There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[BCP1928]

No but its the same attitude and assumption. What I am saying about advanced tech and knowledge is what the ancient cultures say 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 or the ancients themselves as nothing but fantasy as far as any of this actually happening or being a 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.

The same as Christians. You don't believe a word said about the knowledge gained from belief in God. Its all whackery. Come on be truthful. Unless it can be verified empirically by methodlogical naturalism its all pseudoscience.

What? Are you claiming that God gave them CNC machine tools?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

View attachment 370749

Oh look, it's the modern fake V18.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

They don't *say* anything about such "tech", nor that the stone vases have supernatural formation, so why do you think supernaturalism has anything to do with it?

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.

Archeology is a science. It uses methodological naturalism. As I have said to many other believers before, if you can't handle that fact about science, perhaps discussing science isn't a good place for you to be.

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 only "record" of how such objects were made over a 1000 year period is that drawing you have recently shown. We don't have a "vase text" like we have many others about many things in ancient Egypt. I don't know why you invoke non-natural things (or complain that we don't care about them) as there isn't even a text saying something like "The priest invokes to spirit of Ptah to aid the formation of the vase." We've got objects and one image of workmen spanning a millenium.

The same as Christians. You don't believe a word said about the knowledge gained from belief in God.

Of course not.

Its all make believe. Come on be truthful.

I'm not hiding it.

Unless it can be verified empirically by methological naturalism or conform epistemically to material sciences its all pseudoscience.

We are talking about archeology and craftsmanship. Nothing about either implies any supernaturalism.

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.

You aren't going to get that understanding from obsessing over scratch marks on stone vases.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Acheological context. The other objects found in early and later deposits. I believe that U. Chicago PDF you posted a couple weeks ago even said so. (Do you even read the scholarly documents you link?) There is a progression of developing technique in stone vessel manufacture reaching its peak in the objects you tout. They do not appear out of nowhere in the archeological record.

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.

The allegations of levels of 'precision' is only the non-peer reviewed "work" coming out of these amateur websites you post. Show us some similar claims from the literature.

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.

Again, we have scant physical evidence (or written) for any tools used in this work during the period of the peak hard stone vase industry. If we did, this silly argument would be over in a citation.

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.

I was clear that i was speculating. (In fact, I think some of it came from things I read, but I don't remember the sources, so I still labeled it as "speculation") The problem with Dunn et al. is that they don't label their speculations as such and they are ridiculous fantasies.

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.

Not what I said. I said the designs were rather plain or simple in form. The are certainly not "ordinary" as they represent significant amounts of effort to make. My point about technological development and vase design is that if a fairly plain looking vase of hard stone took 1000 hours to make and new tools and methods allowed fancier looking vases to be made of softer stones (like alabaster) for only 300 hours, they are going to choose the fancier and cheaper vessels.

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.

Hundreds of hours of grinding and rubbing

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

unchartedX" sell 3D printed relicas for $40. So what "

.
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.

Have you ever read any *current* archeologists? n

 

[sjastro]

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.

My use of the term clueless applies to you for blindly accepting what you think is expertise.

Speaking from experience as a scientist who worked in an engineering division anyone who claims if a circularity result on Vase 18 is below the range of measurement but records it as a real result doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
No one in the field of metrology would make such a claim.

Since you brought up calliper readings so what, you still do not comprehend the issue is not about the measurements or the scanning but the calculations that follow for the geometric parameters under examination.

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.

For someone who rambles on about logical fallacies the burden of proof is on you show ancient Egyptians were not capable of producing vases with archaeologically attested equipment and not for anyone in this thread to show the converse.
You make the claim you prove it.

Also I don’t have write a paper that needs to be peer reviewed, the errors in your sources are trivially wrong as explained, your failure to comprehend them is the issue at hand.

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.

You are repeating the same rubbish over and over again.

For the umpteenth time the only reliable evidence comes from UnchartedX, using Polyworks software which clearly shows the vase is nowhere near perfect symmetry, circularity and concentricity you claim it is.
Your other two sources using their own hand written software is clearly flawed for the reasons given including they are not standard metrology software.

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 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.

View attachment 370746 View attachment 370747

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 you only understood the significance of Fig 5, it’s the very reason why his handwritten code doesn’t work which I explained and will not repeat for the third time.

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.

View attachment 370751 View attachment 370752

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.

View attachment 370749

So now you are making the ridiculous assertion the surface roughness on the vases is indicative of lathe work?
Was the granite statue of Thutmose III in the 18th dynasty where the surface is a near mirror finish the result of lathe work as well?
Did it ever occur to you the surface finish was completed by hand?

Since vase V18 has made an appearance do you think the use of professional software would lead to the nonsensical interpretation circularity is below detection limits so therefore it must be a real value?

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.

