There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Stopped_lurking]

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.

View attachment 370831

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.

View attachment 370832

It's not my plot, it's from Maximus Energy (I gave the link). They are closer to imprecise class of Matt Beall's vases if I'm reading the plots correctly. Regarding the new table I would be glad to read it in its original context, if possible?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

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.

View attachment 370831

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.

View attachment 370832

I found it (Petrie Museum | Artifact Foundation).
In what way do should I interpret a value such as a median circularity? Just by the name of it I would not guess that it is a measure of precision.A better measure of would be to present the variance of the circularity, I guess? Look at these surface pictures of the best vase in the Petrie collection.

Side 3 differs just shy of 0.5 mm, 5 times the median reported.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Extraordinary evidence was requested, not credentials. Credentials are not evidence.

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

You didn't make a link, you copy-pasted a bit of text.

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

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.

Nope you didn't make a link, just copied some text.

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

And you still haven't made a link.

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.”

That's a lot of ellipses.

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

THAT was a link. Finally.

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.

I'm not that interested in the quotes from Petrie to begin with. The physical evidence and the experiments matter far more. That article does discuss some contemporary (1980s) experiments that I will hopefully get to later.


Now we go back to actual vases, but in this case, fakes:

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.

It was just the sort of precision in the stability of the turning axis that was *NORMAL* at the time those objects first reliably appear. No need do anything other than hunt down a craftsman that worked with stone on lathes and have them produce a particular design/style with a bit of hand finishing, particularly on the handles.

As I noted in the prior discussion we had about this, turned columns of hard stone were quite common in durable construction, like public buildings. I recall finding (if not citing in a post) examples found in various state capitols as well as the turned ballisters of hard stone in the 1859 wings of the US Capitol. (I could find some pictures with or without rioters...)

Large stone vessels were common architectural elements as well. There were plenty of people who could make these objects or had access to the tools. There is no need for incredulity about the capability to make passable replicas in 1880-1930.

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

We'll see. It certainly isn't "V18".

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.

You get this so wrong. Turning metal to that precision was *common place* in the industrial revolution. The whole things from the transportation manufacturing industry to electrical generation to industrial machinery manufacture relied on the ability to turn shafts to high precision.

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.

It sure looks like there was a market for it from your own claim.

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.

As you say, they have the signatures of the equipment used. It would have been *HARDER* to make a less rotationally precise stone vase in 1910 than to just use the granite-cutting bits for your second hand lathe.

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.

As @Stopped_lurking noted in this post:

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

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...

www.christianforums.com

the Petrie Museum vases are not as precise as the modern ones made on machines.

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.

Not this "freehand" nonsense again. I'll let @BCP1928 deal with your insults of skilled craftsmen, but if a workshop had a few dozen workers and it took a few hundred hours to make a single object it could make a couple hundred objects in a year.

 

[BCP1928]

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.

I think you must be confusing me with somebody else. I don't care about the vases at all. My only issue with you is the way in which you intentionally and systematically discredit the abilities of skilled workers using hand tools. I wonder why you need to go out of your way to do that.

 

[BCP1928]

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.

Now you are discrediting the known ability of skilled craftsmen using manual machine tools as well as hand tools. Why is that? What makes your argument so important that you are willing to tell fibs to put it across?

 

[stevevw]

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.

Like I said you tell me why the testers should be performing blind tests on vases at the Petrie museum with limited time and space. They only have time to scan a certain number of genuine vases that are most likely going to fall in the precision category from the museum shelves.

Do you want them to replace precious time and opportunity to scan real vases or play your games of blind tests. Its completely unnecessary and a waste of time in such an environment. It would take away time of scanning the actualy real vases in the displays.

No one else would expect such unreal practices in this situation. But your still harping on they should. Typical that you make those you disagree with jump through unreal hoops while not applying the same level to others.

Heres what Ai had to say about your red herring.

A double-blind test is not appropriate for testing ancient Egyptian granite vases at the Petrie Museum, as such a test is designed for evaluating subjective experiences (like taste or touch) where the participants' knowledge could introduce bias. Testing ancient artifacts primarily involves objective scientific analysis, such as material identification, dating, and examination of craft techniques, which are not influenced by blind testing.

