There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[sjastro]

I mean technically I am claiming noting myself. I am arguing for the data linked and that it is what it claims. Others that want to refute that would need to do like me and find some sort of published work or do it themselves and publish it.

If we did like you we would be engaging in the most blatant form of confirmation bias.
It clearly obvious you are incapable of addressing the counterarguments or even the evidence presented, your idea of a rebuttal is to ignore everything and double down on your assertions.

Instead of blurting out the same nonsense repeatably of certain vases having near perfect symmetry, circularity and concentricity using amateur software why is a very different picture painted when professional metrology software is used on the OG vase.

​

Using the STL file for vase OG from the unchartedX site and running it using the code as described in post#573 (the Thinwall STL file analysed is probably not the Vase OG) the result is even worse.

Is the result of 0.842 mm consistent with the surface irregularities of the ZEISS surface deviation heatmaps analysed scan making the Artifact foundation value of 0.027 mm unrealistic, yes it does.

---

Your Numerical Results​

Metric​	Value (mm)​	Equivalent (µm)​	Meaning​
Median circularity RMS​	0.6737​	673.7 µm​	Average deviation of each slice from a perfect circle​
Median concentricity RMS​	1.0533​	1053.3 µm​	Average deviation of slice centers from a common vertical axis​
Combined √(C×C)​	0.8424​	842 µm​	Overall symmetry quality factor​

---

Interpretation of the Numbers​

1. Circularity RMS (0.67 mm ≈ 670 µm)​

That’s an order of magnitude larger than the deviations seen in your ZEISS maps (±100 µm).
This tells us your 3D slice-based method measures global shape distortion, not just local surface roughness.

• ZEISS color maps show local surface waviness or unevenness — small undulations on an otherwise smooth wall.
• The Python analysis captures cross-sectional shape error: i.e., how far each full slice is from an ideal circular cross-section.

So, both are consistent but measure different geometric scales:

• ZEISS: fine surface topology (tens of µm)
• Your script: macroform geometry (hundreds of µm)

---

2. Concentricity RMS (1.05 mm ≈ 1,050 µm)​

This shows the vase’s slice centers wobble about ±1 mm from a single axis.
That’s a large misalignment for precision engineering — but very typical for hand-formed or unevenly spun pottery.


On the heatmaps, you can see this indirectly:

• The color pattern shifts slightly up one side and down the opposite side.
• That indicates the profile isn’t vertically symmetric; one half bulges more than the other.
• A 1 mm drift in cross-section centers perfectly explains this appearance.

---

3. Combined Metric (P = 0.842 mm)​

This represents overall geometric imperfection magnitude.
Values near 0.1–0.2 mm would suggest near-machined precision;
0.8 mm implies noticeable asymmetry — consistent with the visible color imbalance and nonuniform deformation in the ZEISS maps.

---

Consistency with Heatmaps​

Observation from Heatmap​	Corresponding Numeric Evidence​	Interpretation​
Deviations up to ±100 µm​	Circularity RMS = 670 µm​	Local vs global scale difference — same asymmetry source​
Non-mirrored bulges and distortions​	Concentricity RMS = 1.05 mm​	Axis misalignment of similar magnitude​
Uneven color zones at neck/base​	High RMS values​	Consistent with shape drift and non-uniform curvature​
General green with red/blue streaks​	0.8 mm overall P value​	Sub-millimeter irregularity confirmed​

✅ Conclusion:
Yes — your numerical results and ZEISS heatmaps are consistent when interpreted in scale context:

• ZEISS captures fine surface deviation (~0.1 mm).
• Your code captures macro shape deviation (~1 mm).
  Both point to the same underlying geometry:
  → A hand-formed or low-precision rotationally guided vase, not a lathe-perfect one.

---

​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ah they claim to be representing them as 'real science' lol by tarring these tests and researchers as whacko. There are plenty of articles mentioning how mainstream archeologists are biased against such alternative ideas. Of even measuring for precision in vases as a useless enterprise as they already know how these works were made.

Are you a mind reader now?