You were asked to provide evidence of your claim UnchartedX, Unsigned.io and Maximus.energy give similar results.
Your excuse that it’s not up to you is an admission to lying and then to stupidly give the very reason why you had lie and trying to pin it on me says a lot.

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.

Your ignorance is truly profound. You are not aware that doing simple gauge metrology, scanning or a CMM is providing the raw data.
It tells you nothing of the resulting geometry under investigation; this is accomplished by software such as Polyworks.
It illustrates yet again you don’t know what you are talking about, the issue is about the software, in particular when it is not professional software as used by Unsigned.io and Maximus.energy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The rest of your post is typical rambling nonsense.

To put your post in perspective it is like making the idiotic assertion the tooth fairy exists and expecting others to prove you wrong.
The rank stupidity of your argument is you have no evidence, it is based on personal incredulity, ignoring the real evidence namely the Polyworks results which is nowhere near the level of precision you claim.
To then make claims that independent tests support each other and when challenged you back off stating it’s not up to you indicates dishonesty.
You are deluded into thinking you have made inroads when in reality the only evidence you have provided is you don’t know what you are talking about .

 

[stevevw]

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.

I already have. Everyone acknowledges that some sort of lathe was used with very good stability to achieve such near precise symmetry and roundness. That in itself is evidence. Yet we cannot find any lathes. The potters wheel was not even invented yet. We cannot find anything that even looks like a potters wheel. Yet they produced lathe like symmetry and circularity.

So that arguement also works against even a basic bent stick device as seen on the walls which was later used. At least we have the method later. But nothing for more complicated vases in the predyanstic Egyptians.

Also who said it was a computer. I didn't. That is your spectualtion. Like I said the precision and other works may not have been achieved by the same methods we use today. I mentioned earlier about stone softening. If this is the case then granite becomes like clay and then its just a case of modeling and molding to precision. Ifg you look at the stone walls in Peru they have been softened.

Who knows. But further research is needed.

We're not concerned with their religious beliefs.

I am lol. If you look at Indigenous knowledge it is steeped in religious and spiritual beliefs. I think this is the key and major difference between todays western sciences and alternative ways of knowing reality.

I am not sure if you are a Christian but put other religion. If so you understand that there is other ways of knowing reality. Christians believe in the supernatural. There were miracles in the bible and Christ rose from the dead. Christians spoke of miracles defying objective reality and scientific explanations.

Why is is not possible that ancient people like Aboriginals who go back 60,000 years did not possess some sort of transcedent knowledge being immersed in nature and understanding nature. Why is it a surprise that they may have known how to manipulate nature and change the physics or chemical compositions ect. Or know remedies and other secrets of nature we have lost.

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.

Lol ok, it was just one example. Even Flinders Petrie recognised the precision vases and other works and how they stood out from other works. He was a trained archeologist and Egyptologists and in fact pioneered the sciences. This was around the turn of the century over a 100 years ago when lathing was just becoming a thing. Let alone nearly 5,000 years prior.

Flinders Petrie
"...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the modern workshops."

I think those who make out these vases and other works are just any old works and nothing special and even out of place for the time. That such precision vases can be produced at a time when the potters wheel was not even invented is kidding themselves.

Ai overview

Sir Flinders Petrie recognized the advanced, possibly machine-aided, technology required to produce the ancient Egyptian precision vases, which feature intricate details and smooth finishes in hard stones like granite. His 1880s findings of drill cores and tools suggested a single-point cutting method with fixed jeweled points, a technique that challenged the understanding of ancient Egyptian capabilities and indicated sophisticated processes potentially beyond handcrafting.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ai overview

Sir Flinders Petrie recognized the advanced, possibly machine-aided, technology required to produce the ancient Egyptian precision vases, which feature intricate details and smooth finishes in hard stones like granite. His 1880s findings of drill cores and tools suggested a single-point cutting method with fixed jeweled points, a technique that challenged the understanding of ancient Egyptian capabilities and indicated sophisticated processes potentially beyond handcrafting.

What was the training set of this AI? It certainly wasn't only the peer-reviewed literature.

 

[BCP1928]

Also who said it was a computer. I didn't.

You did. You specifically used the term CNC to describe the kind of machine you thought necessary. CNC stands for Computer Numerical Control Yes, there has to be a computer. The computer exercises the numerical control instead of the operator.

 

[stevevw]

What? Are you claiming that God gave them CNC machine tools?

No I am using this as an example of how there are different kinds of knowledge and ways of understanding reality. The ancients don't say god gave them a CNC machine. But they do say that their god gave their ancestors the knowledge to make such works.

Just like Christians say that their God parted the seas, raised people from the dead and gave them knowledge to perform supernatural feats that defy objective reality.

I guess it depends on your worldview beliefs about metaphysics. Whether you believe that reality is only material and within naturalism. Or theres more to it.