Ai overview

Double-blind tests are not necessary for measuring the precision of an object; they are used to minimize human bias in research and clinical trials, not to measure physical properties.

You cannot subjectively bias a cold hard factual readout of a measuring instrument. I can show you step by step in live footage the measures being takenb with proper calibration and the readouts before your eyes being confirmed. No bias just plain readouts on calibrated instruments that cannot bias the findings.

When the same measures are then repeated by 3, 4, 5 or more times it becomes apparent that the science is pretty robust and not bias. The data speaks for itself. But as usual you want to create a red herring and make it so much more harder. To accommodate your unreal expectation they would lose critical time in testing the actual real vases of interest.

I have never heard of a test then denies the actual subject items in favour of messing aroundwith irrelevant items that will complicate the data and actually take away from actually doing the tests on the proper items. Its a rediculous hoop you make others jump through when you don't like the evidence.

Do they do double blinds on measuring the giant granite boxes. Are archeologists told to go and measure some dummy boxes as part of measuring the real ones. Or do they just measure the real ones and not waste their time.

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.

View attachment 370830​

More complaints and red herrings. Like I said your still insisting on unsigned,io for test results when they did not even do tests but used the results from Unchartedx. If you can't even get the testers right then its note even worth indulging your fantasies.

Also what is this measure of 80 from uncharted x on the vase flatness. It was 0.003 inches. You can't even get the measurements right either.

Also which vase is this and how can we compare when each tester did not necessarily test the same vases. For example these tests done at the Petrie museum only used the vases from the museum. Whereas the vase for Unchartedx is from a private collection.

 

[Ophiolite]

Like I said you tell me why the testers should be performing blind tests on vases at the Petrie museum with limited time and space. They only have time to scan a certain number of genuine vases that are most likely going to fall in the precision category from the museum shelves.

Do you want them to replace precious time and opportunity to scan real vases or play your games of blind tests. Its completely unnecessary and a waste of time in such an environment. It would take away time of scanning the actualy real vases in the displays.

No one else would expect such unreal practices in this situation. But your still harping on they should. Typical that you make those you disagree with jump through unreal hoops while not applying the same level to others.

Heres what Ai had to say about your red herring.

A double-blind test is not appropriate for testing ancient Egyptian granite vases at the Petrie Museum, as such a test is designed for evaluating subjective experiences (like taste or touch) where the participants' knowledge could introduce bias. Testing ancient artifacts primarily involves objective scientific analysis, such as material identification, dating, and examination of craft techniques, which are not influenced by blind testing.

Ai overview

Double-blind tests are not necessary for measuring the precision of an object; they are used to minimize human bias in research and clinical trials, not to measure physical properties.

You cannot subjectively bias a cold hard factual readout of a measuring instrument. I can show you step by step in live footage the measures being takenb with proper calibration and the readouts before your eyes being confirmed. No bias just plain readouts on calibrated instruments that cannot bias the findings.

When the same measures are then repeated by 3, 4, 5 or more times it becomes apparent that the science is pretty robust and not bias. The data speaks for itself. But as usual you want to create a red herring and make it so much more harder. To accommodate your unreal expectation they would lose critical time in testing the actual real vases of interest.

I have never heard of a test then denies the actual subject items in favour of messing aroundwith irrelevant items that will complicate the data and actually take away from actually doing the tests on the proper items. Its a rediculous hoop you make others jump through when you don't like the evidence.

You have previously denigrated the competence of ancient artisans to manufacture vases from that period with "simple"tools. Now you are denigrating the approach of scientists, openly suggesting investigators "wouldn't have time" to do the job right. Your fly-by-night operators may be light on comepetence and commitment, not so serious workers in the field.

You offer an AI comment on the double blind tests. Here is the AI comment I got:

In summary:
The call for independent, double-blind testing is entirely valid. Without it, the “CNC-level precision” claim rests on shaky ground, since extraordinary conclusions have been drawn from possibly narrow or biased data. At the same time, dismissing the vessels as “primitive” underestimates the ingenuity and persistence of ancient craftspeople. The most balanced position is that careful, impartial metrology should precede any sweeping technological claims.

