There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

Its funny because I have been researching this general topic for a while now and the vases are only one example and in fact not as amazing as some other examples that I think are even more obvious that advanced tech and knowledge were used by ancients that we have not given credit for.

I have hinted at a couple but this could go on forever. How many out of place examples does it take to change a light buld. I mean skeptic lol.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

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

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. .

What name did I call you? I apologize.

Pushing back the introduction of some potters wheel-like tool to the time frame of the Petrie collection of vases, would be unexpected but clearly possible (I don't think we have enough data), some ukrainians findings puts it quite early. That in itself is enough to create a good median value for circularity, but what would be more interesting and which I believe would be more telling is if the variance is low (or tight tolerances I guess it would be). Isn't much of the impressiveness of modern manufacturing that it can be made to tolerances down to 0.005 mm nowadays? And standard tolerances are consider at 0.1 mm. I would also guess that is the allowable maximum deviation not the median of any measure, but I'm not in manufacturing so take that with scoop of salt.

Additionally remember these were vases that someone found to be good enough to be worthy of saving. If there was literally thousands (millions, over the years?) of vases made by skilled artisans some are gone have very good measurements, these examples are probably more likely to be considered worth saving. As such a single good example is of little evidentary value. That is why I say I'm more interested when they report finding the tools they believe made them.

 

[sjastro]

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 actually tested the vases and fragments on site at the Steppede 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.

View attachment 370865

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.

You must think readers of your posts are complete idiots or illiterate to fall for this nonsense.
It reinforces the fact you have no evidence to back up your claims and therefore lied.

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.

Why don't you point out how this response is in any way relevant to you confusing inches with microns.

 

[sjastro]

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

I watched the back end of the video and found an all too familiar story, man gets scans of vases, man complains about high cost of professional metrology software, man decides to write his own code which has limited capabilities.

In @Stopped_lurking's post #502 the software used was Zeiss Inspect 2025 which offers a free version with limited / basic functionality which appears to include circularity.
It would make an interesting exercise to obtain the STL files used by these amateur code writers and run the free version to provide a back to back comparison.

 

[stevevw]

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

Ok, first I am pretty sure I never said it was actually CNC machining but like CNC machining. I actually said before your last comment specifically that it would not be like todays tech. But possibly some other method we don't know like stone softening or maybe some sophisticated lathing system but not like today. I just don't know.

The attempts at describing what it might be are based on the signatures in the stones which look like modern machining. Thats why references to modern machining are made. Machining or lathing that obviously is controlled and guided besides human hands or tools un unaides hands which will deviate a lot more than a controlled cutter.

But you want to make an issue out of semantics which is a strawman so to speak. That the problem is in naming the tech rather than what the signatures are actually saying.

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.

I don't think you get it and realise that what you are saying, the logic you are using to show that tools are needed to achieve certain signatures is exactly the logic I am using except extending it to match the signatures in the vases.

A ruler or template is what helps get the shape right. Not unaided hands, A ruler will get you closer to the precise measure than an unaided guess. Right so far. Or a top range saw will get through the wood and even certain specific teeth will cut better than other saws for specific materials and especially better than a rudimentary one or a piece of sharp flint.

Ok so the tool makes a diifference and we can tell the type of tool or tech by the signatures they leave. A saw leaves a different mark to flint hacking away. A circular saw looks different to a copper saw grinding away with abrasion.

Near perfect symmetry or lets call it pretty good symmetry and circularity points to a lathe. Everyone acknowledges that. Its not achieved by blind naked eye and feel. Right so far. The tools make a difference and allow work beyond human capability.

Now apply this same logic to the rest of the signatures ie super flat lips, perpendicularity, coaxilaity, circularity, geometric relations like Phi and Pi put into the vase.

But more telling the micro level precision. A standard ruler will get you 1mm accuracy. You may be able to get half a millmeter. But beyond that the human eye is incapable of even seeing to measure that prescision down to 1, 2, 3 and 4 thousandth of an inch. To create a stencil that would show the lines to follow at 1,000th of an inch to the naked eye would be as big as the pyramid almost lol.

What some don't realise is they have ackowledged that at least a lathe and if not a fairly sophisticated one was used. But that is a massive change from the orthodox position that claims its all done by the wobbly bent stick and flint cutter with a hell of a lot of grinding and rubbing. Which in no way can achieve such signatures.

So already we have changed the method based on the lathe signatures from what the orthodoxy is. All others are doing, these so called crackpots are using the same logic for all the signatures. If the roundness is created by lathing then why not the near perfect flatness, straightness, perpendicularity, paralells and the geometry in the vase being created by other machining methods that demand tight tolerances.

If simple tools like rulers and saws get a certain level then why not more advanced tools and tech which gets the higher levels. This seems the same logic. A circular saw is better than a hand saw and a lathe is better than a bent stick potters wheel.

But in all this something was missed which makes it all astonishing. These vases come from a time before the potters wheel. Let alone a sophisticated lathe lol. When I say sophisticated I mean something that can keep everything super still and on track. Doesn't have to be like todays CNC.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok, first I am pretty sure I never said it was actually CNC machining but like CNC machining. I actually said before your last comment specifically that it would not be like todays tech. But possibly some other method we don't know like stone softening or maybe some sophisticated lathing system but not like today. I just don't know.

The attempts at describing what it might be are based on the signatures in the stones which look like modern machining. Thats why references to modern machining are made. Machining or lathing that obviously is controlled and guided besides human hands or tools un unaides hands which will deviate a lot more than a controlled cutter.

But you want to make an issue out of semantics which is a strawman so to speak. That the problem is in naming the tech rather than what the signatures are actually saying.

I don't think you get it and realise that what you are saying, the logic you are using to show that tools are needed to achieve certain signatures is exactly the logic I am using except extending it to match the signatures in the vases.

A ruler or template is what helps get the shape right. Not unaided hands, A ruler will get you closer to the precise measure than an unaided guess. Right so far. Or a top range saw will get through the wood and even certain specific teeth will cut better than other saws for specific materials and especially better than a rudimentary one or a piece of sharp flint.

Ok so the tool makes a diifference and we can tell the type of tool or tech by the signatures they leave. A saw leaves a different mark to flint hacking away. A circular saw looks different to a copper saw grinding away with abrasion.

Near perfect symmetry or lets call it pretty good symmetry and circularity points to a lathe. Everyone acknowledges that. Its not achieved by blind naked eye and feel. Right so far. The tools make a difference and allow work beyond human capability.

Now apply this same logic to the rest of the signatures ie super flat lips, perpendicularity, coaxilaity, circularity, geometric relations like Phi and Pi put into the vase.

But more telling the micro level precision. A standard ruler will get you 1mm accuracy. You may be able to get half a millmeter. But beyond that the human eye is incapable of even seeing to measure that prescision down to 1, 2, 3 and 4 thousandth of an inch. To create a stencil that would show the lines to follow at 1,000th of an inch to the naked eye would be as big as the pyramid almost lol.

How did the ancient Egyptians do it?

What some don't realise is they have ackowledged that at least a lathe and if not a fairly sophisticated one was used. But that is a massive change from the orthodox position that claims its all done by the wobbly bent stick and flint cutter with a hell of a lot of grinding and rubbing. Which in no way can achieve such signatures.

So already we have changed the method based on the lathe signatures from what the orthodoxy is. All others are doing, these so called crackpots are using the same logic for all the signatures. If the roundness is created by lathing then why not the near perfect flatness, straightness, perpendicularity, paralells and the geometry in the vase being created by other machining methods that demand tight tolerances.

If simple tools like rulers and saws get a certain level then why not more advanced tools and tech which gets the higher levels. This seems the same logic. A circular saw is better than a hand saw and a lathe is better than a bent stick potters wheel.

