
Fill in the table showing the results for Unsigned.io and Maximus.energy for the parameters tested by UnchartedX.

​

At least they are published on availabe for others to critique or redo. You on the other hand have not produced such an article but rather are complaining on some social media.

What total rubbish given they have not published in any journal and except exposing their nonsense through social media.

This is what I am saying about the hypocracy. You want me to jump through loops with peer reviewed and duplicated science. Yet you allow a low bar for yourself and others who disagree. They just have to say their own words, just speak a claim without any support and its gospel.

Why, are they not independent. They don't collude with each other. They independnetly test the vases. They have no agenda but to test the vases. Who are you to say they are not independent. Can you show how they are not independent besides your complaining.

That is rediculous. How on earth does that alter the measurements or make any difference. The precision vases are going to measure the same whether there are other vases or they are on their own.

In fact that complicates the testing and is completely unnecessary. This is not some subjective analysis where you have to reduce bias. This is cold hard factual measures on machines. The important thing is calibrating the equipment on something independent like in the case of guage testing a master ball is used to ensure proper measures.

In the case of the Maximus tests

Calibration​

To ensure the validity of measurements, EMS, Inc. has calibrated the CT scanner by scanning a ruby T-stylus sphericity set (a NIST traceable metrological standard), which contained a small bead with the radius R = 1.99820 mm

As mentioned above the equipment was claibrated and the measurements don't suddenly take on a mind of their own and change. These are cold hard readouts from the equipment. It appears your bias is showing in demanding unreal criteria that would not be expected in measurements.

Like somehow a guage calliper can measure the precise circular opening of an ancient vase before our eyes on camera and somehow the measure does not count because it was not compared to other vases and therefore shows bias. Yet we see the calibration and clear readouts showing the precision in a live test.

This is unreal and it shows you did not even bother to investigate but had made up your mind beforehand that these testers are just whackos. Which is bias in itself.

I have 3 or more independent tests all saying these vases are on par with CNC modern machining. We even have images of the lathe marks and readouts and you want to whinge about percieved bias of cold hard numbers somehow being changed due to bias.

This is exactly what has been predicted. That skeptics will themselves relegate everything including cold hard facts to conspiracy, pseudoscience and whackery due to their own bias.

When I thought you could not outdo yourself for total lack of understanding out comes this…..

Let me make it as simple as possible for you to understand, a double blind experiment is essentially where no one knows what anyone else is doing. A laboratory is requested to scan vases for various geometrical parameters, they are not told anything such as the nature of the vases or other laboratories participation. The common denominator each laboratory is testing to the same method.

Since UnchartedX has produced the only meaningful data, the objective is not only to find if UnchartedX’s data is reproducible but also if the data from the participating laboratories is repeatable and reproducible.
It has absolute nothing to do with your blathering nonsense of altering measurements, collusion, calibrations etc but a validation exercise where unintentional bias is eliminated.

Let me remind to fill out the table which indicates according to your sweeping statement UnchartedX, Unsigned.io and Maximus.energy have consistent results.

 

[stevevw]

OK, let's talk about your response to my call for you to define the "tech" used to make these vases. (We'll discuss the experiments later.)

You have certainly implied it. You have claimed things like "CNC machines were needed". But, you have not been specific about the method in this post, thus you have not answered my query.

The signatures imply some sort of CNC is needed not me. I said I don't think the tech is like todays machines. They did not have computers or high tech machines. All I know it was some sort of lathing device. The evidence points to this.

This isn't about the casually racist assumptions made about "primitive" people. It is about the techniques used. Spill.

For crying out loud now your making it about identity politics lol. About 'word' meanings. The word primitive as referring to the simple methods is probably one of the most commonly used words.

Now you want to turn the use of that word into a personal and derogatory meaning according to your interpretation and not mine. You want to project your interpretation onto me now lol. I suppose if I call it "simple" your going to make out I am calling the ancients simple people in a derogatory way lol.

The ironic thing is this is about ancients having advanced tech so I am saying they are superior lol. I am priasing their ability if anything compared to those who had more rudimentary methods. For having that ability at a time when we humans should not have had such knowledge and tech.

Which is not relevant to *how* the object were made.

It seems very much related to how these works were made. Apart from the advanced tech signatures on these works another common signature is they incorporate dimensions, or geometry that relates to nature, and astronomy.

It may be a coincident but why these alignments and why are they incorporated in the works. Is it just for artistry or related to something else.

We know the ancients loved to write about their gods on objects, you people haven't changed even to this day.

There it is the "you people". You stupid people who entertain such ideas. Do you call Indigenous peoples who themselves say this as stupid, whackos for suggesting such ideas. This is exactly the very epistemic superiority and dogma I am talking about.

What was the method of manufacture?