Steve, you really need to reflect on the possibility that you don't understand science, or archaeology, or their methodologies. I'm sure you find this sort of speculation entertaining, but so are crime thrillers and Rolling Stones concerts, but neither tell us how the world works. Time to get your critical thinking sent in for an upgrade.

 

[sjastro]

Like I said you tell me why the testers should be performing blind tests on vases at the Petrie museum with limited time and space. They only have time to scan a certain number of genuine vases that are most likely going to fall in the precision category from the museum shelves.

Do you want them to replace precious time and opportunity to scan real vases or play your games of blind tests. Its completely unnecessary and a waste of time in such an environment. It would take away time of scanning the actualy real vases in the displays.

No one else would expect such unreal practices in this situation. But your still harping on they should. Typical that you make those you disagree with jump through unreal hoops while not applying the same level to others.

Heres what Ai had to say about your red herring.

A double-blind test is not appropriate for testing ancient Egyptian granite vases at the Petrie Museum, as such a test is designed for evaluating subjective experiences (like taste or touch) where the participants' knowledge could introduce bias. Testing ancient artifacts primarily involves objective scientific analysis, such as material identification, dating, and examination of craft techniques, which are not influenced by blind testing.

Ai overview

Double-blind tests are not necessary for measuring the precision of an object; they are used to minimize human bias in research and clinical trials, not to measure physical properties.

You cannot subjectively bias a cold hard factual readout of a measuring instrument. I can show you step by step in live footage the measures being takenb with proper calibration and the readouts before your eyes being confirmed. No bias just plain readouts on calibrated instruments that cannot bias the findings.

When the same measures are then repeated by 3, 4, 5 or more times it becomes apparent that the science is pretty robust and not bias. The data speaks for itself. But as usual you want to create a red herring and make it so much more harder. To accommodate your unreal expectation they would lose critical time in testing the actual real vases of interest.

I have never heard of a test then denies the actual subject items in favour of messing aroundwith irrelevant items that will complicate the data and actually take away from actually doing the tests on the proper items. Its a rediculous hoop you make others jump through when you don't like the evidence.

Do they do double blinds on measuring the giant granite boxes. Are archeologists told to go and measure some dummy boxes as part of measuring the real ones. Or do they just measure the real ones and not waste their time.


More complaints and red herrings. Like I said your still insisting on unsigned,io for test results when they did not even do tests but used the results from Unchartedx. If you can't even get the testers right then its note even worth indulging your fantasies.

Also what is this measure of 80 from uncharted x on the vase flatness. It was 0.003 inches. You can't even get the measurements right either.

Also which vase is this and how can we compare when each tester did not necessarily test the same vases. For example these tests done at the Petrie museum only used the vases from the museum. Whereas the vase for Unchartedx is from a private collection.

Your pathetic attempts at spin stories after being caught out lying is duly noted.
I'll play your little game anyway by rephrasing the question, who are these three independent testers, what did they test and provide a table of their results for comparison?
Does this satisfy your requirements now?

Also what is this measure of 80 from uncharted x on the vase flatness. It was 0.003 inches. You can't even get the measurements right either.

You insufferable fog machine the value is in microns not inches, have you already forgotten how you confused yourself by mixing up the units?

 

[BCP1928]

There has been much discussion of measurement techniques here, but nothing so far about the ancient Egyptians. It doesn't matter how you make something, whether with hand tools or CNC machines, there will be no precision work done unless there is measurement and a science of measurement to back it up. Steve seems to have avoided that aspect of his theory.

 

[sjastro]

I found it (Petrie Museum | Artifact Foundation).
In what way do should I interpret a value such as a median circularity? Just by the name of it I would not guess that it is a measure of precision.A better measure of would be to present the variance of the circularity, I guess? Look at these surface pictures of the best vase in the Petrie collection.
View attachment 370834

Near the top right hand corner is the metrology symbol for the profile of a surface.
If the vase is of perfect symmetry the heat map would be of uniform green colour with zero deviation.