But in all this something was missed which makes it all astonishing. These vases come from a time before the potters wheel. Let alone a sophisticated lathe lol. When I say sophisticated I mean something that can keep everything super still and on track. Doesn't have to be like todays CNC.

Clearly you still have no idea how precise work is produced with hand tools. My opinion is that before you assert that these vases cannot have been produced by craftsmen working with hand tools you need to know more about the capacity of craftsmen to produce such work. But you have made it clear that you think you know more about working in a skilled trade than I do and that's fine, maybe you do. Just be aware that your rhetoric is demeaning and as such it weakens your argument.

Your big stumbling block is going to be about measurement. It is not possible to produce precision by any means, from hand tools to CNCs, without the ability to measure the work, and a science of measurement to back it up. How did the ancient Egyptians do it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Good grief man. This paragraph doesn't respond to what I said in the slightest. There IS NO physical or textual evidence of the devices or techniques you have been claiming. No diagrams of lathes, no lathes, no texts describing lathing with 5 axes or 1. None. If there was you would have shown it as I have faith that the obsessive weirdos you quote would have dug around for it.

The objects are the objects and their are theories for their construction that are not based on the things you have been pushing. Therefore, the artifacts themselves are not the evidence you can't produce.

View attachment 370867

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

What is this thing and why are you showing it?

View attachment 370866

A modern reproduction or fake.

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.

They don't speak for themselves. If they did we wouldn't be having this stupid conversation.

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.

They are artisans. They are replicating or trying to reproduce an artisanal technique. (You really seem to completely miss the point of these experiments.)

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.

For the 4th time: I didn't ask for blind tests. I never would have. It isn't even a method I learned in research training. Don't confuse medical testing with other fields of science.

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.

I'm not a metrologist. I don't make high precision measurements. The only times I did were in teaching labs where the equipment was calibrated and secured. I have no idea if it is even possible to get the quality of measurement they claim to achieve with portable equipment or without hours of calibration. Instead I see hand held devices, etc.

The metrology is allegedly the expertise of these amateurs and it is not mine. The people who do know things are not satisfied with their work. Why should I be?

How does a double blind help in this situation.

It doesn't. Stop talking about it. Double blind is stupid.

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.

If your ancient Egyptian tech fantasy is true, how do you tell the difference between a modern reproduction/fake and an ancient object made with similar technology?

But the vases in the museums are suppose to have the best providence coming directly from digs. They are labelled with the dig sites.

That would be a good method, but as I noted several days ago -- there are fakes in museums. Fake artifacts. Fake paintings, etc.

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.

This is the third of four paragraphs responding to a simple statement I made that double-blind testing is for biomedical research. You just went and rambled on. I've seen live, informal debates where one party is just waiting for the other to stop talking before they resume whatever it was they were saying and don't respond to what was said. This feels an awful lot like that Steve. If you keep replying with non-responsive answers I am just going to point it out and ignore what *you* wrote.

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.

Did I call for a specific test? (Show me where.) If these tests are necessary or enlightening they should be done in the proper controlled conditions. That is true no matter what the requirements are such as taking months to prepare a secure, stable space in the museum, set up and calibrate the equipment, etc. This fly-by-night stuff seems very amateur.

Then they should have multiple groups of experts designing test protocols and analysis protocols *before* the measurements and conducting independent analysis leading to the production of a written product. Which leads to...

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.

If they aren't ready to submit their results to peer review then they need to SHUT UP and stop making videos and web pages and DO THE WORK first.

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.

No, No, No. Nothing is "simple". You are talking about analyzing high-precision measurements for alleged high-precision signals. That is not some over-the-weekend quick hack job. The sources of error must be analyzed. The calibration must be analyzed. The reconstruction must be analyzed, etc., etc., etc.

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.

The ideas presented in this thread have varied from the plausible (see OP) to the ludicrous. We've tried to show you the claims are not met by the evidence, but you double down. We've tried to show you that the "thought leaders" in the community of video makers you cite are all deeply embeded in abject nonsense and you take it as personal attack. We tried to pry you away from it by showing that the base ideas that drive this "work" are deeply tied to racism and colonialism, but you just react as if we called you a racist. (we didn't). What more are we to do? How many times shall we gently lead you through the swamp of nonsense your posts derive from only to be told that we are dogmatic and attacking people unjustly. This has to end at some point and if bluntness is the only way to do that, then I guess that is the form my replies must now take, so be it.

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.

It was a video made for only those in the Cult of the Ancient Tech. For the rest of us it was...

View attachment 370869

I know doing this the right way is boring. But that is science. Deal with it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

No, what it shows is that the presenter and the presentation were not engaging and it should have been an email. (or blog post)

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.

You've done it again Steve. This paragraph and the two that follow were in response to what I wrote about not demanding double blind studies or peer review. None of this has anything to do with that. Demanding useful tests is not about "double blind" or "peer review". It is about using tests that are approriate to answer the question asked. That question (as best I can divine it is: "was Egyptian stone working technology more sophisticated than what is implied by simple copper drills, chisels, and stone tools?"

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.

The OP. LOL. We haven't been near the OP in at least a week.

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.

You literally cite wacko pseudoscience peddlers. For example, Chris Dunn is a grifting nutjob. He think the stupidest thing around -- pyramids as power plants. And while he doesn't seem to directly say it, he probably thinks the CNC machines that made the vases really were ancient Atlantean computer controlled technology powered by the pyramid's electrical grid. He's that nuts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I watched the back end of the video and found an all too familiar story, man gets scans of vases, man complains about high cost of professional metrology software, man decides to write his own code which has limited capabilities.

Ah, that old story. My mother used to warn me about that.

In @Stopped_lurking's post #502 the software used was Zeiss Inspect 2025 which offers a free version with limited / basic functionality which appears to include circularity.
It would make an interesting exercise to obtain the STL files used by these amateur code writers and run the free version to provide a back to back comparison.

Interesting.

 

[BCP1928]

What name did I call you? I apologize.

Pushing back the introduction of some potters wheel-like tool to the time frame of the Petrie collection of vases, would be unexpected but clearly possible (I don't think we have enough data), some ukrainians findings puts it quite early. That in itself is enough to create a good median value for circularity, but what would be more interesting and which I believe would be more telling is if the variance is low (or tight tolerances I guess it would be). Isn't much of the impressiveness of modern manufacturing that it can be made to tolerances down to 0.005 mm nowadays? And standard tolerances are consider at 0.1 mm. I would also guess that is the allowable maximum deviation not the median of any measure, but I'm not in manufacturing so take that with scoop of salt.

Additionally remember these were vases that someone found to be good enough to be worthy of saving. If there was literally thousands (millions, over the years?) of vases made by skilled artisans some are gone have very good measurements, these examples are probably more likely to be considered worth saving. As such a single good example is of little evidentary value. That is why I say I'm more interested when they report finding the tools they believe made them.

That and any measurement or gaging tools. The Egyptians had a reasonably sophisticated metrology, with national standards and local standards and a calibration hierarchy, Graduated rules are known to have existed and a few have been found, mostly entombed elaborated ones which seem to be intended as swagger sticks. But little else. Egyptian engineers were really clever, and they had the math, we need to find more measuring tools, they must have had them.

 

[stevevw]

What name did I call you? I apologize.

Sorry I got you mixed up with someone else lol. Theres so many jumping I am finding it hard to keep track lol.