It may bee that in the distant past knowledge was different and as ancients were immersed in nature and more aware of it they came to understand some of its secrets.

You hear of Indigenous knowledge and how they understood plants and chemistry and healing properties and all that. Western sciences relegated this as superstition. Now we are discovering that they actually understood medicine and other aspects like the environment better than we do today.

We also hear Indigenous peoples themselves say how they have lost or are losing this ancient knowledge. How much greater was this knowledge going back 5,000 or 10,000 years. If human cognition was just as capable of sophisticated thinking as today then why is it not possible that knowledge has peaked and fallen more than once and gets lost. I mean a different kind of knowledge.

The enlightened knowledge we have today is just one expression of knowledge. I mentioned the knowledged gained by religion and spirituality. Today there are entire journals on consciousness and experiential knowledge.

So when you say there should be a CNC machine used by ancients this is only how we would imagine how such precision could be achieved by todays standards. Like we use antibiotics today it may have been a natural remedy understand through experiential knowledge of nature.

So it may be as mentioned above that ancients understood physics or chemistry not as a scientists having studied physics or chemistry from the outside looking in. It may be that ancients being immersed in nature gained knowledge to be able to manipulate nature, such as stone softening or creating chemical reactions ect where they could achieve these great works. Then it was lost.

But as I said that is the spectulative past as to how they could have done it. This does not change the fact that the signatures show the marks of modern tech. Its just a matter of how they did it which is spectulation until we have more information.

But it could not possibly be actual tech like today because as pointed out we would find it. There are 1,000s of these vases. It was an industry at one stage. There would be machines everywhere. But theres nothing. Nit even a lathe or simple bent stick cutter like on the walls that come later. Its strange.

 

[BCP1928]

No I am using this as an example of how there are different kinds of knowledge and ways of understanding reality. The ancients don't say god gave them a CNC machine. But they do say that their god gave their ancestors the knowledge to make such works.

Just like Christians say that their God parted the seas, raised people from the dead and gave them knowledge to perform supernatural feats that defy objective reality.

I guess it depends on your worldview beliefs about metaphysics. Whether you believe that reality is only material and within naturalism. Or theres more to it.

It may bee that in the distant past knowledge was different and as ancients were immersed in nature and more aware of it they came to understand some of its secrets.

You hear of Indigenous knowledge and how they understood plants and chemistry and healing properties and all that. Western sciences relegated this as superstition. Now we are discovering that they actually understood medicine and other aspects like the environment better than we do today.

We also hear Indigenous peoples themselves say how they have lost or are losing this ancient knowledge. How much greater was this knowledge going back 5,000 or 10,000 years. If human cognition was just as capable of sophisticated thinking as today then why is it not possible that knowledge has peaked and fallen more than once and gets lost. I mean a different kind of knowledge.

The enlightened knowledge we have today is just one expression of knowledge. I mentioned the knowledged gained by religion and spirituality. Today there are entire journals on consciousness and experiential knowledge.

So when you say there should be a CNC machine used by ancients this is only how we would imagine how such precision could be achieved by todays standards. Like we use antibiotics today it may have been a natural remedy understand through experiential knowledge of nature.

So it may be as mentioned above that ancients understood physics or chemistry not as a scientists having studied physics or chemistry from the outside looking in. It may be that ancients being immersed in nature gained knowledge to be able to manipulate nature, such as stone softening or creating chemical reactions ect where they could achieve these great works. Then it was lost.

But as I said that is the spectulative past as to how they could have done it. This does not change the fact that the signatures show the marks of modern tech. Its just a matter of how they did it which is spectulation until we have more information.

But it could not possibly be actual tech like today because as pointed out we would find it. There are 1,000s of these vases. It was an industry at one stage. There would be machines everywhere. But theres nothing. Nit even a lathe or simple bent stick cutter like on the walls that come later. Its strange.

Nothing to find. They hauled it all away in the Chariots of the Gods.

 

[stevevw]

What was the training set of this AI? It certainly wasn't only the peer-reviewed literature.

It came from the same search for Petries quotes about the advanced signatures in the stones when he found them. The Ai would be drawing on Petrie's own words. In fact he was quite specific and amazed how how they could possibly create such signatures. He goes into great detail about the depths of cut in the granite, the amount of pressure required and the need for a fixed cutter under great stress to leave such signatures.

In fact for Petrie he was amazed because at his time tech was not even at that level. You could imagine how we are discovering how much these vases reflect modern machining. But imagine in Petries time when modern maching was not yet around.

 

[stevevw]

Nothing to find. They hauled it all away in the Chariots of the Gods.

Lol thats what they are now saying about the UAP's. Except they are not gods but demons lol. Its funny how the more things change the more they stay the same and history keeps repeating itself. At least culturally. Or maybe its also in reality lol.