The archaeologist fighting claims about an advanced lost civilisation

The archaeologist fighting claims about an advanced lost civilisation

Netflix’s Ancient Apocalypse peddles the idea that we have overlooked an extraordinary ancient civilisation. Flint Dibble explains why that is wrong, and why real archaeology is more exciting

www.newscientist.com

The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) wrote a strongly worded letter to Netflix (https://tinyurl.com/bdfnetrw) demanding that the show be described as “science fiction” rather than a documentary and reiterated most of the negative comments about the show flying across the internet at the time. Mainstream experts on the archaeology of the sites described in the series or the geological context of the Younger Drayas have since offered pointed critiques of Hancock’s assertions (e.g., https://tinyurl.com/yt44yheu).
https://documents.saa.org/container/docs/default-source/doc-governmentaffairs/saa-letter-ancient-apocalypse.pdf?sfvrsn=38d28254_3

Here's a lovely quote from the letter to a psuedoscience TV production company:

The assertions Hancock makes have a history of promoting dangerous racist thinking. His claim​

for an advanced, global civilization that existed during the Ice Age and was destroyed by comets​

is not new. This theory has been presented, debated, and refuted for at least 140 years. It dates to ​

the publication of Atlantis: The Antediluvian World (1882) and Ragnarok: The Age of Ice and​

Gravel (1883) by Minnesota congressman Ignatius Donnelly. This theory steals credit for​

Indigenous accomplishments from Indigenous peoples and reinforces white supremacy. From​

Donnelly to Hancock, proponents of this theory have suggested that white survivors of this​

advanced civilization were responsible for the cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples in the​

Americas and around the world. However, the narratives on which claims of “white saviors” are​

based have been demonstrated to be ones modified by Spanish conquistadors and colonial​

authorities for their own benefit. These were subsequently used to promote violent white​

supremacy. Hancock’s narrative emboldens extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological​

knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic,​

chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic.​

(As I tried several times to tell you.)

Any papers done on such advanced tech and knowledge would be immediated rejected and not even allowed to be published by any mainstream archeological journal lol. So all this insistence on peer review by the very gatekeeper skeptics is impossible anyway. So just deal with the evidence directly from the testers and the platforms with the results.

Which is not how peer review works. This is just you miming your ancient-tech "friends" and jumping to a persecution narrative. Evidence Steve, they want EVIDENCE. Instead what you get from your preferred sources is a jumping to conclusions about the past and not a careful consideration and evaluation of alternative explanations.

This is what they said about Climate change and Quantum physics and other ideas and they ended up being true.

Stick to the current things you don't understand and don't go cracking open another bag of things you don't understand. Neither of the claims in the previous sentence is correct. (Considering that this is the centennial of QM, there should be plenty of good history of science presentations about the development of it.)

[HB actual muttering to himself... QM not accepted ... SMH ... mutter mutter mutter.]

 

[stevevw]

Better question:

What do you think "machine tools" refers to?

In the case of the vases machine lathing of some sort. At that level of tech which is said toi be beyoond unaided hands, copper chisels and pounders. Or the rudimentary methods of the Bore or Bow drill method.

As the articles note there are classes of precision that have certain tolerances which go beyond handmade and into machines being the defining factor that achieves the high level precision. The higher the precision the more complex the machine. Going up to precision tooling such as with NASA.

 

[stevevw]

Are you a mind reader now?

No, you just have to do a bit of research and its there. Like what you and others are doing in calling all this whacko and pseudoscience. Same thing just a bigger version lol. I just linked a couple of mainstream articles from science talking about this.

Here's a lovely quote from the letter to a psuedoscience TV production company:

The assertions Hancock makes have a history of promoting dangerous racist thinking. His claim​

for an advanced, global civilization that existed during the Ice Age and was destroyed by comets​

is not new. This theory has been presented, debated, and refuted for at least 140 years.​

No it has not. This is a rediculous claim in that new dicoveries are happening all the time so the arguements made 140 years ago have been refuted and many things they said were whacko have in fact been verified. But just the idea that the skeptics have been right for 140 years is an outragous claim lol.

It dates to the publication of Atlantis: The Antediluvian World (1882) and Ragnarok: The Age of Ice and​

Gravel (1883) by Minnesota congressman Ignatius Donnelly. This theory steals credit for​

Indigenous accomplishments from Indigenous peoples and reinforces white supremacy. ​

How rediculois. If we are going to play identity politics and inject what is basically subjective beliefs as explanations or evidence to refute those who are presenting the plain cold hard data. Really is thatwhat your doing. I theres been a number of logical fallacies. But using subjective identity policis in science and objective reality is itself as whacko as you say Dunn and Hancock are lol.

I can play that game as well. The very idea that suggesting past cultures had advanced knowledge is racist in itself racist. Because it is denying that these ancient cultures were just as or more advanced than the elitist scientists trying to impose their western epistemic dogma on other cultures.

Just like they did when they came to their lands and denied the practice of their indigenous knowledge which is now mostly lost as a result. This is exactly the same racist and colonialist idea as has been imposed for centuries now. Give me a break lol.