Pushing back the introduction of some potters wheel-like tool to the time frame of the Petrie collection of vases, would be unexpected but clearly possible (I don't think we have enough data), some ukrainians findings puts it quite early. That in itself is enough to create a good median value for circularity, but what would be more interesting and which I believe would be more telling is if the variance is low (or tight tolerances I guess it would be). Isn't much of the impressiveness of modern manufacturing that it can be made to tolerances down to 0.005 mm nowadays? And standard tolerances are consider at 0.1 mm. I would also guess that is the allowable maximum deviation not the median of any measure, but I'm not in manufacturing so take that with scoop of salt.

Additionally remember these were vases that someone found to be good enough to be worthy of saving. If there was literally thousands (millions, over the years?) of vases made by skilled artisans some are gone have very good measurements, these examples are probably more likely to be considered worth saving. As such a single good example is of little evidentary value. That is why I say I'm more interested when they report finding the tools they believe made them.

I think the first stage of the project is to measure as many vases as possible and especially in museums or in private collections with good provedence. From what I understand there are 1,000s out there. Some museums have 1,000s in storage. There were 10s. of 1,000s found under the Stepped pyramid belonging to Djoser who is said to have inhereted them or gathered them from sites for himself.

I agree gathering more data will give us a better understanding and start to create a catelogue of varying quality and precision. In fact one of the testers mentions that this will enable identification of method. We can then identify vases found on their signatures as to how they were made.

Its only then that it becomes substancial and rather than being just one offs is pointing to an industry of precision vase making.

Then its a case of how could so many high quality vases be produced in what amounts to neolithic cultures. This is predynastic like the Naqada culture which is going back to 3,500 to 4000BC or earlier. These people lived in simple mud brick huts and everything about them is primitive as far as later tech is concerned.

There is nothing else about their culture and crafts that is like these vases. In fact we have other vases and pottery from them which is nowhere near as precise and made by the traditional method of that time which was the Coil method without any need for a wheel. The potters wheel was not even around let alone a sophisticated lathe.

This is part of the intrigue and trying to work out what is going on. That such a Neolithic culture could possess such precision vases that even outdo vases that came nearly a 1,000 years later with the potters wheel and bent stick drills ect that are depicted on the walls.

Like you say this suggests that even these ancient Naqada people inhereted these vases and they are from an even earlier time. Which is incredible and unbelievable. Thats why I guess some are saying they are fakes or that the archeology is wrong and these are from a later time.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Sorry I got you mixed up with someone else lol. Theres so many jumping I am finding it hard to keep track lol.

I think the first stage of the project is to measure as many vases as possible and especially in museums or in private collections with good provedence. From what I understand there are 1,000s out there. Some museums have 1,000s in storage. There were 10s. of 1,000s found under the Stepped pyramid belonging to Djoser who is said to have inhereted them or gathered them from sites for himself.

I agree gathering more data will give us a better understanding and start to create a catelogue of varying quality and precision. In fact one of the testers mentions that this will enable identification of method. We can then identify vases found on their signatures as to how they were made.

Its only then that it becomes substancial and rather than being just one offs is pointing to an industry of precision vase making.

Then its a case of how could so many high quality vases be produced in what amounts to neolithic cultures. This is predynastic like the Naqada culture which is going back to 3,500 to 4000BC or earlier. These people lived in simple mud brick huts and everything about them is primitive as far as later tech is concerned.

There is nothing else about their culture and crafts that is like these vases. In fact we have other vases and pottery from them which is nowhere near as precise and made by the traditional method of that time which was the Coil method without any need for a wheel. The potters wheel was not even around let alone a sophisticated lathe.

This is part of the intrigue and trying to work out what is going on. That such a Neolithic culture could possess such precision vases that even outdo vases that came nearly a 1,000 years later with the potters wheel and bent stick drills ect that are depicted on the walls.

That's all good and I think archeologists and egyptologist are doing their best in trying to explain what and how these things fit together. But it has not been demonstrated that these vases are of such quality and precision that we need to invoke unknown technological means or lost knowledge. We have no idea about the skill of artisans that have produced these objects, I'm certain some of them was incredibly skilled. A positive evidence would be much more interesting, such as tools or descriptions.

Like you say this suggests that even these ancient Naqada people inhereted these vases and they are from an even earlier time. Which is incredible and unbelievable. Thats why I guess some are saying they are fakes or that the archeology is wrong and these are from a later time.

What led you down this path? I'm saying if during the timeframe for these vases creation there have been a large number of them made, then it's not unexpected that some are going to be very nice indeed. If the nice ones are the ones that get saved, this will skew how we see how well made the vases are in general.

 

[Tuur]

That's all good and I think archeologists and egyptologist are doing their best in trying to explain what and how these things fit together. But it has not been demonstrated that these vases are of such quality and precision that we need to invoke unknown technological means or lost knowledge. We have no idea about the skill of artisans that have produced these objects, I'm certain some of them was incredibly skilled. A positive evidence would be much more interesting, such as tools or descriptions.

The disadvantage of modern archeologists who try to apply real ancient tech is that every one doesn't use the tech for that task day in and day out. They are like the new guys on the job. For some it's like the new guy's first day at work. Much of the skill comes by doing and learning what does and doesn't work, and the muscle memory involved.

Flint knapping is such a skill. It's more than just banging stone together. You have to know which stones work best. You have to know how to shape them so you can produce a number of blades from the same core. You have to know the counter-intuitive technique of flattening what looks like a perfectly good edge on a core so you can strike it to break off a sliver. You have to know how to apply pressure tools to flake off the edge to shape it. It can be learned and some do it for fun, but it's not a skill you can pick up in a few minutes. Now consider how, in the US West, archeologists found where a look-out was sitting by the pattern of stone flakes from where he was sitting. Apparently, he was sharpening / making stone blades while on lookout. Then consider that well into the 19th Century some Indian nations would take a stone and with a few well-places whacks make a blade for various tasks in camp. This persisted after they had metal blades. It was like a disposable blade. Think the disposable blades we use in utility knives. And they were so accomplished with this skill that they could do it as needed with no muss or fuss.

That's what we're dealing at there. It was tech they used day in and day out. For stone vases it was tech used hours a day. There was a hieroglyph based on a tool they used. That's how common it was to them. It was something they'd seen frequently and knew exactly what it was and what it was for.

 

[stevevw]

Good grief man. This paragraph doesn't respond to what I said in the slightest. There IS NO physical or textual evidence of the devices or techniques you have been claiming. No diagrams of lathes, no lathes, no texts describing lathing with 5 axes or 1. None. If there was you would have shown it as I have faith that the obsessive weirdos you quote would have dug around for it.

It relates directly to what you are saying because it cuts through the fallacy being made that because no tech is found that this must then refute that they were made in that time where we can;t find the method. Fullstop.

Your creating a fallacy that because I cannot produce how they were made therefore they must not have been made by that culture in that time.

The objects are the objects and their are theories for their construction that are not based on the things you have been pushing. Therefore, the artifacts themselves are not the evidence you can't produce.

This is strange logic. The fact is these vases are found in that time with that culture (Naqada) before the potters wheel let alone lathe tech for which the signatures clearly represent. So yes the objects are the objects found in a time where they should not have been found because of the signatures in the objects.

The vases and their signatures which suggests certain tech is a seperate issue to what was the method. We have one set of facts in the signatures and their presense in predynastic times. We have a seperate speculative issue of how they were made.

What is this thing and why are you showing it?

This thing is the inside bottom of one of the vases found under the Stepped pyramid where many of these precision vases were found. It shows circular machine marks like a vinyl record. A witness mark as to the method they were made. It resembles the circular machine marks on other precision vases.

A modern reproduction or fake.

Except it has good provedence being found in a dig by Petrie. The machine marks also match the machine marks in the image above it from a vase fragment from under a pyramid from predynastic Egypt. These machine marks are also found on several vases including those from the Petrie musum where some of the insides were not polished completely and left these witness marks of modern machining.