I honestly don't know. Its funny, its like your asking a scientists to state the method of some observations they see for which they have not yet worked out what caused it. Thats what science is. You observe the evidence in and of itself first without the unfounded speculation about what it was. If you don't know you don't know.

We can only say that the signatures in the rocks have similar marks to that or certain techniques or methods. In the case of the precision vases some sort of sophisticated lathing. So there a lathing device that was super stable. Use your imagination. ITs certainly not what is on the walls or what the experimenters have used. Or what the orthodoxy claims.

Which brings us back to the OP. One little piece of evidence that shows the orthodox and go to method is wrong and incomplete. That should be enough to spur further investigation and we may very well work out how, But at this point so early in the investigation is an unreal expectation.

Irrelevant. State the method used for manufacture.

Sophisticated lathing. There you go. Thats what the evidence clearly shows.

I'm not interested in the cultural interpretation of these object, just how they were made.

At the very beginning of this section of your text that I quoted you called these objects (the vases) "out of place". They aren't. The archeological context shows the growing sophistication of the hard stone vessel industry right up to the peak.

No the peak is found before the potters wheel like on the walls let alone some sort of sophisticated lathing. Its the other way around. We see these precision vases requiring a different kind of tech compared to the later common bow stick method we see all over the world and the tons of imprecise vases that go with them.

I remember someone on this thread say that perhaps the economic or conditions caused these early Egyptians to stop making the precise vases. Just like the pyramids. Which was an acknowledgement that these vases were no longer being made as an explanation for who we don't see them later and instead see less precise vases in softer stones.

Nevertheless in explaining such lost tech or ability as lost or abandoned they are acknowledging the significances of such works so early in the history.

When it declines, there is a focus on using other materials and methods in making object of these purpose. I personally suspect this is because new tools made the crafting of very fancy (these are all rather plain) stone art objects using softer stone, so the hard work to make plain(ish) objects like these wasn't "worth it" any more.

Yes all sorts of spectualtion about why these vases and other works just stopped. Changing conditions caused changes in methods. Stells helps the craft, the potters wheel and more sophisticated ways of doing stuff. They learn better methods. Or as you say economics or lack of labor or wars whatever influernce what and how things are done.

I agree that to do a vase in granite would be a more top shelf item. The material is way harder to work with and not as common as the softer stones and also harder to find and transport. Heck its more of a hassel all round. It makes sense to go to softer and easier methods.

The weird thing is even though the stone is softer you would think making heeps of softer precision vases would continue. Remembering that the method is suppose to be the same as on the walls. Heck there are people still making these vases today as a tradition continued.

Lets say it was a specialist niche. It still doesn't explain the level of tech and knowledge to achieve such specialist vases. I anm not saying that there were other methods running alongside. We find imprecise vases along with the precision ones. But they were not made the same way. They may even come from an earlier time than predynastic.

They are an out of place work like other works I have pointed out. I don't want to make the thread just about vases. There are many other works that when added together make a strong case for advanced knowledge.

 

[BCP1928]

The signatures imply some sort of CNC is needed not me. I said I don't think the tech is like todays machines. They did not have computers or high tech machines. All I know it was some sort of lathing device. The evidence points to this.

So what? "Some sort of lathing device" is not the same as "some sort of CNC." CNC stands for Computer Numerical Control. Any sort of CNC device has to have electric motors and a digital computer. On the other hand "some sort of lathing device" has been known since ancient times in one form or another and it is not preposterous or contrary to "orthodoxy" to speculate that Egyptian craftsmen knew of them.

For crying out loud now your making it about identity politics lol. About 'word' meanings. The word primitive as referring to the simple methods is probably one of the most commonly used words.

Now you want to turn the use of that word into a personal and derogatory meaning according to your interpretation and not mine. You want to project your interpretation onto me now lol. I suppose if I call it "simple" your going to make out I am calling the ancients simple people in a derogatory way lol.

The ironic thing is this is about ancients having advanced tech so I am saying they are superior lol. I am priasing their ability if anything compared to those who had more rudimentary methods. For having that ability at a time when we humans should not have had such knowledge and tech.

What you seem to be proposing is that ancient Egyptians used an even more ancient and superior technology left over from a vanished superior civilization, technology that they couldn't create themselves. That is most certainly derogatory.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There it is the "you people". You stupid people who entertain such ideas. Do you call Indigenous peoples who themselves say this as stupid, whackos for suggesting such ideas. This is exactly the very epistemic superiority and dogma I am talking about.

"You people" = people with gods and stories about them. I.e., not me. The Egyptian stories of their gods aren't relevant to the methods for vase manufacture.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The signatures imply some sort of CNC is needed not me. I said I don't think the tech is like todays machines. They did not have computers or high tech machines. All I know it was some sort of lathing device. The evidence points to this.