From​

Donnelly to Hancock, proponents of this theory have suggested that white survivors of this​

advanced civilization were responsible for the cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples in the​

Americas and around the world. However, the narratives on which claims of “white saviors” are​

based have been demonstrated to be ones modified by Spanish conquistadors and colonial​

authorities for their own benefit. These were subsequently used to promote violent white​

supremacy. Hancock’s narrative emboldens extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological​

knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic,​

chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic.​

(As I tried several times to tell you.)

Man I don't even want to read the rest. Its just more fallacies, this time back to ad hominems.

Which is not how peer review works. This is just you miming your ancient-tech "friends" and jumping to a persecution narrative.

Or its actually pointing out a fact. That there is bias and gatekeeping of maintain the current narratives. Against ideas that conflict with consensus. This is a proven phenomena across all areas of science. Don't pretent its all pure and the holy grail of truth knowledge.

Evidence Steve, they want EVIDENCE. Instead what you get from your preferred sources is a jumping to conclusions about the past and not a careful consideration and evaluation of alternative explanations.

THis is another logical fallacy. I have already show that you were wrong about Dunn. I have said this 5 times now and you ignore it because its an inconvenient truth.

Likewise the out of place works such as the precision vases are gaining support and are factual data. Now jumping to conclusions. I have not begun to show you the clear evidence that will put this skeptism to bed. If you can handle it. Because you can't keep using these logical fallacies of fakes and poor science ect. Theres just too much evidence now.

Stick to the current things you don't understand and don't go cracking open another bag of things you don't understand. Neither of the claims in the previous sentence is correct. (Considering that this is the centennial of QM, there should be plenty of good history of science presentations about the development of it.)

When these ideas were first coming out they were regarded as unreal and crazy. For climate change it was all conspiracy. Now we know its true. I am sticking to the topic.

I am just using an example of how some alternative ideas in science were first regarded as crazy or pseudoscience. In fact consciousness beyond brain is considered whackery right now. Yet more and more mainstream science is proposing such ideas. That would have been considered whacko 30 or 60 years ago.

[HB actual muttering to himself... QM not accepted ... SMH ... mutter mutter mutter.]

Come on open up and entertain alternative ways of thinking lol. It doesn't hurt. You won't get sucked down some worm hole lol.

Top 10 Crazy Scientific Theories That Were Proven RIGHT

 

[Hans Blaster]

In the case of the vases machine lathing of some sort. At that level of tech which is said toi be beyoond unaided hands, copper chisels and pounders. Or the rudimentary methods of the Bore or Bow drill method.

As the articles note there are classes of precision that have certain tolerances which go beyond handmade and into machines being the defining factor that achieves the high level precision. The higher the precision the more complex the machine. Going up to precision tooling such as with NASA.

Does it imply a power source?

 

[BCP1928]

What are manual machine tools. Is that where they manually guide the cutter as opposed to automated.

The cutting tool in a lathe is positioned by leadscrews. In a manual lathe, the ends of the leadscrews are provided with handwheels fitted with graduated collars so the operator can position the tool. A skilled operator with a good machine can maintain +/- 0.0001" A CNC much the same, but in a CNC machine the handwheels are replaced by electric motors controlled by a digital computer which the operator programs.

Do the researchers in doing the tests know more than you.

I have no idea what they know. Since they seem to be academics, they probably have some theoretical understanding of the situation, but they will not know as much about it as somebody who actually cuts stone for a living.

 

[stevevw]

The cutting tool in a lathe is positioned by leadscrews. In a manual lathe, the ends of the leadscrews are provided with handwheels fitted with graduated collars so the operator can position the tool. A skilled operator with a good machine can maintain +/- 0.0001" A CNC much the same, but in a CNC machine the handwheels are replaced by electric motors controlled by a digital computer which the operator programs.

Ok I understand what you mean. But even in a manual lathe its really not a manual lathe in that an unaided hand with a cutting tool or grinding stone being held and doing the cutting. Where the unaided hand can move and apply varying pressure. That cannot be fixed or set to cut certain lines or symmetry. But is free form and can deviate all over the place.

Either way whether manual lathing or CNC the cutter is being fixed in position or guided by computers to cut certain lines and not deviate. The tech is achieving the precision and not the freehand of the craftsman. The greater the precision the greater the tech involved. Basic lathes or the 50s won't be as tight and streamlined as modern lathes. Which wont be as precision as CNC for precision tooling like Nasa.

Some vases fall into the high precision on par with modern machining such as CNC.

I have no idea what they know. Since they seem to be academics, they probably have some theoretical understanding of the situation, but they will not know as much about it as somebody who actually cuts stone for a living.