But at least you recognise the signatures is like modern tech and impossible to be caused by ancient tech. This is all I am doing. I am recognising the same witness marks except I am saying these are not fakes.

The other witness marks like circular and planing cuts I have shown are not fakes and found directly on the ancient works. No modern day person came along and made modern cuts in these works.

They don't speak for themselves. If they did we wouldn't be having this stupid conversation.

Yes they do. You just acknowledge that the witness marks of modern machining were impossible for the ancients and must be a modern fake. The signatures spoke for themselves that you reacted that this was impossible. You did not need anything else to come to that conclusion.

They are artisans. They are replicating or trying to reproduce an artisanal technique. (You really seem to completely miss the point of these experiments.)

Actually I don't think you understand whats going on really. Look at the videos of the experiments. Just like I asked you to look at the live tests on precision vases.

They state over and over again that they are comparing the signatures to the Egyptian works found to prove that this can be achieved by the orthodox methods.

For the 4th time: I didn't ask for blind tests. I never would have. It isn't even a method I learned in research training. Don't confuse medical testing with other fields of science.

I know but I am pointing out how the skeptics think and how they expect unreal criteria for those who propose any alternative knowledge. You are doing the same but in a different way. Like with the 'artist' as the go to explanation for everything.

A coverall explanation given almost supernatural abilities which explain what would otherwise be considered impossible.

I'm not a metrologist. I don't make high precision measurements. The only times I did were in teaching labs where the equipment was calibrated and secured. I have no idea if it is even possible to get the quality of measurement they claim to achieve with portable equipment or without hours of calibration. Instead I see hand held devices, etc.

But how does the hand held devices like a chisel or a pounder or box drill achieve such precision. If we have to calibrate out equipment to measure down to the precision in these vases then how did they achieve this. Was it guesswork, luck. Maybe one vase but not many.

The metrology is allegedly the expertise of these amateurs and it is not mine. The people who do know things are not satisfied with their work. Why should I be?

Ok so your acknowledging that the times you were attacking these metrologists and engineers as whackos you actually did know understand the expertise that was involved. You were just attacking them because of what the readings were saying and what they said about those readings being near impossible to produce with the orthodox methods.

If your ancient Egyptian tech fantasy is true,

There you go, theres another example of how your deriding these experts and their numbers. The numbers speak for themselves. None of these experts have said anything about aliens, gods, or some supernatural power coming from the clouds or whatever. This is your every time and over and over again making it so lol.

how do you tell the difference between a modern reproduction/fake and an ancient object made with similar technology?

Obviously the provedence. But also by testing more and more vases until it gets to the point that skeptics cannot deny and use the idea that they are fake. Unless they want to start claiming all the vases in museums are fakes and those with provedence going back to Petries and other digs ect.

That would be a good method, but as I noted several days ago -- there are fakes in museums. Fake artifacts. Fake paintings, etc.

Yes so thats why more data is needed. But I think it has already been established. Some vases come directly from digs such as Petries. Some have been scanned on site under Mastaba 17 and the Stepped pyramid. Others have carbon dating to 3,500BC and still others have provedence as early as the 1800's. But admittedly the more the better to shut the skeptics down.

But as I mentioned the fixation on the vases overlooks the many, many other signatures and out of place works that suggest advanced tech and knowledge. Altogether this makes a strong case for ancient advanced tech and knowledge.

This is the third of four paragraphs responding to a simple statement I made that double-blind testing is for biomedical research. You just went and rambled on. I've seen live, informal debates where one party is just waiting for the other to stop talking before they resume whatever it was they were saying and don't respond to what was said. This feels an awful lot like that Steve. If you keep replying with non-responsive answers I am just going to point it out and ignore what *you* wrote.

Thats because what I am saying is going over your head. I am not just retalking about the "blind tests". Once again I am using that example like other examples of how skeptics demand unreal criteria when alternative ideas that are contrary to their worldview are proposed. Yet will not place the same criteria on themselves or on the expectation of the evidence required. Its been happening all through this thread.

Did I call for a specific test? (Show me where.) If these tests are necessary or enlightening they should be done in the proper controlled conditions. That is true no matter what the requirements are such as taking months to prepare a secure, stable space in the museum, set up and calibrate the equipment, etc. This fly-by-night stuff seems very amateur.

Once again I am not talking about that special test or any particular requirement. Rather its the unreal and inconsistent requirements being made by skeptics. In your case it is demanding peer review and certain criteria. While presenting support or making claims without the same level of criteria. By assuming and rideculing anyone including scientists or experts in their fields as whackos.

I am using the other posters example of unreal expectations along with your own to show how generally this is the double standard and hypocracy of the skeptics.

Then they should have multiple groups of experts designing test protocols and analysis protocols *before* the measurements and conducting independent analysis leading to the production of a written product.

Ah they already did and that was part of it. This shows you did not bother to even investigate and dismissed this out of hand as psudeoscience.

Which leads to...

If they aren't ready to submit their results to peer review then they need to SHUT UP and stop making videos and web pages and DO THE WORK first.

Lol you don't like it. It seems ok for the Scientists against Myths or the many experiments such as those from Robert Stocks sweating away in the Ciro sun trying to saw granite blocks and declaring "see it can be done" lol.

I think its good that they open up the actual testing process to the public. To anyone who wants to download the STL files and do their own research. Its gathering momentum and more experts are coming in. Its actually led to further testing and discoveries.

No, No, No. Nothing is "simple". You are talking about analyzing high-precision measurements for alleged high-precision signals. That is not some over-the-weekend quick hack job. The sources of error must be analyzed. The calibration must be analyzed. The reconstruction must be analyzed, etc., etc., etc.

And it is clearly not some over the weekend and backyard testing like we see from skeptics like Science against Myth. Yet their backyard experiements over the weekend are quite acceptable to skeptics.

This is ongoing science, calibration is done and recorded for you to see. Its been repeated many times by independent testers. It shows that you are biased in relegating all this work to "some over-the-weekend quick hack job".

The ideas presented in this thread have varied from the plausible (see OP) to the ludicrous. We've tried to show you the claims are not met by the evidence, but you double down.

Thats because your biased and clearly wrong. You have acknowledged the signatures are real and your are seeing the same thing the tests are showing. You just think they are frauds.

Others have acknowledge the signatures in the fact that some sort of lathe was used. They just don't accept that the vases that have these signatures are from the predynastic time they are being attributed to. Or they want to argue red herrings about small detail that does not change the fact that these vases have modern maching marks on them.

We've tried to show you that the "thought leaders" in the community of video makers you cite are all deeply embeded in abject nonsense and you take it as personal attack.

And I have clearly showed that this precision in the vases and other works was well recognised going back 100 years. They just did not do and further tests like today. Like everything we are looking closer at Egyptian history. More independent researchers are out there in the field. The gatekeepers no longer have the keys lol and we are hearing more about these amazing works in more detail.

Yes I agree there are the fringe loonies but you are relegating everyone to that box. Many of these researchers are doing good science. This shows that you are more or less being the opposite 'thought leader' except pushing false narratives that tar everyone as whackos for simply suggesting such ideas.

We tried to pry you away from it by showing that the base ideas that drive this "work" are deeply tied to racism and colonialism, but you just react as if we called you a racist. (we didn't).

This idea of "we tried" to save you from the delusion idea is itself exactly what you are accusing me of. That just suggesting such alternative ideas and knowledge is something you need to help people get away from lol. That its not the proper way to think.

I would imagine if we were on a Christian tops like the resurrection of Christs body defying physics you would be also trying to rescue people from such deluded thinking and beliefs. Thats why you are here on a social platform and not a science one and defending the true knowledge isnt it. Helping people be enlightened lol.