Then you have a serious problem. CNC was invented in the 20th century, so either the signatures are correct and the vases are forgeries or the signatures do not actually imply CNC machining.

For crying out loud now your making it about identity politics lol. About 'word' meanings. The word primitive as referring to the simple methods is probably one of the most commonly used words.

Now you want to turn the use of that word into a personal and derogatory meaning according to your interpretation and not mine. You want to project your interpretation onto me now lol. I suppose if I call it "simple" your going to make out I am calling the ancients simple people in a derogatory way lol.

The ironic thing is this is about ancients having advanced tech so I am saying they are superior lol. I am priasing their ability if anything compared to those who had more rudimentary methods. For having that ability at a time when we humans should not have had such knowledge and tech.

If you don't know the history of racist assumptions by *mainstream* archeology (now almost entirely gone) and the lingering assumptions of the same sort that permeates the ideas behind the fantasies of pseudoarcheology, then you should read up on both. I have in particular tried to point you to the problems with "ancient techonology" fantacists, but I have seen no recognition of this here.

It seems very much related to how these works were made. Apart from the advanced tech signatures on these works another common signature is they incorporate dimensions, or geometry that relates to nature, and astronomy.

It may be a coincident but why these alignments and why are they incorporated in the works. Is it just for artistry or related to something else.

There it is the "you people". You stupid people who entertain such ideas. Do you call Indigenous peoples who themselves say this as stupid, whackos for suggesting such ideas. This is exactly the very epistemic superiority and dogma I am talking about.

The spiritual beliefs of the Egyptians are not relevant to *how* the vases were made. Let's see what your method conclusion is...

I honestly don't know. Its funny, its like your asking a scientists to state the method of some observations they see for which they have not yet worked out what caused it. Thats what science is. You observe the evidence in and of itself first without the unfounded speculation about what it was. If you don't know you don't know.

1. You don't know.

We can only say that the signatures in the rocks have similar marks to that or certain techniques or methods. In the case of the precision vases some sort of sophisticated lathing. So there a lathing device that was super stable. Use your imagination. ITs certainly not what is on the walls or what the experimenters have used. Or what the orthodoxy claims.

2. Lathes and imagination.

Which brings us back to the OP. One little piece of evidence that shows the orthodox and go to method is wrong and incomplete. That should be enough to spur further investigation and we may very well work out how, But at this point so early in the investigation is an unreal expectation.

Sophisticated lathing. There you go. Thats what the evidence clearly shows.

3. Sophisticated lathing.

I see some internal disagreement with yourself. (So, I wasn't imagining this.)

No the peak is found before the potters wheel like on the walls let alone some sort of sophisticated lathing. Its the other way around. We see these precision vases requiring a different kind of tech compared to the later common bow stick method we see all over the world and the tons of imprecise vases that go with them.

No, I was talking about the archeological context -- other objects found or not found in earlier or later sites. That record makes it clear that there is *CONTINUITY* of material cultural leading up to the peak in high-quality stone vase manufacture, followed by a decline. That evidence of the *development* of the techniques is pretty clear evidence that we are *NOT* seeing the fading of some lost ancient technology or the sudden appearance of unprecedented technological sophistication. It is in fact precedented.

I remember someone on this thread say that perhaps the economic or conditions caused these early Egyptians to stop making the precise vases. Just like the pyramids. Which was an acknowledgement that these vases were no longer being made as an explanation for who we don't see them later and instead see less precise vases in softer stones.

I believe that was @sjastro

Nevertheless in explaining such lost tech or ability as lost or abandoned they are acknowledging the significances of such works so early in the history.

Yes all sorts of spectualtion about why these vases and other works just stopped. Changing conditions caused changes in methods. Stells helps the craft, the potters wheel and more sophisticated ways of doing stuff. They learn better methods. Or as you say economics or lack of labor or wars whatever influernce what and how things are done.

I agree that to do a vase in granite would be a more top shelf item. The material is way harder to work with and not as common as the softer stones and also harder to find and transport. Heck its more of a hassel all round. It makes sense to go to softer and easier methods.

The weird thing is even though the stone is softer you would think making heeps of softer precision vases would continue. Remembering that the method is suppose to be the same as on the walls. Heck there are people still making these vases today as a tradition continued.

Lets say it was a specialist niche. It still doesn't explain the level of tech and knowledge to achieve such specialist vases. I anm not saying that there were other methods running alongside. We find imprecise vases along with the precision ones. But they were not made the same way. They may even come from an earlier time than predynastic.

I'm not sure you are getting my point. The HQ hard stone vases we have been discussing for weeks are not that "fancy" looking. They are rather "plain". They are also very labor intensive. Better tools for working soft stones may have made those more desirable as the vases we see a few dynasties later of softer stone have very complex designs and decorations.