But the modern phenomena has some paralells. Either its all in everyones imagination or theres something to it. People spectulate and and create conspiracies. While others swear its true and we even have congressional hearings.

And whats it all about, advanced tech and knowledge. Except now its more advanced than our modern tech. Strange coincidence and all in our imaginations or is there something going on here.

Once again I guess it depends on your metaphysical worldview. Whether you believe there is a God or gods or something beyond the empiricle and naturalistic world where there are no gods or transcedent realities.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It came from the same search for Petries quotes about the advanced signatures in the stones when he found them. The Ai would be drawing on Petrie's own words. In fact he was quite specific and amazed how how they could possibly create such signatures. He goes into great detail about the depths of cut in the granite, the amount of pressure required and the need for a fixed cutter under great stress to leave such signatures.

Why to you rely on some AI nonsense to give you a quote you could directly quote yourself? Since you don't know (most likely) or won't say (less likely) what the training set for the AI response was, how can you trust it? I certainly can't.

In fact for Petrie he was amazed because at his time tech was not even at that level. You could imagine how we are discovering how much these vases reflect modern machining. But imagine in Petries time when modern maching was not yet around.

Imagine. That's the problem. Someone is imagining things. (And as we have noted before, in Petrie's time there certainly was machining good enough to make the basic vase. That's why we can suspect vases that have provenance that only goes back to his time could be modern fakes.

 

[stevevw]

Why to you rely on some AI nonsense to give you a quote you could directly quote yourself?

Because skeptics are demanding support for everything I say lol. BCP1928 said the archeologistI quoted originally showing the precision vases were well recognised long ago was not well known enough. So I specifically looked up Petries quotes on the precision vases and works he discovered. So yest I specifically asked for Petries quotes and thats what the Ai spat out.

Why are you so concerned.

Since you don't know (most likely) or won't say (less likely) what the training set for the AI response was, how can you trust it? I certainly can't.

I also linked an independent source saying more or less the same thing. Thats why I linked it because I knew there would be someone complaining oabout sources lol.

Imagine. That's the problem. Someone is imagining things. (And as we have noted before, in Petrie's time there certainly was machining good enough to make the basic vase. That's why we can suspect vases that have provenance that only goes back to his time could be modern fakes.

So fake artefact dealers went to the trouble of replicating the precision down to the micron level when there was no market for the precision. They spent more money on producing the vases than they were worth. They had access to what would have been very rare equipment that costs a ton of money. Talk about conspiracies.

Back to the fruad. At least your acknowledging that these vases required the best tech 80 to 100 years ago that in no way was available in the predynastic era.

All we have to do is prove provedence which has already been done. Some of these vases come from the Petrie museum. others are carbon dated and still others have provedence from digs with other artefacts.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Because skeptics are demanding support for everything I say lol. BCP1928 said the archeologistI quoted originally showing the precision vases were well recognised long ago was not well known enough. So I specifically looked up Petries quotes on the precision vases and works he discovered. So yest I specifically asked for Petries quotes and thats what the Ai spat out.

Why are you so concerned.

I also linked an independent source saying more or less the same thing. Thats why I linked it because I knew there would be someone complaining oabout sources lol.

So fake artefact dealers went to the trouble of replicating the precision down to the micron level when there was no market for the precision. They spent more money on producing the vases than they were worth. They had access to what would have been very rare equipment that costs a ton of money. Talk about conspiracies.

Back to the fruad. At least your acknowledging that these vases required the best tech 80 to 100 years ago that in no way was available in the predynastic era.

All we have to do is prove provedence which has already been done. Some of these vases come from the Petrie museum. others are carbon dated and still others have provedence from digs with other artefacts.

I looked through the STL files for the Petrie vases found here (3D Scans of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archeology). They are nowhere close to the findings for Matt Beall's V18. They are almost all (using Maximus Energy's quality index) of lower quality than modern day replicas (Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels).

How do you mean that these vases support the claim of the need for some unknown ancient technology based on the measurement of Matt Beall's V18?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because skeptics are demanding support for everything I say lol.

What was it said about extraordinary claims? Oh yes, they should be backed by extraordinary evidence. Your evidence is lacking.

BCP1928 said the archeologistI quoted originally showing the precision vases were well recognised long ago was not well known enough. So I specifically looked up Petries quotes on the precision vases and works he discovered. So yest I specifically asked for Petries quotes and thats what the Ai spat out.

Use the search engine and post the actual quote. With AI you don't know what garbage has been fed in to ensure that you aren't getting garbage out.

Why are you so concerned.

I don't know. But I'm in for a cent, in for a dollar on this vase nonsense, so why not.

I also linked an independent source saying more or less the same thing. Thats why I linked it because I knew there would be someone complaining oabout sources lol.

You didn't.