What more are we to do? How many times shall we gently lead you through the swamp of nonsense your posts derive from only to be told that we are dogmatic and attacking people unjustly. This has to end at some point and if bluntness is the only way to do that, then I guess that is the form my replies must now take, so be it.

Lol that form was taken from the very first pages. There was no gentle leading. It was whackos from the start lol. Then it was name calling like how can you be so stupid or ignorant followed in between with its psudoscience I tell you, Dunn is a Quack I tell you. Then I post evidence from guess what "PEER REVIEWED science and we can here crickets lol.

This is not some gentle and neutral leading. This is narrative based on your own worldview belief that is once again being pushed onto those who have alternative worldview that are open to alternative ways of knowling like God, like miracles, like supernatural stuff. You know the stuff you automatically relegate as whacko.

Am I clear enough now lol. This has never been about facts, objective reality and being neutral and open. This has been about epistemic superiority and dogma. Which ironically is exactly what the OP is about. Your only prove the OP lol.

It was a video made for only those in the Cult of the Ancient Tech. For the rest of us it was...

There you go again. Slipping in the word "cult" is part of creating the narrative that its all whacko and psuedoscience. But thats your worldview assumption and belief. You only accept certain findings and the tests that go ith them If the findings support your worldview then there little scrutiny of the testing. If it doesn't then every little step is scrutinised and rideculed. Thats how it works.

In this case you find it boring. You admit you are not a metrologist or engineer. But this is still science so its interesting to those who are metrologists. Its interesting for anyone who wants to see what the scientists do and watch their tests. Its interesting for anyone who is into Egyptian history and their amazing works.

But you rtelegate this as boiring . Thats ok thats your opinion, But its the relegating it as "Boring" as a way to argue that its nothing and meaningless that is the problem. You are using that to deminish and even ridecule the way others see this as real science and important.

Which goes back to what I said above how this is not science itself but imposing your worldview and opinion over others as though you hold the epistemic and metaphysical truths.

I know doing this the right way is boring. But that is science. Deal with it.

There you go. You just confirmed once again what I am saying lol. That some how these tests and researchers are not real and just psuedoscience and not doing things the right way. While I might add that skeptics on this thread are quite happy to offer their own unqualified and unsupported opinion via the same level of testing and analysis that these so called whackos are doing.

Generally we copuld say that there are two sides to this issue of vases. One is myself who has at least offered links to many iondependent tests and analysis whether right or wrong. On the other hand all I have seen from skeptics is complaints and unsupported claims that this is all whacko.

Hypocrical and double standards.

 

[stevevw]

That's all good and I think archeologists and egyptologist are doing their best in trying to explain what and how these things fit together.

Its not just archeologists and Egyptologists but anyone nowadays with a camera and willingness to go and see for themselves. We now live in a technological age and the average person can document these works. You can get special permissions to go off the tourist path and see these hidden treasures that most don't see.

That I think has been part of the problem that gatekeepers hid a lot of this stuff. I watchs some independent scout just doing his own investigation revealing heaps of stuff the average person doesn't know. Like there is a whole plumbing system of copper pipes in trenches and cement foundations under the basalt pavers around the Giza pyramid.

Its yet to be fully investigated which itself is strange. But it couldreveal a sophisticated plumbing system that waters the Giza plateau. Just one amazing works considering that they invented cement that seems even better than the Romans over 2,000 years later and had copper piping like today. There may be sewage systems, some sort of pumping system ect ect.

The point being what we have been told is the tip of the iceberg really. I could go on about the Hawara Labyrinth which is now almost buried and flooded due to the Aswan dam and the rising water table as a result. But historians going back to Herodotus 5th century BC visited such and said this was greater than the pyramids. This has also been covered up politically.

Herodotus described an Egyptian labyrinth so vast it rivaled the pyramids—then it disappeared

But it has not been demonstrated that these vases are of such quality and precision that we need to invoke unknown technological means or lost knowledge. We have no idea about the skill of artisans that have produced these objects, I'm certain some of them was incredibly skilled. A positive evidence would be much more interesting, such as tools or descriptions.

Ok lets back things up for a minute. If say an 8 year old draws a perfect circle or really anyone. Down to the mirco level of precision which cannot be seen with the naked eye. Would we be astonished. Say they repeated this several times. Would the thought hey how did they do this. They must have had a stencil or a compass. Right. Its a natural thing to think.

Why because its beyond normal human ability. Thats why we use compasses and lathes.

Now it could be that an artists and even someone such as an idiot sevant could produce amazing work. But we don't then say this is a common practice or the normal human ability in say pottery or any art. There is a line between technical knowhow and freehand unaided artists expression.

But either way its still suggesting something beyond the I hate to say it mainstream or general consensus that its beyond normal human ability. Either an ancient people had knowledge and tech to create something beyond what we would normally attribute, well beyond. Or they had many amazing minds that could somehow breach the boundaries of noraml ability into extraordinary.

That in itself in someways is more extraordinary than having some sort of machining devide as it suggest a higher knowledge that was obtain as a culture and not just individuals. That is more or less Indigenous knowledge that transcends enlightened knowledge and supporting lost knowledge.

What led you down this path?

Not sure what you mean. The path of looking at the vases or the path that led to looking at the vases or something else. I have a general interest in history and especially biblical history. Investigating stories like the Exodus also mean looking at Egyptian history ie the pharoah of the Exodus ect. They gods ect. This led down the rabbit hole of Egyptian knowledge and generally past knowledge.

But this is related to many subjects like philosophy of knowl;edge, culture, indigenous knowledge, epistemics, metaphysics. I think its all linked. How one sees the past is governed by their worldview. Even the evolution and creation debate or the material science verses spirituality and phenomenal belief and consciousness.

If there is a truth that knowledge can come from transcendent sources then there are two opposing worldview and histories for humankind. One that says everything is within the material and naturalistic and there are no gods, spirits or phenomena that happens or is real beyond the causal closure of the physical.

On the other hand there is the many transcedent claims to something beyond this closed causal box. That means there is knowledge including past knowledge that was real and influenced the world and is now lost. Except for maybe some remenant within indigenous knowledge. But that is fast fading away.

But I think in some ways modern ideas and even in science such as quantum physics but also the rise of studies in phenomenal consciousness we are coming full circle and back to this transcendent way of knowing the world. Its only early days but the fact that after a few hundred years of enlightened sciences we are now returning to these ancients ways of knowing is interesting.

I'm saying if during the timeframe for these vases creation there have been a large number of them made, then it's not unexpected that some are going to be very nice indeed. If the nice ones are the ones that get saved, this will skew how we see how well made the vases are in general.

There were tons of vases just underthe Stepped ptramid. They included less precise vases. Not sure of the split but there were plenty of each and many softer stones. Its hard to say whether they are from the same people or different people.

I think you are right that these precise vases were special even to the makers and those that inhereted them. Its hard to determine their function or whether they were just for looks. But some vases are in rare hard stones like diorite, andesite and porphyry. They are beautiful even today and its amazing some are over 5,000 years old.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But how does the hand held devices like a chisel or a pounder or box drill achieve such precision. If we have to calibrate out equipment to measure down to the precision in these vases then how did they achieve this. Was it guesswork, luck. Maybe one vase but not many.

I was commenting on hand held scanning devices for measuring this "precision". I don't understand how a hand held scanning device can make the measurements of the claimed precision. Your replly was a bout hand held chisels. One things I am certain of is that chisels are not used to measure these objects in the museum.

I'm out of it today, so I don't know if I'll be able to reply to any of the rest of this.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Its not just archeologists and Egyptologists but anyone nowadays with a camera and willingness to go and see for themselves. We now live in a technological age and the average person can document these works. You can get special permissions to go off the tourist path and see these hidden treasures that most don't see.