They are an out of place work like other works I have pointed out. I don't want to make the thread just about vases. There are many other works that when added together make a strong case for advanced knowledge.

They are not out of place if you know the archeology.

 

[stevevw]

Symptomatic of being totally clueless is the indiscriminate use of the term expert.
There is nothing expert from any of your sources.

Thats a plain and obvious falsehood. The testers and experimenters are qualified experts in their fields. Coming from engineering, precision tool making with some of the best companies including NASA or making parts for NASA. Not just that they have the equipment to do the testing unlike most. Numbers don't lie.

I can show you a guage measure of say the top of the vase showing near perfect roundness right before your eyes. I can show you calipper readins live coming out of the metrology right before your eyes. How is this not expert measures.

If they are experts in their fields than why hasn’t their work found its way into any reputable peer reviewed journal?

Because like I said and like they even acknowledge that this is the preliminary work that leads to the paper and peer rview. This is the direct testing in labs for the paper. It is yet to be complete.

More vases need to be tested and especially in museums so that the skeptics can be silenced about provedence and that this can be done by traditional methods.

This insistence on peer review is hypocritical as many times people on this thread and others offer the experiments as evidence that these works can be done by the methods on the walls.

Yet they provide no peer review. You provide no peer review, It seems ok for you to make all sorts of claims without one bit of independent evidence. As though your own voice and opinions have passed peer review lol without even providing any paper.

Any reviewer of Maximus.energy’s paper would also note the obvious mistake, you don’t make conclusions about a 3D object using 2D data which are all in the same plane.

Then why haven't they. Not one. I think you are wrong. It seems the other tests used similar methods and none of them said that this refutes their findings. They clearly state the findings that these vases have a level of precision on par and even exceeding modern lathing machined vases.

The signatures leave machining marks. What are you saying that these vases were not lathed somehow to achieve such symetry and roundness. That a wobbly box drill can create such precision.

Even if the 2D precision is one aspect and how it is near perfect syymetry to the center axis how does this not negate the precision. The same 2D analysis was done by 2 other independent testers who also made 3D analysis and they both state that the symmetry and concentricity is near perfect.

Your whinging about a minor issue in what we can clearly see is a precision vase compared to later softer ones done by the wall methods. It seems your trying to create some red herring to take us away from this fact.

I will ask the simple and obvious question. Was some sort of lathing involved in making these predyanstic vases to be able to achieve near perfect symmetry, circularity and concentricity.

Lets say its not quite as near perfect as the tests clearly show. How much less perfect. Less perfect enough to say a wobbly bow drill cutter on the walls some 1800 years later could produce such. Or maybe a bit more sophisticated than that. Or are you still saying they somehow pounded, ground and rubbed these vases into near perfect 3D vases without any guidence beyond their freehands.

Perhaps it is for this reason the paper has never been published in a journal.

No like any idea or claim challenging the established view and just like the reaction on this thread that becomes all worked up there needs to be a good basis that cannot be disputed.

We have already established I think that some sort of lathing was happening at a time when the potters wheel was not even invented according to the same established view. We don't need peer reviews blessing for that.

I acknowledge that a bigger and better case is needed to refute all the fallacies. It will come. Not just for vases but across a number of areas related to advanced tech and knowledge.

I don't think many skeptics are even open to the idea let alone be neutral on the evidence. Like I said many people see tons of evidence like the circular saw cuts. But skeptics want to attribute this all to forgeries or a copper saw lol no matter what.

I see maths is not your strong point.
His circular slices are 0.040" apart on the z-axis but they are assumed to be in the same x-y plane which would result in a cylindricity of zero.
No CNC machine is capable of this.

I thought if its a 2D measure of say a perfect circle (errors being deviation a perfect circle) then the measurements of the inside and outside wall layers will show if they deviate from the perfect radius of those 2D circles. The figure shows the X and Y axis this is being based on which was also determinded.

In the second image we are now looking down on the vase showing the circular slices. This was the circularity measured to the Z axis to determine how much each slice deviated from a perfect circle.

If he was able to measure the cylindricity of the vase, any non zero value particularly to the degree found in the UnchartedX data, would have invalidated his metric.

I don't know. Would not the circularity of each slice going down the vase create the coaxiality and cycliner. For example in the parts of the vase that may be cyclindric like the neck little deviation in the layers going down will support good cyclindricity as well. I am not sure as I am not a metrologist.

I find it strange that several tests have used this method and all state this supports the precision in the vases. They have used several methods including 3D light scanning, X Ray and photogrametry and 3D nets or models have been created down to microns. Each and every independent test showing the high precision and evidence of machine lathing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d752WFDL24

I mean they have the physics marks of lathing machins in them lol. What more do you want.