Given the deviation from a perfect vase is within ± 240 μm, it is not even in the range of being described as near perfect symmetry.
What this reveals is when meaningful data is obtained like the UnchartedX data using recognized metrology software not personal codes, there is nothing out of the ordinary requiring some super technology to manufacture these vases.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Also which vase is this and how can we compare when each tester did not necessarily test the same vases. For example these tests done at the Petrie museum only used the vases from the museum. Whereas the vase for Unchartedx is from a private collection.

Are you trying to bore us to death. That video was unwatchable.

 

[stevevw]

You have previously denigrated the competence of ancient artisans to manufacture vases from that period with "simple"tools.

And you are denegrating them by not acknowledging their knowlegde of being able to create such works without the simple tools. You want to force them into a box as typical of the modern orthodox narrative as it has done for 200 to 400 years since colonialisation and the destruction of that cultural knowledge. Now your only aiding in this lie.

There you go I can play your moral outrage game.

Now you are denigrating the approach of scientists, openly suggesting investigators "wouldn't have time" to do the job right. Your fly-by-night operators may be light on comepetence and commitment, not so serious workers in the field.

And now your denigrating the scientists who actually did the tests and stated they only had limited time to test a certain number being around 20 vases due to the time limits set by the Petrie museum and not the scientists.

You want them to give up some of that time doing blind tests which are completely unnecessary. Your now denegrating their own words and explanations as to why they did not do blind testing. Just as others on this thread are denegrating good scientists and calling them nut jobs. Give me a break the hypocracy is plain to see.

You offer an AI comment on the double blind tests. Here is the AI comment I got:

In summary:
The call for independent, double-blind testing is entirely valid. Without it, the “CNC-level precision” claim rests on shaky ground, since extraordinary conclusions have been drawn from possibly narrow or biased data. At the same time, dismissing the vessels as “primitive” underestimates the ingenuity and persistence of ancient craftspeople. The most balanced position is that careful, impartial metrology should precede any sweeping technological claims.

And the scientists did careful, impartial metrology. Thats all that matters and it has been done a dozen times now and all tyhe data is consistent. Its good science. Stop creating logical fallacies, red herrings and strawmen. This level of moral outrage and nit picking would not be applied to anything esle. Especially of it supports the skeptics.

They can present evidence like the experiments done in backyards and homes as proof the simple methods can achieve such levels of precision and never question is legitimacy. Simply present it as gospel. Even presenting their own words without one bit of scientific and independent evidence as gospel. Just simply saying its wrong is good enough.

Never once stiopping to apply double blinds or even questioning the methods and claims. Yet we later find they cheat and compromise on the tests. But thats all acceptable to the skeptics because it suits their narrative. Its blantant hypocracy and your showing your bias.

Steve, you really need to reflect on the possibility that you don't understand science, or archaeology, or their methodologies. I'm sure you find this sort of speculation entertaining, but so are crime thrillers and Rolling Stones concerts, but neither tell us how the world works. Time to get your critical thinking sent in for an upgrade.

What on earth is the speculation about the plain hard and cold facts of numbers. I think its the other way around. You cannot handle the numbers so skeptics go into overdrive about everything from moral outrage in claiming the simple numbers are somehow descriminating against ancient people.

Or that somehow the numbers, the plain clear data like the plain clear signatures are somehow being biased. Give me a break, Just deal with the numbers or don't deal with them at all. But please stop the fallacies and moral outrage over numbers and data lol.

 

[stevevw]

Are you trying to bore us to death. That video was unwatchable.

Lol I honestly I did not see this reply when I wrote the previous one to another poster. You are literally proving the point I just made. That skeptics or should I say cynics are dismissing the scientists doing this work as nothing, boring, not relevant and no need to even take it seriously.

You demand double blinds but you then dismiss scientific testing altogether. Shows complete hypocracy, inconsistency and blatant bias.