That I think has been part of the problem that gatekeepers hid a lot of this stuff. I watchs some independent scout just doing his own investigation revealing heaps of stuff the average person doesn't know. Like there is a whole plumbing system of copper pipes in trenches and cement foundations under the basalt pavers around the Giza pyramid.

Its yet to be fully investigated which itself is strange. But it couldreveal a sophisticated plumbing system that waters the Giza plateau. Just one amazing works considering that they invented cement that seems even better than the Romans over 2,000 years later and had copper piping like today. There may be sewage systems, some sort of pumping system ect ect.

The point being what we have been told is the tip of the iceberg really. I could go on about the Hawara Labyrinth which is now almost buried and flooded due to the Aswan dam and the rising water table as a result. But historians going back to Herodotus 5th century BC visited such and said this was greater than the pyramids. This has also been covered up politically.

Herodotus described an Egyptian labyrinth so vast it rivaled the pyramids—then it disappeared

Ok lets back things up for a minute. If say an 8 year old draws a perfect circle or really anyone. Down to the mirco level of precision which cannot be seen with the naked eye. Would we be astonished. Say they repeated this several times. Would the thought hey how did they do this. They must have had a stencil or a compass. Right. Its a natural thing to think.

Why because its beyond normal human ability. Thats why we use compasses and lathes.

Now it could be that an artists and even someone such as an idiot sevant could produce amazing work. But we don't then say this is a common practice or the normal human ability in say pottery or any art. There is a line between technical knowhow and freehand unaided artists expression.

But either way its still suggesting something beyond the I hate to say it mainstream or general consensus that its beyond normal human ability. Either an ancient people had knowledge and tech to create something beyond what we would normally attribute, well beyond. Or they had many amazing minds that could somehow breach the boundaries of noraml ability into extraordinary.

That in itself in someways is more extraordinary than having some sort of machining devide as it suggest a higher knowledge that was obtain as a culture and not just individuals. That is more or less Indigenous knowledge that transcends enlightened knowledge and supporting lost knowledge.

The two best vases are the "OG" vase with the claims about ratios that are phi and pi and Matt Beall's V18 in measurements from Maximus Energy. If I got it correctly someone else are suggesting that the OG vase is problematic.

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

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

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

Abstractions Set In Granite

And Matt Beall's V18 has providence to early 20th century or was it late 19th century (I checked, it was 1979!), which is really not good enough. The Petrie vases are not in precise class of Matt Beall's vases using Maximus Energys quality metric and seems to be as good as Olgas O1 (which outside the use of the potters wheel used old techniques). The Petrie vases doesn't support any claims about Matt Beall's V18.

Not sure what you mean.

That what I posted suggested that they had inherited them from someone.

The path of looking at the vases or the path that led to looking at the vases or something else. I have a general interest in history and especially biblical history. Investigating stories like the Exodus also mean looking at Egyptian history ie the pharoah of the Exodus ect. They gods ect. This led down the rabbit hole of Egyptian knowledge and generally past knowledge.

But this is related to many subjects like philosophy of knowl;edge, culture, indigenous knowledge, epistemics, metaphysics. I think its all linked. How one sees the past is governed by their worldview. Even the evolution and creation debate or the material science verses spirituality and phenomenal belief and consciousness.

If there is a truth that knowledge can come from transcendent sources then there are two opposing worldview and histories for humankind. One that says everything is within the material and naturalistic and there are no gods, spirits or phenomena that happens or is real beyond the causal closure of the physical.

On the other hand there is the many transcedent claims to something beyond this closed causal box. That means there is knowledge including past knowledge that was real and influenced the world and is now lost. Except for maybe some remenant within indigenous knowledge. But that is fast fading away.

But I think in some ways modern ideas and even in science such as quantum physics but also the rise of studies in phenomenal consciousness we are coming full circle and back to this transcendent way of knowing the world. Its only early days but the fact that after a few hundred years of enlightened sciences we are now returning to these ancients ways of knowing is interesting.

There were tons of vases just underthe Stepped ptramid. They included less precise vases. Not sure of the split but there were plenty of each and many softer stones. Its hard to say whether they are from the same people or different people.

I think you are right that these precise vases were special even to the makers and those that inhereted them. Its hard to determine their function or whether they were just for looks. But some vases are in rare hard stones like diorite, andesite and porphyry. They are beautiful even today and its amazing some are over 5,000 years old.

I'm sorry, but I need someone to actually demonstrate the existence of transcendental knowledge in order to try to weave it into my worldview, I find it superfluous. My question was in regards why you thought my post suggested that they had inherited vases from even older times.

 

[stevevw]

The two best vases are the "OG" vase with the claims about ratios that are phi and pi and Matt Beall's V18 in measurements from Maximus Energy. If I got it correctly someone else are suggesting that the OG vase is problematic.

Yes the OG vase was the original that has really started all this. But it wasn't about the precision and geometry in the vase. At least for the Phi and Pi and the circularity and flatness and all that. It was because of its provedence.

The researcher did not perform the metrology but rather was making mathmatical analysis of the vase looking for geometry and shapes in the vase. They were qualifying that they had made these findings based on the vase being proved with good provedence which had not been verified.

But this is a case of authenticity and not disputing the precision in the vase. It is because these vases are measuring so precise or maths is being found in what is suppose to be too early for such tech that the provedence becomes important. Because the obvious objection is they are fakes because it is impossible to have such tech so early.

Abstractions Set In Granite

And Matt Beall's V18 has providence to early 20th century or was it late 19th century (I checked, it was 1979!), which is really not good enough. The Petrie vases are not in precise class of Matt Beall's vases using Maximus Energys quality metric and seems to be as good as Olgas O1 (which outside the use of the potters wheel used old techniques). The Petrie vases doesn't support any claims about Matt Beall's V18.

From memory and I might be getting him mixed up with Adam Young another private collector. But Matt Beall's collection was housed at the Petrie museum and 11 of his 22 vases fell into the precise class and I think two were better than modern CNC machining.

But definitely Olga' vases fell into the imprecise class and were something like 10 times less precise. It was also noted that Olga's best vase had been aided by a spinning wheel and ball bearing for stability to achieve such good circularity. But the inside was no where near in the ball park as these Egyptian vases.

The ‘PRECISE’ class includes modern stone vases, which were machined and polished on a lathe as well as 11 objects from Matt Beall’s collection. The ‘IMPRECISE’ class includes 11 objects from Matt Beall’s collection and the two contemporary replica vases made using wood, stone, and copper tools consistent with the technology available to the ancient Egyptians according to academic science. ie (Olga's vases).

In other words, the ‘PRECISE’ class appears to be consistent with machining, whereas the ‘IMPRECISE’ class appears to be consistent with manual labor.

I must point out that Olga Vdovina made the vase ‘O1’ using a plastic rotary table supported by a ball bearing to control the outer surface accuracy through rotation by painting the elevated spots with a sharpie marker – Fig. 29.

The use of modern technology in making the ‘O1’ vase represented a significant deviation from the initial objective of antropogenez.ru to use only the tools available to the ancient Egyptians. Nevertheless, both vases are classified as ‘IMPRECISE’ according to the proposed quality metric, despite the impressive outer surface circularity of ‘O1’ on only 5 thousandths of an inch. This remarkable circularity was achieved due to the use of the ball-bearing supported rotary table, which is a contemporary piece of technology that was not available to the ancient Egyptians.

Astonishing Precision of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study

Support The Research Do you want to know the truth about our past? Fuel the research. Your participation matters and makes the difference. Download Paper For complete details, download my paper: Pr…

maximus.energy

So really in Olga making use of a bit of modern tech she has indirectly supported that it takes the addition of tech to achieve the precision we see in the vases and not unaided hands.