There are different ways of knowing lol which is sort of the point of the thread. A metrologist or engineer will see these vases different to an archeologists or stone mason.

There is a well known stone mason on the research team Yousef Awyan. He is the son of Abd'El Hakim Awyan well known for his knowledge of Egyptian heritage and practices. Even he says that this was impossible for the traditional tools and methods. He gives many great insights into Egtptian works.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok I understand what you mean. But even in a manual lathe its really not a manual lathe in that an unaided hand with a cutting tool or grinding stone being held and doing the cutting. Where the unaided hand can move and apply varying pressure. That cannot be fixed or set to cut certain lines or symmetry. But is free form and can deviate all over the place.

Either way whether manual lathing or CNC the cutter is being fixed in position or guided by computers to cut certain lines and not deviate. The tech is achieving the precision and not the freehand of the craftsman. The greater the precision the greater the tech involved. Basic lathes or the 50s won't be as tight and streamlined as modern lathes. Which wont be as precision as CNC for precision tooling like Nasa.

In that case what you have to do is take light cuts and measure frequently. In the case you are describing, working to high precision on an old used lathe from the 50s' (and you can believe I've done plenty of that) will likely require hand finishing to reach the desired degree of precision.

Yes, the free hand of the craftsman whose skill you have to deny in order to pitch some religious woo.

Some vases fall into the high precision on par with modern machining such as CNC.

There are different ways of knowing lol which is sort of the point of the thread. A metrologist or engineer will see these vases different to an archeologists or stone mason.

There is a well known stone mason on the research team Yousef Awyan. Even he says that this was impossible for the traditional tools and methods. He gives many great insights into Egtptian works. Discussing Ancient Egyptian Mysteries with Yousef Awyan ...

How does he propose the work was done?

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, you just have to do a bit of research and its there. Like what you and others are doing in calling all this whacko and pseudoscience. Same thing just a bigger version lol. I just linked a couple of mainstream articles from science talking about this.

What has this to do with the *intents* of the scientists that address the pseudoscience?


Then I quoted a latter *you posted* from the ASA to the producers of Hancock's show. Your reaction was ... well... something. It does appear you do not want to deal with the nature and source of the ideas behind the ideas that you have been expressing throughout this thread. (Though this is at least the most direct response you have given to them after a few prior attempts.)

No it has not. This is a rediculous claim in that new dicoveries are happening all the time so the arguements made 140 years ago have been refuted and many things they said were whacko have in fact been verified. But just the idea that the skeptics have been right for 140 years is an outragous claim lol.

But it has been refuted. Donnelly's "theory" has been challenged from the beginning 140 years ago. It was whack then it is whack now. It was and is built on nothing but fantasy.

How rediculois. If we are going to play identity politics and inject what is basically subjective beliefs as explanations or evidence to refute those who are presenting the plain cold hard data. Really is thatwhat your doing. I theres been a number of logical fallacies. But using subjective identity policis in science and objective reality is itself as whacko as you say Dunn and Hancock are lol.

Should I put "identity politics" on the list of things you don't understand? I think I should. Not everything that mentions race or racism is "identity politics". The mentions from the letter are a discourse on the racist use of Donnelly's theory and a reminder to Hancock et al. what exactly they are playing with.

As for the "cold hard evidence" the ancient Atlantis/aliens people are wrong over and over and over about the actual evidence. This particular passage is about interpretation and social impact of the fanciful ideas, not whether they are refuted or not.

I can play that game as well. The very idea that suggesting past cultures had advanced knowledge is racist in itself racist. Because it is denying that these ancient cultures were just as or more advanced than the elitist scientists trying to impose their western epistemic dogma on other cultures.

It turns out you really can't play that game. You are just arguing against the use of *evidence*.

Just like they did when they came to their lands and denied the practice of their indigenous knowledge which is now mostly lost as a result. This is exactly the same racist and colonialist idea as has been imposed for centuries now. Give me a break lol.

I've grown weary of giving you breaks, Steve. You don't seem to deserve them anymore.

Man I don't even want to read the rest. Its just more fallacies, this time back to ad hominems.

Again, you have demonstrated you don't understand what is meant by "fallacy". (It is also just the end of the quoted section so what you seem to be saying here is "I don't want to go read the whole letter *I* posted." Why is that Steve? Why did you post it if you don't want to read it for what it is and take it into consideration?

Or its actually pointing out a fact. That there is bias and gatekeeping of maintain the current narratives. Against ideas that conflict with consensus. This is a proven phenomena across all areas of science. Don't pretent its all pure and the holy grail of truth knowledge.

We could talk about "gatekeeping", but you are certainly not getting that right either. Any "gatekeeping" is not about *conclusions*, but about *method*. What you have presented is the start of conspiracy and paranoia.