So fake artefact dealers went to the trouble of replicating the precision down to the micron level when there was no market for the precision. They spent more money on producing the vases than they were worth. They had access to what would have been very rare equipment that costs a ton of money. Talk about conspiracies.

No, they just used common milling equipment of the time and then likely added a little "aging" or "patina" as is the case with most forgeries. As @sjastro has repeatedly demonstrated the "precision" reported is within the capability of the kind of modern machining needed to make a piston that reciprocates dozens of times a second.

Back to the fruad. At least your acknowledging that these vases required the best tech 80 to 100 years ago that in no way was available in the predynastic era.

Nope, the standard milling equipment of 1920 would have been just fine. This is exactly the kind of precision my GGF worked at that time regularly. (And if understand correctly, one of the things he worked on is still spinning continuously.

All we have to do is prove provedence which has already been done. Some of these vases come from the Petrie museum. others are carbon dated and still others have provedence from digs with other artefacts.

The provenance that you showed last time around goes back about 100 years convieniently to the only kind of people who are allowed to keep ancient artifacts and not repatriate them because they were official gifts from the Egyptian government.

 

[stevevw]

My use of the term clueless applies to you for blindly accepting what you think is expertise.

How is it blind when I see the same findings by 3 independent sources. Thats not blind but good science.

Here we have someone on a social forum not offering one bit of evidence in the form of a paper of article or testing themselves. As opposed to tests with proper equipement, live readouts for us to see showing the precision before our very eyes. Hum I think I will go with the experts who at least have done the work as opposed to someone whinging on social media that they know better and never providing any tests.

Speaking from experience as a scientist who worked in an engineering division

Wait a minute. These experts doing these tests have worked with NASA and associated with top industries in engineering and precision tooling. One has over 50 years experience and pioneering precision tool making procedures.

Yet you cite your credentials to bolster your clain while dismissing the testers credentials. If your going to create a fallacy of authority I think their combined experise and experience blows yours out of the water lol. Not just that we have three lots of experts all disagreeing with you. I know which expert opinion I am going with.

anyone who claims if a circularity result on Vase 18 is below the range of measurement but records it as a real result doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
No one in the field of metrology would make such a claim.

Your so picky. I think its the other way around. Anyone who disputes three independent tests from many experts doesn't know what they are talking about.

Once again lets make this simple and cut out all the red herrings. Do the signatures in the vases point to lathing or not. Lets start with a simple finding. Just lathing. Does the near perfect or pretty good symmetry and circvvularity point to the use of a lathe. What about the machine marks in the vase. Theres a close up. Do the signatures look like modern machining marks or not.

Since you brought up calliper readings so what, you still do not comprehend the issue is not about the measurements or the scanning but the calculations that follow for the geometric parameters under examination.

What are you whinging about now. More red herrings. If we see a calliper tests that shows near perfect circularily in the read outs. What about the numbers don't you understand. Numbers don't lie. If its a near perfect circle its a near perfect circle. If its near perfect perpendicular angle from flat top to neck or a near perfect flat top.

How can the numbers be changed. These are just cold hard numbers in the vases. Forget about the geometry. Lets just stick with circles, spheres, paralelles and angles. How can anyone fudge these in the vases.

For someone who rambles on about logical fallacies the burden of proof is on you show ancient Egyptians were not capable of producing vases with archaeologically attested equipment and not for anyone in this thread to show the converse.
You make the claim you prove it.

Lol I don't even have to prove the method. Others who seek to prove the method on the walls and traditionally accepted have done this for us many times and failed. They have never once produced the signatures we find in the precision vases.

That is why they do the tests because the onus is on them. Do the tests, repeat the methods and show us how the orthodox tools and methods can achieve such precision. So far its failed and the tests I linkled prove this.

Also I don’t have write a paper that needs to be peer reviewed, the errors in your sources are trivially wrong as explained, your failure to comprehend them is the issue at hand.

Ok then I will also not write a paper and say you are wrong. Your speaking on a social media platform and are wrong lol. I don't believe you. You are biased. There you go. We could go on forever back and forth with non peer claims lol.

We have several independent tests by different methods and all converging on the same findings. Thats better than your non peer claims on a social platform.

You are repeating the same rubbish over and over again.

So you think all the independent testers are wrong. None are correct. What is it you are trying to say. That these vases were not lathed.

For the umpteenth time the only reliable evidence comes from UnchartedX, using Polyworks software which clearly shows the vase is nowhere near perfect symmetry, circularity and concentricity you claim it is.

Then why do they say its on par with modern CNC machining. You actually shot down the Uncharted x tests claiming they did not use Polyworks when they did. You claim the one larger reading at the widest portion of the vase is way out when its not. Your exaggerating and making things worse than they are to undermine in any way the clear evidence.

Why is the tests done at the Petrie museum wrong. They used several methods of metrology. Tell me why they are wrong. They come to the same conclusion.