That what I posted suggested that they had inherited them from someone.

Yes but when you consider that if say Djoser inherited them artound 2650BC then thats saying they were made before this date. Some are dated around 3500BC or earlier.

As I said the culture they were found in has nothing like the level of tech to produce these vases. Everything about them is Neolithic. The potters wheel had not been introduced let alone the lathe.

The question is how could such high quality and precise vases be inherited from a Neolithic time that does not display such levels of tech. You could understand possible when the potters wheel came along or like the bent stick and bow drill methods came along that next level vases could be produced from the coil method or some very rudimentary grinding.

But without a mechanism like a lathe I think the level of precision is to the micro level is impossible. You can argue its artistry without any aids but this would also be calling on some beyond the norm ability thats almost magical in itself. Like they had radars in their fingers that felt the imperfections. Or a 6th sense that could detect the deviations.

I'm sorry, but I need someone to actually demonstrate the existence of transcendental knowledge in order to try to weave it into my worldview, I find it superfluous.

Ok so that is what this thread is about. You don't believe there is any knowledge to be gained that transcends the empiricle data. It all comes back to physical causes and phenomenal belief and conscious experiences are epiphenomena of the physical causes.

Is that right. Do you think there are at least two main metaphysical beliefs about knowledge and reality. Generally termed the material or naturalism and the transcedent or immaterial or supernatural.

My question was in regards why you thought my post suggested that they had inherited vases from even older times.

Beccause if they are found in say Djosers burial pyramid or Mastaba 17 or in the grave pits and tombs of the Naqada and they inherited them and they did not make them. Then where else did they come from but an earlier time.

They found them or inherited them from someone else that had to at least be contemporary. Inherited means being passed down.

 

[BCP1928]

It relates directly to what you are saying because it cuts through the fallacy being made that because no tech is found that this must then refute that they were made in that time where we can;t find the method. Fullstop.

Your creating a fallacy that because I cannot produce how they were made therefore they must not have been made by that culture in that time.

This is strange logic. The fact is these vases are found in that time with that culture (Naqada) before the potters wheel let alone lathe tech for which the signatures clearly represent. So yes the objects are the objects found in a time where they should not have been found because of the signatures in the objects.

The vases and their signatures which suggests certain tech is a seperate issue to what was the method. We have one set of facts in the signatures and their presense in predynastic times. We have a seperate speculative issue of how they were made.

This thing is the inside bottom of one of the vases found under the Stepped pyramid where many of these precision vases were found. It shows circular machine marks like a vinyl record. A witness mark as to the method they were made. It resembles the circular machine marks on other precision vases.

Except it has good provedence being found in a dig by Petrie. The machine marks also match the machine marks in the image above it from a vase fragment from under a pyramid from predynastic Egypt. These machine marks are also found on several vases including those from the Petrie musum where some of the insides were not polished completely and left these witness marks of modern machining.

But at least you recognise the signatures is like modern tech and impossible to be caused by ancient tech. This is all I am doing. I am recognising the same witness marks except I am saying these are not fakes.

The other witness marks like circular and planing cuts I have shown are not fakes and found directly on the ancient works. No modern day person came along and made modern cuts in these works.

Yes they do. You just acknowledge that the witness marks of modern machining were impossible for the ancients and must be a modern fake. The signatures spoke for themselves that you reacted that this was impossible. You did not need anything else to come to that conclusion.

Actually I don't think you understand whats going on really. Look at the videos of the experiments. Just like I asked you to look at the live tests on precision vases.

They state over and over again that they are comparing the signatures to the Egyptian works found to prove that this can be achieved by the orthodox methods.

I know but I am pointing out how the skeptics think and how they expect unreal criteria for those who propose any alternative knowledge. You are doing the same but in a different way. Like with the 'artist' as the go to explanation for everything.

A coverall explanation given almost supernatural abilities which explain what would otherwise be considered impossible.

But how does the hand held devices like a chisel or a pounder or box drill achieve such precision. If we have to calibrate out equipment to measure down to the precision in these vases then how did they achieve this. Was it guesswork, luck. Maybe one vase but not many.

Ok so your acknowledging that the times you were attacking these metrologists and engineers as whackos you actually did know understand the expertise that was involved. You were just attacking them because of what the readings were saying and what they said about those readings being near impossible to produce with the orthodox methods.

There you go, theres another example of how your deriding these experts and their numbers. The numbers speak for themselves. None of these experts have said anything about aliens, gods, or some supernatural power coming from the clouds or whatever. This is your every time and over and over again making it so lol.

Obviously the provedence. But also by testing more and more vases until it gets to the point that skeptics cannot deny and use the idea that they are fake. Unless they want to start claiming all the vases in museums are fakes and those with provedence going back to Petries and other digs ect.

Yes so thats why more data is needed. But I think it has already been established. Some vases come directly from digs such as Petries. Some have been scanned on site under Mastaba 17 and the Stepped pyramid. Others have carbon dating to 3,500BC and still others have provedence as early as the 1800's. But admittedly the more the better to shut the skeptics down.

But as I mentioned the fixation on the vases overlooks the many, many other signatures and out of place works that suggest advanced tech and knowledge. Altogether this makes a strong case for ancient advanced tech and knowledge.

Thats because what I am saying is going over your head. I am not just retalking about the "blind tests". Once again I am using that example like other examples of how skeptics demand unreal criteria when alternative ideas that are contrary to their worldview are proposed. Yet will not place the same criteria on themselves or on the expectation of the evidence required. Its been happening all through this thread.

Once again I am not talking about that special test or any particular requirement. Rather its the unreal and inconsistent requirements being made by skeptics. In your case it is demanding peer review and certain criteria. While presenting support or making claims without the same level of criteria. By assuming and rideculing anyone including scientists or experts in their fields as whackos.

I am using the other posters example of unreal expectations along with your own to show how generally this is the double standard and hypocracy of the skeptics.

Ah they already did and that was part of it. This shows you did not bother to even investigate and dismissed this out of hand as psudeoscience.

Lol you don't like it. It seems ok for the Scientists against Myths or the many experiments such as those from Robert Stocks sweating away in the Ciro sun trying to saw granite blocks and declaring "see it can be done" lol.

I think its good that they open up the actual testing process to the public. To anyone who wants to download the STL files and do their own research. Its gathering momentum and more experts are coming in. Its actually led to further testing and discoveries.

And it is clearly not some over the weekend and backyard testing like we see from skeptics like Science against Myth. Yet their backyard experiements over the weekend are quite acceptable to skeptics.

This is ongoing science, calibration is done and recorded for you to see. Its been repeated many times by independent testers. It shows that you are biased in relegating all this work to "some over-the-weekend quick hack job".

Thats because your biased and clearly wrong. You have acknowledged the signatures are real and your are seeing the same thing the tests are showing. You just think they are frauds.

Others have acknowledge the signatures in the fact that some sort of lathe was used. They just don't accept that the vases that have these signatures are from the predynastic time they are being attributed to. Or they want to argue red herrings about small detail that does not change the fact that these vases have modern maching marks on them.

And I have clearly showed that this precision in the vases and other works was well recognised going back 100 years. They just did not do and further tests like today. Like everything we are looking closer at Egyptian history. More independent researchers are out there in the field. The gatekeepers no longer have the keys lol and we are hearing more about these amazing works in more detail.

Yes I agree there are the fringe loonies but you are relegating everyone to that box. Many of these researchers are doing good science. This shows that you are more or less being the opposite 'thought leader' except pushing false narratives that tar everyone as whackos for simply suggesting such ideas.