 

[stevevw]

Your pathetic attempts at spin stories after being caught out lying is duly noted.
I'll play your little game anyway by rephrasing the question, who are these three independent testers,

I already gave this and it was dismissed. All the relevant info is in those links.

what did they test

They tested the vases from predynastic Egypt and especially the Naqada vases in several museums and private collections. Some with excellent provedence. THis has been done by at least 6 different research groups and there is also a number of smaller projects and they all, every single one of them have achieved similar results.

They also tested softer alabasta vases, modern CNC vases and the handmade vases made in experiments. Heck they even tested a modern marbel toothbrush holder for comparison lol.

They also actually tested the vases and fragments on site at the Mastaba 17 pyramid. So directly on the very vases where they were found.

Here is a telling witness mark to the tech and its certainly suggest some advanced maching. Uniform machine marks like on a a 45 EP lol.

They also arranged for a Chinese manufactorer with over 100 years experience to replicate a predynastic vase which they said they could not fully replicate because it was too complex to do on their CNC machines. Especially the insides. Some of these vases the inside (0.003) is more precise than the outside (0.004).

and provide a table of their results for comparison?
Does this satisfy your requirements now?

I have already done this. Its up to you now to check the results in those tables within the links I have already provided several times now. I am not playing your games. You have already proven biased.

You insufferable fog machine the value is in microns not inches, have you already forgotten how you confused yourself by mixing up the units?

More fallacies and red herrings to avoid the plain cold hard facts of numbers lol.

Even most skeptics now don't question the numbers and precision. They just maintain they were made with the orthodox method. Actually they have conceded now that some sort of lathing was involved.

So they have already contradicted their own position. But they maintain it was a simple and rudimentary lathing. So it seems you are in the minority of what I would call a hard skeptic. Which suggests its more than just the data and science but some ideological belief.

In fact this info on the vases and the tests you whinge about have been known by a wide range of people including the skeptics and not one, I repeat not one has brought up yout complaints. As though it was never an issue to begin with and your making it so.

In doing so you on the one hand complaining about how not recognising the sheer effort of the ancients through rubbing to create such precision. While at the same time denegrating good scientists as though they are so dumb they cannot see what you claim is a glaringly obvious and fundemental mistake. the inconsistency is blatant.

I will ask you again were these vases made by the rudimentary method of a bent stick or bow drill cutter or grinder that is recognised as the orthodox method. You know the one proclaimed in the experiements as the method.

Or was there some sort of lathing and even sophisticated lathing to achieve this precision.

Did they have any guidence like templates, stencils, or a guided cutter to ensure the precision even if you think it not as precise as claimed. But precise enough to demand some sort of guidence besides the naked eye and feel or the simple tools like chisels and pounding or grinding stones. Or the wobbly devices we see on the walls.

Its a simple question you are avoiding.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And you are denegrating them by not acknowledging their knowlegde of being able to create such works without the simple tools. You want to force them into a box as typical of the modern orthodox narrative as it has done for 200 to 400 years since colonialisation and the destruction of that cultural knowledge. Now your only aiding in this lie.

There is no record of this fantastical method you propagate. This has nothing to do with "colonialization" or "narratives". There simply was never any record of the things you are claiming.

There you go I can play your moral outrage game.

And now your denigrating the scientists who actually did the tests and stated they only had limited time to test a certain number being around 20 vases due to the time limits set by the Petrie museum and not the scientists.

What scientists? You keep giving us videos with engineers, machinists, and other amateurs. No scientists have appeared.

You want them to give up some of that time doing blind tests which are completely unnecessary. Your now denegrating their own words and explanations as to why they did not do blind testing. Just as others on this thread are denegrating good scientists and calling them nut jobs. Give me a break the hypocracy is plain to see.

Blind testing? What is this bio-medical research? (It isn't)

And the scientists did careful, impartial metrology. Thats all that matters and it has been done a dozen times now and all tyhe data is consistent. Its good science. Stop creating logical fallacies, red herrings and strawmen. This level of moral outrage and nit picking would not be applied to anything esle. Especially of it supports the skeptics.