Since you want continue to perpetrate this bluff they all came to the same conclusions, I’m calling it.
Fill in the table showing the results for Unsigned.io and Maximus.energy for the parameters tested by UnchartedX.

That is not up to me. You are the one disputing the tests andd findings. You write the peer review showing they are wrong. I don't have to do anything but point you to the experts findings. The cold hard factual data already there for you to find and place in your little game.

By the way it shows how much you don't understand the evidence that you cite unsigned.io tests results from the metrology. They did not tests but rather downloaded the tests results, the files and applied maths and geometry. Tried to find relationships in the precision shapes within the vase.

View attachment 370708
​

What total rubbish given they have not published in any journal and except exposing their nonsense through social media.

There you go again. Calling physical tests we can witness and see the readouts as nonsense. This is the bias I am talking about. You call it nonsense when others call it good scientific testing. Replicated science is good science.

A simple guage metrology live in the video refutes your claim. We can see the readings pop onto the screen. Unless you are saying they falsified the tests while we were not looking lol. Give me a break. At what point is the test valid. When do the plain numbers on the instruments count. Does it only count when certain people or establishments do it. Or does the actual expert tests with the proper equipment doing the tests before our eyes count.

When I thought you could not outdo yourself for total lack of understanding out comes this…..

This is how the skeptics go. First its whackery and attacking those presenting such evidence. Then its they are forgeries. Then it comes back to we don't know what we are talking about. Same old cynnacisim.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you to understand, a double blind experiment is essentially where no one knows what anyone else is doing. A laboratory is requested to scan vases for various geometrical parameters, they are not told anything such as the nature of the vases or other laboratories participation. The common denominator each laboratory is testing to the same method.

I understand double blind experimenting. I am saying its unreal for the tests on ancient vases. For example some were tested at the Petrie museum. The area is restrictive and so is the time. You only get to choose X amount of vases and have X amount of time.

Making it any harder and inconvenient for everyone is completely unnecessary and would not be required for anyone doing such tests under those conditions. They aimed to choose the best examples in the cases that would fall into the precision category and get out. They don't want to know exactly what they are testing and its provedence and not any vase.

I agree that the more vases tested and the more the better. But this is about signatures in vases that are either there or not there. The measurements don't lie or are biased. They are what they are. If a guage tool reads near perfect readout right in front of your eyes how can this be biased. A near perfect circle is a near perfect circle. The numbers cannot be biased lol. You just don't like the numbers.

Since UnchartedX has produced the only meaningful data, the objective is not only to find if UnchartedX’s data is reproducible but also if the data from the participating laboratories is repeatable and reproducible.

This once again shows you don't know what is happening here. UnchartedX do no tests. They are the host or platform relaying the tests and analysis done by others. They hold the tests results for anyone to access and analyse.

But the original tests has been repeated by others and I have linked this and they all come to similar findings. Additional methods such as photogrametry, X Ray and lazer have also been done and come to similar findings. All are trying to measure the vases at the micron level. Further magnification of the guage metrology and confirming it in more detail.

It has absolute nothing to do with your blathering nonsense of altering measurements, collusion, calibrations etc but a validation exercise where unintentional bias is eliminated.

How can one be boased about a measurement. REmember the rule measure twice and cut once. In testing theyu would ensure the proper calibbration and measure ten times to be sure. You cannot be biased about cold hard measures. If you put the callipers on the vase it will read what it does. There is no magical force that changes the read out.

Like I said these tests are done live in front of the camera as they happen. We see the readouts. Your being unreal. Why don;t you just watch the tests before making unreal expectations. make people jump through loops.

Your quite happen to present some Russians in what looks like their loungeroom working away on a vase as evidence. Your quiet happy to proclaim your own opinion as authority without the double blinds and al;l the red herrings. The hypocracy only makes my point.

The onus is on you. The evidence has been presented. Apply your own criteria for disproving the findings. Not some claim on social media or thread. Do a paper showing them wrong. showing how not having a double blind negates the evidence. Do the tests and see if they are wrong.

Let me remind to fill out the table which indicates according to your sweeping statement UnchartedX, Unsigned.io and Maximus.energy have consistent results.

Nah not playing your games. The onus is on you not me. You are the one claiming the numbers are wrong. Its all red herrings and strawmen.

Like I said and I will ask again. Do you agree or disagree that some sort of lathing was involved to produce such near perfect or even not so near perfect symmetry and circularity. Something more than on the wall paintings and how the experiments with bow type drills or grinding lumps or stone against each other bouncing around.

Its simple, yes or no.