This idea of "we tried" to save you from the delusion idea is itself exactly what you are accusing me of. That just suggesting such alternative ideas and knowledge is something you need to help people get away from lol. That its not the proper way to think.

I would imagine if we were on a Christian tops like the resurrection of Christs body defying physics you would be also trying to rescue people from such deluded thinking and beliefs. Thats why you are here on a social platform and not a science one and defending the true knowledge isnt it. Helping people be enlightened lol.

Lol that form was taken from the very first pages. There was no gentle leading. It was whackos from the start lol. Then it was name calling like how can you be so stupid or ignorant followed in between with its psudoscience I tell you, Dunn is a Quack I tell you. Then I post evidence from guess what "PEER REVIEWED science and we can here crickets lol.

This is not some gentle and neutral leading. This is narrative based on your own worldview belief that is once again being pushed onto those who have alternative worldview that are open to alternative ways of knowling like God, like miracles, like supernatural stuff. You know the stuff you automatically relegate as whacko.

Am I clear enough now lol. This has never been about facts, objective reality and being neutral and open. This has been about epistemic superiority and dogma. Which ironically is exactly what the OP is about. Your only prove the OP lol.

There you go again. Slipping in the word "cult" is part of creating the narrative that its all whacko and psuedoscience. But thats your worldview assumption and belief. You only accept certain findings and the tests that go ith them If the findings support your worldview then there little scrutiny of the testing. If it doesn't then every little step is scrutinised and rideculed. Thats how it works.

In this case you find it boring. You admit you are not a metrologist or engineer. But this is still science so its interesting to those who are metrologists. Its interesting for anyone who wants to see what the scientists do and watch their tests. Its interesting for anyone who is into Egyptian history and their amazing works.

But you rtelegate this as boiring . Thats ok thats your opinion, But its the relegating it as "Boring" as a way to argue that its nothing and meaningless that is the problem. You are using that to deminish and even ridecule the way others see this as real science and important.

Which goes back to what I said above how this is not science itself but imposing your worldview and opinion over others as though you hold the epistemic and metaphysical truths.

There you go. You just confirmed once again what I am saying lol. That some how these tests and researchers are not real and just psuedoscience and not doing things the right way. While I might add that skeptics on this thread are quite happy to offer their own unqualified and unsupported opinion via the same level of testing and analysis that these so called whackos are doing.

Generally we copuld say that there are two sides to this issue of vases. One is myself who has at least offered links to many iondependent tests and analysis whether right or wrong. On the other hand all I have seen from skeptics is complaints and unsupported claims that this is all whacko.

Hypocrical and double standards.

OK, so you are finally out with it. We don't agree with your goofy and ill-informed conclusions about ancient Eguptian technology because we're atheists. You don't know the full extent of ancient Egyptian technology. None of us does. In particular, we know almost nothing about their metrology, which would be key to determining their capacity to do precision work. You not only do not know the full extent of ancient Egyptian technology, you are almost entirely ignorant about how the technology we do know about was applied. Your assertions that it must have been such and such modern technology is goofy and ill-informed. One does not have to have a "materialist world view" to reject it on that basis.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Yes the OG vase was the original that has really started all this. But it wasn't about the precision and geometry in the vase. At least for the Phi and Pi and the circularity and flatness and all that. It was because of its provedence.

So where is the provenance of the OG vase detailed? The link I just gave you from unsigned.io seems to say that it is a modern replica or have been worked on in modern times.

The researcher did not perform the metrology but rather was making mathmatical analysis of the vase looking for geometry and shapes in the vase. They were qualifying that they had made these findings based on the vase being proved with good provedence which had not been verified.

But this is a case of authenticity and not disputing the precision in the vase. It is because these vases are measuring so precise or maths is being found in what is suppose to be too early for such tech that the provedence becomes important. Because the obvious objection is they are fakes because it is impossible to have such tech so early.

From memory and I might be getting him mixed up with Adam Young another private collector. But Matt Beall's collection was housed at the Petrie museum and 11 of his 22 vases fell into the precise class and I think two were better than modern CNC machining.

But definitely Olga' vases fell into the imprecise class and were something like 10 times less precise. It was also noted that Olga's best vase had been aided by a spinning wheel and ball bearing for stability to achieve such good circularity. But the inside was no where near in the ball park as these Egyptian vases.

The ‘PRECISE’ class includes modern stone vases, which were machined and polished on a lathe as well as 11 objects from Matt Beall’s collection. The ‘IMPRECISE’ class includes 11 objects from Matt Beall’s collection and the two contemporary replica vases made using wood, stone, and copper tools consistent with the technology available to the ancient Egyptians according to academic science. ie (Olga's vases).

In other words, the ‘PRECISE’ class appears to be consistent with machining, whereas the ‘IMPRECISE’ class appears to be consistent with manual labor.

I must point out that Olga Vdovina made the vase ‘O1’ using a plastic rotary table supported by a ball bearing to control the outer surface accuracy through rotation by painting the elevated spots with a sharpie marker – Fig. 29.

The use of modern technology in making the ‘O1’ vase represented a significant deviation from the initial objective of antropogenez.ru to use only the tools available to the ancient Egyptians. Nevertheless, both vases are classified as ‘IMPRECISE’ according to the proposed quality metric, despite the impressive outer surface circularity of ‘O1’ on only 5 thousandths of an inch. This remarkable circularity was achieved due to the use of the ball-bearing supported rotary table, which is a contemporary piece of technology that was not available to the ancient Egyptians.

Astonishing Precision of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study

Support The Research Do you want to know the truth about our past? Fuel the research. Your participation matters and makes the difference. Download Paper For complete details, download my paper: Pr…

maximus.energy

So really in Olga making use of a bit of modern tech she has indirectly supported that it takes the addition of tech to achieve the precision we see in the vases and not unaided hands.

Yes but when you consider that if say Djoser inherited them artound 2650BC then thats saying they were made before this date. Some are dated around 3500BC or earlier.

As I said the culture they were found in has nothing like the level of tech to produce these vases. Everything about them is Neolithic. The potters wheel had not been introduced let alone the lathe.

The question is how could such high quality and precise vases be inherited from a Neolithic time that does not display such levels of tech. You could understand possible when the potters wheel came along or like the bent stick and bow drill methods came along that next level vases could be produced from the coil method or some very rudimentary grinding.

But without a mechanism like a lathe I think the level of precision is to the micro level is impossible. You can argue its artistry without any aids but this would also be calling on some beyond the norm ability thats almost magical in itself. Like they had radars in their fingers that felt the imperfections. Or a 6th sense that could detect the deviations.

Ok so that is what this thread is about. You don't believe there is any knowledge to be gained that transcends the empiricle data. It all comes back to physical causes and phenomenal belief and conscious experiences are epiphenomena of the physical causes.

Is that right. Do you think there are at least two main metaphysical beliefs about knowledge and reality. Generally termed the material or naturalism and the transcedent or immaterial or supernatural.

I've never seen the benefit of using anything more than methodological naturalism in order to describe the world. Adding a transcendental or supernatural layer just pushes the question back beyond what is observable, it doesn't provide actual information.

Beccause if they are found in say Djosers burial pyramid or Mastaba 17 or in the grave pits and tombs of the Naqada and they inherited them and they did not make them. Then where else did they come from but an earlier time.

They found them or inherited them from someone else that had to at least be contemporary. Inherited means being passed down.

I don't believe that the Naqada vases from the Petrie collection are connected to Matt Beall's vases, are they (especially V18)? From what I could read the Petrie vases are not in the precise class, they are in the same class as Olgas vases. Positing more complex manufacturing methods than we can positively prove adds no extra information. I've never said that they are inherited from someone, I believe they were made during the Naqada period.