Where is it published? (Nowhere.)

They can present evidence like the experiments done in backyards and homes as proof the simple methods can achieve such levels of precision and never question is legitimacy. Simply present it as gospel. Even presenting their own words without one bit of scientific and independent evidence as gospel. Just simply saying its wrong is good enough.

Never once stiopping to apply double blinds or even questioning the methods and claims. Yet we later find they cheat and compromise on the tests. But thats all acceptable to the skeptics because it suits their narrative. Its blantant hypocracy and your showing your bias.

You shouldn't take this personally. You are not the pseudoscientist. They are.

What on earth is the speculation about the plain hard and cold facts of numbers. I think its the other way around. You cannot handle the numbers so skeptics go into overdrive about everything from moral outrage in claiming the simple numbers are somehow descriminating against ancient people.

Or that somehow the numbers, the plain clear data like the plain clear signatures are somehow being biased. Give me a break, Just deal with the numbers or don't deal with them at all. But please stop the fallacies and moral outrage over numbers and data lol.

What I can make of the numbers, an it has taken awhile to see anything coherent in them, isn't particularly impressive to any "magic tech" claims they are making.

 

[BCP1928]

I already gave this and it was dismissed. All the relevant info is in those links.

They tested the vases from predynastic Egypt and especially the Naqada vases in several museums and private collections. Some with excellent provedence. THis has been done by at least 6 different research groups and there is also a number of smaller projects and they all, every single one of them have achieved similar results.

They also tested softer alabasta vases, modern CNC vases and the handmade vases made in experiments. Heck they even tested a modern marbel toothbrush holder for comparison lol.

They also arranged for a Chinese manufactorer with over 100 years experience to replicate a predynastic vase which they said they could not fully replicate because it was too complex to do on their CNC machines. Especially the insides. Some of these vases the inside (0.003) is more precise than the outside (0.004).

I have already done this. Its up to you now to check the results in those tables within the links I have already provided several times now. I am not playing your games. You have already proven biased.

More fallacies and red herrings to avoid the plain cold hard facts of numbers lol.

Even most skeptics now don't question the numbers and precision. They just maintain they were made with the orthodox method. Actually they have conceded now that some sort of lathing was involved.

It was never denied. What we all denied was the CNC machine--and laughed as we did it.

So they have already contradicted their own position. But they maintain it was a simple and rudimentary lathing. So it seems you are in the minority of what I would call a hard skeptic. Which suggests its more than just the data and science but some ideological belief.

In fact this info on the vases and the tests you whinge about have been known by a wide range of people including the skeptics and not one, I repeat not one has brought up yout complaints. As though it was never an issue to begin with and your making it so.

I will ask you again were these vases made by the rudimentary method of a bent stick or bow drill that is recognised as the orthodox method. Or was there some sort of lathing and even sophisticated lathing to achieve this precision.

Did they have any guidence like templates, stenciles, or a guided cutter to ensiure the precision even if you think it not as precise as claimed. But precise enough to demand some sort of guidence besides the naked eye and feel or the simple tools like chisels and pounding or grinding stones.

Its a simple question you are avoiding.

What part of using hand tools do you not get? Have you ever had a job in which you had to cut or shape material to a specified dimension with hand tools? The use of hand tools can include any tool that is held in the hand. It can also include the use of benches, vices, and simple human-powered rotary tables and lathes. Most importantly, it includes (actually requires) the use of appropriate measuring tools, templates, jigs and fixtures. I see no evidence that any ancient Egyptian craftsmen would tell you any different. Read through this again and try to get it right. We're tired of explaining this to you and having you turn around and accuse us of denying it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol I honestly I did not see this reply when I wrote the previous one to another poster. You are literally proving the point I just made. That skeptics or should I say cynics are dismissing the scientists doing this work as nothing, boring, not relevant and no need to even take it seriously.

He kept reading numbers. I nodded off.

You demand double blinds but you then dismiss scientific testing altogether. Shows complete hypocracy, inconsistency and blatant bias.