 

[stevevw]

So what? "Some sort of lathing device" is not the same as "some sort of CNC." CNC stands for Computer Numerical Control. Any sort of CNC device has to have electric motors and a digital computer. On the other hand "some sort of lathing device" has been known since ancient times in one form or another and it is not preposterous or contrary to "orthodoxy" to speculate that Egyptian craftsmen knew of them.

Thats the problem and why these vases are considered out of place artifacts. The potters wheel was not introduced until 4th dynasty at least and if not the middle kingdom. There is no evidence of any potters wheel or the type of method on the wall piantings of the middle to new kingdom methods found.

The origins and the use of the potters wheel in Ancient Egypt
The potter's wheel was introduced to Egypt from the Levant during the reign of Pharoh Sneferu in the 4th dynasty (c. 2600 B.C.).

The origins and the use of the potters wheel in Ancient Egypt -ORCA

orca.cardiff.ac.uk

These vases are predynastic. Pharoah Djoser of the 3rd dynasty inhereted 1,000s of these granite vases which were found under his Stepped pyramid. So they were already being produced well before this. Some have been found from around 3,500 to 4,000BC with good provedence.

The first wheels or rotating devices would have been very simple and rudimentary and nowhere near like a lathe. In fact not even the middle or new kingdom had lathe devices.

Its well acknowledged that the methods were similar to what is on the wall in the middle and new kingdom depictions. All the experiments use such methods. Even museums like the Imhotep museum states with a plaque next to the vases that these were made by the method depicted on wall paintings.

In fact they admit that the precision vases were made by a different method to the softer alabasta vases on the wall depictions and that Djoser inhereted the hard stone precision vases and did not even make them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeHistory/comments/1j0o6ba

What you seem to be proposing is that ancient Egyptians used an even more ancient and superior technology left over from a vanished superior civilization, technology that they couldn't create themselves. That is most certainly derogatory.

Don't be so politically correct lol. No one is saying any culture is less worthy or able or dumb because they did not have as good a method. Happens all the time. Some tribe happens to create a better spear that gives an advantage over the other tribe. So what thats life and how knowledge works.

Don't be so morally outraged over vases lol. You actually called me dumb and I am not worried lol. Its actually giving these ancients credit for being so ingenius and enterprising if anything. But you want to create negatives in any way you can. If its not conspiracy, me being dum, testers being stupid and missing obvious mistakes or now claiming I am making personal attacks on ancients lol.

 

[stevevw]

Then you have a serious problem. CNC was invented in the 20th century, so either the signatures are correct and the vases are forgeries or the signatures do not actually imply CNC machining.

Ah heavy lifters were invented in the 20th century so we have a problem in logistics as to how these ancients moved 1,000 plus ton stones for 100s of miles and even over mountains. How did they stand up on a precise base 1,00 ton plus statues.

What if the vases have good provedence and yet have similar signatures to m odern CNC lathing. What happens then. It cannot be because CNC is a modern tech. So we must somehow force fit the signatures into the rudimentary methods. Its that the logic. Then you have the problem.

If you don't know the history of racist assumptions by *mainstream* archeology (now almost entirely gone) and the lingering assumptions of the same sort that permeates the ideas behind the fantasies of pseudoarcheology, then you should read up on both. I have in particular tried to point you to the problems with "ancient techonology" fantacists, but I have seen no recognition of this here.

Theres no recognition because being racist or using the fact that there is ancient advanced knowledge and tech is the furthest from my mind. Does not even enter the picture. Was not on my ind until you injected this in. It seems you are more worried and making it an issue than it actually is and certain actually is for me. Stop projecting your own unfounded assumptions on me.

But I find it ironic. Do you believe the ancients and their indigenous knowledge as a real representation of the world and reality for those indigenous peoples. Or do you think their beliefs in gods or spirits is all pseudoarcheology. I know for a fact you don't take seriously their stories and beliefs and relegate them as unreal when it comes to empiricle standards of evidence. Just an evolutionary expression and not real about it.

Isn't that racist. Isnot that dumbing down their knowledge as not being real or their stories and experiences they pass down as just being superstition and made up stories and nothing real as far as objective reality. This is the hypocracy.

The spiritual beliefs of the Egyptians are not relevant to *how* the vases were made. Let's see what your method conclusion is...

1. You don't know.

Neither does the establishment. As pointed out above museums attribute the traditional method on the walls to the softer vases but never tell us how exactly these hard stones vases were made. They admit they were made differently but never state exactly how. So are they also wrong.

2. Lathes and imagination.

No just lathing at this stage. No imagination. The conclusion that lathing was involved comes from yourself and others as well. This lathing is different to the weighted bent stick method. We all admit that.

Unless you can show how such a method could leave such signatures in the precise vases. But the signatures from the method are seen everywhere from the soft vases and they have been scientifically categorised as different and in a different quality class. Not because of lack of effort by the artist but that the tools/method itself produces such signatures.