Its like your saying all these scientists are wrong except you lol. Sounds a bit biased.

Your other two sources using their own hand written software is clearly flawed for the reasons given including they are not standard metrology software.

Not good enough. I don't believe you and I am not going to take your word for it. If you expect me to then your being inconsistent when you demand peer review support for myself. At least these testers have done the tests and explain the analysis.

If you only understood the significance of Fig 5, it’s the very reason why his handwritten code doesn’t work which I explained and will not repeat for the third time.

Ok so if one of those rings/circles represents the roundness of the vase and it proves a near perfect circle. How is this not showing that the vase at that particular layer is not a near perfect a circle. Its using the Z axis which was independently determined. Why is the other tests results the exact same. Why is their 3D light scan results the same showing near perfect symmetry and circularity.

Lastly I will keep repeating myself. Why is there actual lathe maching marks that match the precision. Why do the vase signatures look so similar to modern machined vases. Why did the modern manufacturing on one of the vases turn out mush the same and even less perfect than the predynastic vases. You keep avoiding these facts.

So now you are making the ridiculous assertion the surface roughness on the vases is indicative of lathe work?
Was the granite statue of Thutmose III in the 18th dynasty where the surface is a near mirror finish the result of lathe work as well?
Did it ever occur to you the surface finish was completed by hand?

You do like making fallacies. The image attached shows the machining lines all the way down the interior just the same as modern maching. Deal with the machining marks and stop changing the goal posts. The vase I linked that was tested shows modern machining marks. Lets deal with one thing at at time.

I don't think someone can hand polish such marks into granite. This is classic witness marks of lathe machining.

Since vase V18 has made an appearance do you think the use of professional software would lead to the nonsensical interpretation circularity is below detection limits so therefore it must be a real value?

Stop creating red herring. Is the vase precise of not. Did it require lathe maching or not. Or did they use the wobbly bent stick method. Even if we allow your red herrings and say the precision is not as good as people make out. How good is it. Is it good enough that a lathe was needed. If theres pretty good symmetry and circularity. I mean the Unchartedx has the worst measure at I think 0.017 on an inch. Thats like the thinness of 2 or 3 pieces of paper. Other points were as precise as half a hair.

Surely even 3 or 4 paper thiness error at its worst is still upo there with pretty good lathing. Its certainly not from a wobbly bent stick or bow device. We already see the signatures from this and they are far less precise. So what level of tech are you willing to concede was needed to produce these vases.

You were asked to provide evidence of your claim UnchartedX, Unsigned.io and Maximus.energy give similar results.
Your excuse that it’s not up to you is an admission to lying and then to stupidly give the very reason why you had lie and trying to pin it on me says a lot.

No I have already linked all these sources. My job is done. They claim the vases are on par with modern machined vases. Thats three if not 4 or 5 independnet testers. My work is done. You have a lot of papers to write to refute these findings. I don't want to hear about complains on a social platform.

Let me know what you have sent it in so I can see how the testers show how wrong you are. Others if you are right then good on you. I will then take seriously your objections.

Your ignorance is truly profound. You are not aware that doing simple gauge metrology, scanning or a CMM is providing the raw data.
It tells you nothing of the resulting geometry under investigation; this is accomplished by software such as Polyworks.

Thats rediculous. So we can look at a live test with guage devices and see the readouts showing say near perfect thickness of the vase walls all round and we cannot make conclusions until the software.

If the dial indicators show the readout all around the rim for example near perfect then we can know right away its near perfect. I think you are trying to complicate things so as to confuse the clear evidence.

The guage will rise up and down according to the imperfections. You can run the dial indicator over a single hair on the bench and it will register a couple of thousands of an inch. You run it around the vase and you can see the precision as the indicator remains within the 2 or 3 thousands of an inch. .

It illustrates yet again you don’t know what you are talking about, the issue is about the software, in particular when it is not professional software as used by Unsigned.io and Maximus.energy.

Once again unsigned did not do any testing which shows you are completely ignorant of what they even did. The tests from Maximum match that of Unchartedx and the other independent sources which used different methods. How can Maximus be wrong whenb their findings match the other independent findings.

 

[stevevw]

What was it said about extraordinary claims? Oh yes, they should be backed by extraordinary evidence. Your evidence is lacking.

Yes and in this case the poster said the credentials of the archeologists was not good enough. So I quoted on of the world greatest archeologists. I think thats pretty extraordinary as far as credentials.

Use the search engine and post the actual quote. With AI you don't know what garbage has been fed in to ensure that you aren't getting garbage out.

Fair enough. I knew that and thats why I also linked a direct quote. But why all the red herrings.

I don't know. But I'm in for a cent, in for a dollar on this vase nonsense, so why not.

Yeah nothin better to do. Though I am starting to get tired of the red herrings lol.

You didn't.