I have certainly not. I've done science for more than a quarter century and never even been *near* a "double blind". I even think "double blind peer review" is silly. Not only do the reviewers of my papers know who wrote my paper, but half the time I can figure out who reviewed my papers from their reports.

 

[stevevw]

There is no record of this fantastical method you propagate. This has nothing to do with "colonialization" or "narratives". There simply was never any record of the things you are claiming.

Yes there is evidence but you are dismissing it. You are trying to force the works into the orthodox box. You dismiss any suggestion of advanced knowledge as whacko and pseudoscience. Yet we have the evidence as clear as day which shows that whatever created these vases was not the orthodox method.

By the way notice how the cutter made two or three cuts. As though it backed out and started again a couple of times.

Forget about all the red herrings and other fallacies about minor deviances and the moral outrage. Just deal with the witness marks and the numbers. They speak for themselves. And you can't cry fake because the first example is from vases still on site under the Stepped pyramid.

What scientists? You keep giving us videos with engineers, machinists, and other amateurs. No scientists have appeared.

So what credentials did the Russian experienters have that you present. They did their experiments in some backyard and living room for a lab. Used faulty equipment to measure the results and cheated by slipping in some modern tech. Yet you use them without any problem or strutiny into their methods and findings.

You tell me who are the real scientists and why you are happy to use at the very least dubious tests and scientists. While holding anyone who disagrees to unreal expectations of blind tests and questioning every single measure which you don't apply to yourself. To the evidence you supply to counter what is being presented.

Blind testing? What is this bio-medical research? (It isn't)

Then explain to me how the testing within a museum where there is a time limit and where you are lucky to get the opportunity in the first place. Why should a douible blind experiment be done in the midst of that time limit when your ainm is to measure as many genuine vases as possible so that they can be recorded and further analysed. How does a double blind help in this situation.

How does this change the cold hard data of numbers in the vases. If a couple of fakes were thrown in then they would be identified as either precise or not within the criteria set. They would be discounted because they were fakes. But the vases in the museums are suppose to have the best providence coming directly from digs. They are labelled with the dig sites.

Why copmplicate things. If later and I agree that more tests shopuld be done on fakes, on handmade, on various modern vases. Get modern workman to make copies of the ancient ones. See whats involved and compare the signatures.

But to insist that a specific test in measuring ancient Egyptian vases in a museum is unreal. It shows how detached this is from reality and how the biased expectations are placed on those who disagre or propose alternative ideas and findings.

Where is it published? (Nowhere.)

I mentioned this already. This is the testing and research that will go into the published paper. There needs to be a certain level of testing to be able to make it robust. For example if most of the museums allow testing and we find that these vases are common and definitely from the predynastics. As skeptics complain about provedence and having a few from museums and others from private stocks even if genuine is not enough.

So its not at this stage dependent on a peer review paper and to be honest the fixation and outrage that theres no peer review is silly as though that ityself is evidence that its genuine.

At this stage we have the tests and unlike other areas its quite simple. Its lots of metrology and we can see that during the tests. We don't need a piece of paper to make is real. We have direct access to the data and can be the peer reviwers ourself directly.

You shouldn't take this personally. You are not the pseudoscientist. They are.

I don't take it personally until others make it personal and stage calling those who disagree or offer alternative ideas and possibilities all sort of personal names and attacks. This is seen all through this area. The moral outrage and epistemic dogma is well beyong the simple facts and numbers. The skeptics are every bit as invested due to their beliefs and not the science.

You can see that a mile away lol. Thats why your still here. Lol. But thats ok and I can take the name calling and all the fallacies and thats why I am still here lol. In fact I actually enjoy it because I enjoy history and discovery and alternative ways of seeing the world. I am open to anything.

I am not worried if they vases and everything is relegated as nothing and boring like you say. I just disagree and leave it at that. But thats not going to change my fascination and intrigue over human knowledge and ability. I am not going to believe something that my own eyes tells me is not possible or is something it is not.

What I can make of the numbers, an it has taken awhile to see anything coherent in them, isn't particularly impressive to any "magic tech" claims they are making.