3. Sophisticated lathing.

I see some internal disagreement with yourself. (So, I wasn't imagining this.)

How. If we can clearly admit some sort of lathing to get symmetry and circularity because lathing is a specific method good at producing symmetry and circularity. Then it follows logically the more precise the shaping is the more sophisticated the lathing.

Some suggested a rudimentary lathe stablised by sticks. Others by somehow fixing the cutter so that it was guided to ensure precision rather than freehand that moves about. The ultimate being a method to was completely stable to ensure precision shaping with no wobbles like the rudimentary bent stick method.

Simple logic. If simple lathing can create pretty good symmetry then the better the lathing the better the outcome. Its using the same logic that lathing helps create good symmetry and roundness. Therefore other lathing tech will do the same for other precision in the vase.

No, I was talking about the archeological context -- other objects found or not found in earlier or later sites. That record makes it clear that there is *CONTINUITY* of material cultural leading up to the peak in high-quality stone vase manufacture, followed by a decline.

No it doesn't and thats the point as to why its out of place. The potters wheel was not even invented until the 4th dynasty and even then theres doubt it was later. But even then following your logic of a progression of gradual improvement up to the peak of these precision vases we have none. We don't even have the development of the potters wheeel let alone lathing.

Otherwise we should see the development of a lathe in predynastic Egypt better than the ones that come 100s if not 1,000s of years later like on the wall paintings. Those are a step backwards not forwards as far as being able to produce precision vases.

That evidence of the *development* of the techniques is pretty clear evidence that we are *NOT* seeing the fading of some lost ancient technology or the sudden appearance of unprecedented technological sophistication. It is in fact precedented.

I refer to the above evidence that states the potters wheel did not come into Egyptian culture until around the 4th dynasty but possibly even later in the middle kingdom. But certainly nothing like a lath or with any sophistication that it could produce such quality vases. Vases better than all that followed. Better than the methods used for the next 2000 years or more.

I believe that was @sjastro

I'm not sure you are getting my point. The HQ hard stone vases we have been discussing for weeks are not that "fancy" looking. They are rather "plain". They are also very labor intensive. Better tools for working soft stones may have made those more desirable as the vases we see a few dynasties later of softer stone have very complex designs and decorations.

Now your spectualting, but its ok for you and not others who disagree. Like I said all sorts of rationalisations are being made except the fact that these vases are out of place for the time and tech.

It seems you have relegated these vases as ordinary for whatever reason. Most people see them as unbelievable accompliments for that time. They stand out. If your walking around these ancient sites seeing the common pottery and other works and then spot these they stand out by far as being different to the surrounding level of works expected.

Its the fact that they p[resent precise, you can't see any fault, crooked lines like other vases. Its the hard stone conglomerates that have been expressed like grain in wood. Its like fine woodwork in working with natural materials. Especially the hardest stones.

It seems even the Egyptians thought they were special as they tried to mimick them with softer stones even painting them to look like granite. More importantly it is the worth to the Egyptians and they values them so much that they were collected to be burried with.

They are not out of place if you know the archeology.

Here is a comment from an archeologist decades ago before we even discovered how precise and special these vases were. It shows that even back then they stood out as out of place items.

 

[stevevw]

"You people" = people with gods and stories about them. I.e., not me. The Egyptian stories of their gods aren't relevant to the methods for vase manufacture.

No but its the same attitude and assumption. What I am saying about advanced tech and knowledge is what the ancient cultures say themselves and about themselves. Including what they say are supernatural feats of their ancestors or the gods they say created such works.

Thats the reality and thats my point. You regard all of it no matter if it comes from scientists proposing such alternative ideas or the ancients themselves as nothing but fantasy as far as any of this actually happening or being a reality or being knowledge at all of reality.

In fact in some ways trying to restrict ancient cultures knowledge and ability to what modern material science wants to restrict this too is really offensive to the cultures who asked to be believed when it comes to their own testimony and truth of their stories. They actually state this when they say western sciences are ignorant to their ancient knowledge and secret disregard that knowledge.

The same as Christians. You don't believe a word said about the knowledge gained from belief in God. Its all make believe. Come on be truthful. Unless it can be verified empirically by methological naturalism or conform epistemically to material sciences its all pseudoscience.

You don't know to what extent ancients knowledge was influenced by their beliefs or worldviews. We do know that everything was seen through the prism of gods and spirits and transcedent realities. Who knows that this did not bring insights and knowledge that science cannot yet understand or never will.

 

[BCP1928]

Ah heavy lifters were invented in the 20th century so we have a problem in logistics as to how these ancients moved 1,000 plus ton stones for 100s of miles and even over mountains. How did they stand up on a precise base 1,00 ton plus statues.