Actually I did. Here it is again and it specifically relates to the vases and that Petrie agreed some sort of sophisticated lathing was involved.

Flinders Petrie
"...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the modern workshops."

Heres another

“The cutting of granite was done by jewelled tubular drills . . . with cutting points . of emery . .. set in the sides of the tube both inside and out . .. every mechanic who has examined the grooves on .. . a core of red granite from Gizeh agrees that nothing but a fixed point could have cut such grooves.”

Expedition Magazine | Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling

<p>More than most technical procedures in the ancient world, drilling of hard stone such as quartz and granite has evoked […]</p>

www.penn.museum

How many do I have to quote before its acknowledged that Petrie agrees that some sort of sophisticated lathing or machining with a fixed point diamond cutter was used. More or less similar to modern maching.

No, they just used common milling equipment of the time and then likely added a little "aging" or "patina" as is the case with most forgeries.

But why add the precision when the precision was not valued back then. Its completely unnecessary. Would not the cost of producing such precision and access to such machines be beyond the black market dealers. It would cost more to pay to get a vase made than what it could sell for lol.

As @sjastro has repeatedly demonstrated the "precision" reported is within the capability of the kind of modern machining needed to make a piston that reciprocates dozens of times a second.

Yes so if we find that precision in a vase and it has good provedence than what are you going to say.

Nope, the standard milling equipment of 1920 would have been just fine. This is exactly the kind of precision my GGF worked at that time regularly. (And if understand correctly, one of the things he worked on is still spinning continuously.

I don't think its a simple as you claim. Such precision was around but it was not common and very expensive and time consuming compared modern tech. It would be a massive industrious project to be pumping out such precision vases like making parts for NASA at that time.

Its completely unreal for some black market fake artefact vases which were just one of 1,000s of artefacts flooding markets to be made at that time and make a profit. It would be like using NASA level tech today to make 1930s crockery.

Who cares, no one worried about whether the vases were micron precise. They could have been well out of alignment and no one would have cared or knew because they never worried about this.

The provenance that you showed last time around goes back about 100 years convieniently to the only kind of people who are allowed to keep ancient artifacts and not repatriate them because they were official gifts from the Egyptian government.

So I guess the vases from the Petrie museum are fakes then. I guess the carbon dating and the registered finds from digs are all falsified. But al least you are now acknowledging that the vases are advanced that they must be forgeries and could not have come from such an early time.

At first you were arguing that these ancients were capable of grinding and rubbing them into precision by freehand and blinding guessing with the naked eye and feeling their way to precision. Or smashing these out by some wobbly rudimentary bent stick cutter like Olga lol.

 

[sjastro]

How is it blind when I see the same findings by 3 independent sources. Thats not blind but good science.

Here we have someone on a social forum not offering one bit of evidence in the form of a paper of article or testing themselves. As opposed to tests with proper equipement, live readouts for us to see showing the precision before our very eyes. Hum I think I will go with the experts who at least have done the work as opposed to someone whinging on social media that they know better and never providing any tests.

Wait a minute. These experts doing these tests have worked with NASA and associated with top industries in engineering and precision tooling. One has over 50 years experience and pioneering precision tool making procedures.

Yet you cite your credentials to bolster your clain while dismissing the testers credentials. If your going to create a fallacy of authority I think their combined experise and experience blows yours out of the water lol. Not just that we have three lots of experts all disagreeing with you. I know which expert opinion I am going with.

Your so picky. I think its the other way around. Anyone who disputes three independent tests from many experts doesn't know what they are talking about.

Once again lets make this simple and cut out all the red herrings. Do the signatures in the vases point to lathing or not. Lets start with a simple finding. Just lathing. Does the near perfect or pretty good symmetry and circvvularity point to the use of a lathe. What about the machine marks in the vase. Theres a close up. Do the signatures look like modern machining marks or not.

What are you whinging about now. More red herrings. If we see a calliper tests that shows near perfect circularily in the read outs. What about the numbers don't you understand. Numbers don't lie. If its a near perfect circle its a near perfect circle. If its near perfect perpendicular angle from flat top to neck or a near perfect flat top.

How can the numbers be changed. These are just cold hard numbers in the vases. Forget about the geometry. Lets just stick with circles, spheres, paralelles and angles. How can anyone fudge these in the vases.

Lol I don't even have to prove the method. Others who seek to prove the method on the walls and traditionally accepted have done this for us many times and failed. They have never once produced the signatures we find in the precision vases.

That is why they do the tests because the onus is on them. Do the tests, repeat the methods and show us how the orthodox tools and methods can achieve such precision. So far its failed and the tests I linkled prove this.

Ok then I will also not write a paper and say you are wrong. Your speaking on a social media platform and are wrong lol. I don't believe you. You are biased. There you go. We could go on forever back and forth with non peer claims lol.