There you go. You see them as boring. I wish I could do that voice. Wait, not sure if that will work. But something along those lines lol. JUst nothiong special and oridinary. You have made your opinion known.

Well others see it differently. But they don't call you are moron. Thats the difference. That those who see it differently are made out to be whackos. Its the epistemic dogmma and superiority. And really that is what the OP is abou. That the establishment, the western dogmatic sciences who force feed everyone with the materialism and reductionism and gradualism. Any alternative knowledge that doesn't align with this is all whacko.

I am pretty sure most sskeptics are not like this who decend into cynicism. But its the hard skeptics who want to come oon to threads like this in some misguided idea that they are saving the ignorant with proper science, Not the pseudoscience these whackos are presenting. lol Its really funny. They are every bit like the very people they name call. Why name call someone over numbers lol.

 

[stevevw]

He kept reading numbers. I nodded off.

But thats the evidence. Thats the numbers that some are complaining about that are wrong or have miss some tiny thing. Or rather obvious thing that they are sop dumb to miss.

This is the evidence and you don't want to know now. Shows you are unwilling to evenhear the facts. See if they stand up. I like that Karoly is explaining the letrology and how it was applied and then shows the readings, scans and data. Or how we can actually watch him doing the tests and explaing as he goes. Its good science I think and accessible to most.

I have certainly not. I've done science for more than a quarter century and never even been *near* a "double blind". I even think "double blind peer review" is silly. Not only do the reviewers of my papers know who wrote my paper, but half the time I can figure out who reviewed my papers from their reports.

There you go then Some of the skeptics demand unreal testing when its completely unnecessary. Thus showing their bias and making anyone who disagrees jump through hoops to make their case. While knowing that its unreal and not applying the same to them.

This banter is actually redirecting things back to the OP. This is more about epistemics then objective science. About what is knowledge and what counts and how material sciences, the material worldview that only counts empiricle evidence as real evidence and reality.

While casting any alternative knowing as whacko and pseudoscience. Willing to bias things to push their worldview. Willing to make it hard for those who disagree with their worldview. Not science but worldview belief.

 

[stevevw]

I found it (Petrie Museum | Artifact Foundation).

I must say at least you are engaging with the data and I thank you. Even though you name call lol.

In what way do should I interpret a value such as a median circularity? Just by the name of it I would not guess that it is a measure of precision.A better measure of would be to present the variance of the circularity, I guess? Look at these surface pictures of the best vase in the Petrie collection.
View attachment 370834
View attachment 370835

View attachment 370836
View attachment 370837

Side 3 differs just shy of 0.5 mm, 5 times the median reported.

Yes all this needs further analysis. Karoyl explains why the mean average rather than the median is chosen. It has to do with ware and damage. Some areas like the tops and bottoms and around the lug handles or broken bits distort the scans with some sort of reflection.

So these are either discounted or in the case of most slices a mean score is made which is the industry standard for such measures and produces a more accurate representstion.

The vase you are talking about is the best example. But the others are very close. Part of the issue is that the outsides being 5,000 plus years old will have wear in one form or another. So its working out what is wear or not as well.

If it is wear then many of these vases will fall into a very precise range. Its telling that the colors (blue for indents below surface). I think orange above. Green and yellow being precise or close to perfect circularity.

But the indents could be wear considering as wear tends to indent the surface. That so much of the vase around it is near perfect may be the true representation and the small indents are just wear.

But the telling signature is that these vases and especially this one are more perfect on the inside than the outside. This one being a 0.004 on the outside and 0.003 on the inside.

This is quite amazing I think considering that it would be harder to do the inside and even get a tool in some of the openings being so small. Almost as though they would have to work blind if they did it by hand and feel or guess when enough granite had been removed.

Some walls being 2mm thick and granite becomes brittle like thin glass and break with too much pressure. But the fact they got the walls so uniform to the outside and also near perfect circles on the inside also points to the same lathing tech rather than by unguided hands. Especially in the hardest stones.

As I mentioned even a modern day Chinese company making granite works for decades with modern machinary said they were incapable of reproducing the inside of one of these dynastics vases. .