What if the vases have good provedence and yet have similar signatures to m odern CNC lathing. What happens then. It cannot be because CNC is a modern tech. So we must somehow force fit the signatures into the rudimentary methods. Its that the logic. Then you have the problem.

No, you have the problem of where they got electrically powered, computer controlled machines and why there is no archeological evidence of their existence. Of course it would be easier if you would stop disparaging the capabilities of experience craftsmen working with hand tools, you wouldn't have to convince us of the presence of CNC machine tools in ancient Egypt, but I suppose you have a point to make--I just wish you would get to it.

Theres no recognition because being racist or using the fact that there is ancient advanced knowledge and tech is the furthest from my mind. Does not even enter the picture. Was not on my ind until you injected this in. It seems you are more worried and making it an issue than it actually is and certain actually is for me. Stop projecting your own unfounded assumptions on me.

But I find it ironic. Do you believe the ancients and their indigenous knowledge as a real representation of the world and reality for those indigenous peoples. Or do you think their beliefs in gods or spirits is all pseudoarcheology. I know for a fact you don't take seriously their stories and beliefs and relegate them as unreal when it comes to empiricle standards of evidence. Just an evolutionary expression and not real about it.

We're not concerned with their religious beliefs.

Isn't that racist. Isnot that dumbing down their knowledge as not being real or their stories and experiences they pass down as just being superstition and made up stories and nothing real as far as objective reality. This is the hypocracy.

Neither does the establishment. As pointed out above museums attribute the traditional method on the walls to the softer vases but never tell us how exactly these hard stones vases were made. They admit they were made differently but never state exactly how. So are they also wrong.

No just lathing at this stage. No imagination. The conclusion that lathing was involved comes from yourself and others as well. This lathing is different to the weighted bent stick method. We all admit that.

Unless you can show how such a method could leave such signatures in the precise vases. But the signatures from the method are seen everywhere from the soft vases and they have been scientifically categorised as different and in a different quality class. Not because of lack of effort by the artist but that the tools/method itself produces such signatures.

How. If we can clearly admit some sort of lathing to get symmetry and circularity because lathing is a specific method good at producing symmetry and circularity. Then it follows logically the more precise the shaping is the more sophisticated the lathing.

Some suggested a rudimentary lathe stablised by sticks. Others by somehow fixing the cutter so that it was guided to ensure precision rather than freehand that moves about. The ultimate being a method to was completely stable to ensure precision shaping with no wobbles like the rudimentary bent stick method.

Simple logic. If simple lathing can create pretty good symmetry then the better the lathing the better the outcome. Its using the same logic that lathing helps create good symmetry and roundness. Therefore other lathing tech will do the same for other precision in the vase.

No it doesn't and thats the point as to why its out of place. The potters wheel was not even invented until the 4th dynasty and even then theres doubt it was later. But even then following your logic of a progression of gradual improvement up to the peak of these precision vases we have none. We don't even have the development of the potters wheeel let alone lathing.

Otherwise we should see the development of a lathe in predynastic Egypt better than the ones that come 100s if not 1,000s of years later like on the wall paintings. Those are a step backwards not forwards as far as being able to produce precision vases.

I refer to the above evidence that states the potters wheel did not come into Egyptian culture until around the 4th dynasty but possibly even later in the middle kingdom. But certainly nothing like a lath or with any sophistication that it could produce such quality vases. Vases better than all that followed. Better than the methods used for the next 2000 years or more.

Now your spectualting, but its ok for you and not others who disagree. Like I said all sorts of rationalisations are being made except the fact that these vases are out of place for the time and tech.

It seems you have relegated these vases as ordinary for whatever reason. Most people see them as unbelievable accompliments for that time. They stand out. If your walking around these ancient sites seeing the common pottery and other works and then spot these they stand out by far as being different to the surrounding level of works expected.

Its the fact that they p[resent precise, you can't see any fault, crooked lines like other vases. Its the hard stone conglomerates that have been expressed like grain in wood. Its like fine woodwork in working with natural materials. Especially the hardest stones.

It seems even the Egyptians thought they were special as they tried to mimick them with softer stones even painting them to look like granite. More importantly it is the worth to the Egyptians and they values them so much that they were collected to be burried with.

Here is a comment from an archeologist decades ago before we even discovered how precise and special these vases were. It shows that even back then they stood out as out of place items.

View attachment 370759

I looked up his bio but didn't see anything about his apprenticeship to a skilled trade. But I know from my own experience that he is wrong. Still, it is interesting that he wrote before CNC machine tools were commonly available. I wonder what he would make of your assertions that working to tolerances closer that +/- 0.025" inches is impossible without them.