We have several independent tests by different methods and all converging on the same findings. Thats better than your non peer claims on a social platform.

So you think all the independent testers are wrong. None are correct. What is it you are trying to say. That these vases were not lathed.

Then why do they say its on par with modern CNC machining. You actually shot down the Uncharted x tests claiming they did not use Polyworks when they did. You claim the one larger reading at the widest portion of the vase is way out when its not. Your exaggerating and making things worse than they are to undermine in any way the clear evidence.

Why is the tests done at the Petrie museum wrong. They used several methods of metrology. Tell me why they are wrong. They come to the same conclusion.

Its like your saying all these scientists are wrong except you lol. Sounds a bit biased.

Not good enough. I don't believe you and I am not going to take your word for it. If you expect me to then your being inconsistent when you demand peer review support for myself. At least these testers have done the tests and explain the analysis.

Ok so if one of those rings/circles represents the roundness of the vase and it proves a near perfect circle. How is this not showing that the vase at that particular layer is not a near perfect a circle. Its using the Z axis which was independently determined. Why is the other tests results the exact same. Why is their 3D light scan results the same showing near perfect symmetry and circularity.

Lastly I will keep repeating myself. Why is there actual lathe maching marks that match the precision. Why do the vase signatures look so similar to modern machined vases. Why did the modern manufacturing on one of the vases turn out mush the same and even less perfect than the predynastic vases. You keep avoiding these facts.

You do like making fallacies. The image attached shows the machining lines all the way down the interior just the same as modern maching. Deal with the machining marks and stop changing the goal posts. The vase I linked that was tested shows modern machining marks. Lets deal with one thing at at time.

I don't think someone can hand polish such marks into granite. This is classic witness marks of lathe machining.

View attachment 370823

Stop creating red herring. Is the vase precise of not. Did it require lathe maching or not. Or did they use the wobbly bent stick method. Even if we allow your red herrings and say the precision is not as good as people make out. How good is it. Is it good enough that a lathe was needed. If theres pretty good symmetry and circularity. I mean the Unchartedx has the worst measure at I think 0.017 on an inch. Thats like the thinness of 2 or 3 pieces of paper. Other points were as precise as half a hair.

Surely even 3 or 4 paper thiness error at its worst is still upo there with pretty good lathing. Its certainly not from a wobbly bent stick or bow device. We already see the signatures from this and they are far less precise. So what level of tech are you willing to concede was needed to produce these vases.

No I have already linked all these sources. My job is done. They claim the vases are on par with modern machined vases. Thats three if not 4 or 5 independnet testers. My work is done. You have a lot of papers to write to refute these findings. I don't want to hear about complains on a social platform.

Let me know what you have sent it in so I can see how the testers show how wrong you are. Others if you are right then good on you. I will then take seriously your objections.

Thats rediculous. So we can look at a live test with guage devices and see the readouts showing say near perfect thickness of the vase walls all round and we cannot make conclusions until the software.

If the dial indicators show the readout all around the rim for example near perfect then we can know right away its near perfect. I think you are trying to complicate things so as to confuse the clear evidence.

The guage will rise up and down according to the imperfections. You can run the dial indicator over a single hair on the bench and it will register a couple of thousands of an inch. You run it around the vase and you can see the precision as the indicator remains within the 2 or 3 thousands of an inch. .

View attachment 370825 View attachment 370826

Once again unsigned did not do any testing which shows you are completely ignorant of what they even did. The tests from Maximum match that of Unchartedx and the other independent sources which used different methods. How can Maximus be wrong whenb their findings match the other independent findings.

If you think I am going to respond in detail to this humongous piece of idiotic claptrap you are very much mistaken.
Instead I am going to ask you again how your reached the conclusion using actual data that Unchartedx, Unsigned.io and Maximus.energy came to the same findings.

Here is a reminder in the very first line of this post.
How is it blind when I see the same findings by 3 independent sources. Thats not blind but good science.

Let's ignore how you contradicted yourself at the bottom of the post.
Once again unsigned did not do any testing..........

Here is the form for you to fill out.

 

[stevevw]

I looked through the STL files for the Petrie vases found here (3D Scans of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archeology). They are nowhere close to the findings for Matt Beall's V18. They are almost all (using Maximus Energy's quality index) of lower quality than modern day replicas (Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels). View attachment 370822

How do you mean that these vases support the claim of the need for some unknown ancient technology based on the measurement of Matt Beall's V18?

I can throw up charts as well. How is that these vases fall into such precise circularity. Another independent test once again confirming the same results that these predyanastic vases had modern machining levels of tech such as sophisticated lathing.

Look at the first vase a circularity of 0.0028 of an inch. Only modern maching can get to such precision.

Along with the physical image of maching marks its beyond doubt and they have excellent provedance. Come on no more fallacies. Just admit it and stop with the red herrings.