THis is another logical fallacy. I have already show that you were wrong about Dunn. I have said this 5 times now and you ignore it because its an inconvenient truth.

Wanting evidence is not a fallacy, Steve. (For the love of Pete, please learn what fallacies actually are.)

Likewise the out of place works such as the precision vases are gaining support and are factual data. Now jumping to conclusions. I have not begun to show you the clear evidence that will put this skeptism to bed. If you can handle it. Because you can't keep using these logical fallacies of fakes and poor science ect. Theres just too much evidence now.

Your "out of place" works keep ending up being from not the same place. If you can't show that it if from pre-dynastic Egypt then it can say nothing about pre-dynastic Egypt. That's just the way archeology works. It is why what Dunn and Hancock, etc. do is pseudo-archeology, not the real thing.


Now we will take a brief detour into your attempt to label actual sciences as once rejected and crazy. As they say, no on believed Einstein. (No, they don't say that because Einstein's work was very rapidly accepted.)

When these ideas were first coming out they were regarded as unreal and crazy. For climate change it was all conspiracy. Now we know its true. I am sticking to the topic.

Climate change was never a "conspiracy". The prime challenges to it begin *after* it is reasonably established and come from the fossil fuel industry. We have documents from the oil companies about the danger that knowledge of climate change ("global warming" as it was generally called then) by the public and politicians was to their business model of extracting climate changing fossil fuels from the ground. The actions of the industry could be called a "conspiracy" though they did most of it in the open. (Some they hid like funding contrarian researchers/institutes and certainly their internal reports that "GW was real".)

QM which you have wisely not responded on from your original claim, was widely accepted from the beginning *BECAUSE IT WORKED*. This is the centennial of Schrödinger's wave equation. It was part of a prime focus of theoretical physics to understand the structure of atoms and their quantized spectra. QM very rapidly solved all sorts of outstanding problems in physics. (QM may be strange, but it may be the worst "example" you could have possibly chosen.)

I am just using an example of how some alternative ideas in science were first regarded as crazy or pseudoscience. In fact consciousness beyond brain is considered whackery right now. Yet more and more mainstream science is proposing such ideas. That would have been considered whacko 30 or 60 years ago.

SMH. Not this again.

Come on open up and entertain alternative ways of thinking lol. It doesn't hurt. You won't get sucked down some worm hole lol.

One should not be so open minded that their brains fall out.

 

[stevevw]

Does it imply a power source?

No, not really. Just what the signatures or marks indicate as to what may have caused them. Obviously whatever it is if its like a lathe that spins I guess it has to have some power to make it turn. To cut through granite and diorite it would have to either spin fast and/or have great stability to apply pressure to cut into granite and not move.

Petrie mentioned the rotation may not have been fast but could eat into the granite with each turn as though tremendous pressure was applied. Some have suggested a large horizontal wheel with belts that rotated the work. Or the cutter. How it was powered I don't know.

Or like I mentioned it could be that they somehow could soften hard stone that conventional tools could cut and shape it.

 

[stevevw]

In that case what you have to do is take light cuts and measure frequently. In the case you are describing, working to high precision on an old used lathe from the 50s' (and you can believe I've done plenty of that) will likely require hand finishing to reach the desired degree of precision.

Yes, the free hand of the craftsman whose skill you have to deny in order to pitch some religious woo.

lol. You just used tech to show how the craftman could achieve the precision in the first place and now you want to object to me saying the tech may have been the whole job lol.

Its making the idea that some back street forger was lathing and then rubbing away for weeks to get the high precision just to fake a vase. Its getting more rediculous. Why would they go to such hassel and time to fake a vase they could just not bother with all the precision to near perfect. Just lathe it and if its in the imprecise range it doesn't matter as no one is checking or worried about it.

Besides how can a craftman hand rub a shape or surface into micron precision when they cannot possible see at that level to know they were spot on with their rubbing. It would surely have to be by naked eye or feel and therefore a guess.

How does he propose the work was done?

He does not know. He has some ideas but they are spectulative. As is all attempts. He mentions something along the lines of stone softening. Something to do with the constitutions of different stones and how they can react to each other. There is evidence for stone softening in other cultures like in Peru for example.

But I don't know its all spectualtion. All we can do is look at the signatures and collect more data until a clear understanding. For example other tests for metals in the stones such as from copper tools have been done and there has been no copper found in tool marks on vases. Which seems strange. But titaniam has been found. How weird is that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, not really. Just what the signatures or marks indicate as to what may have caused them. Obviously whatever it is if its like a lathe that spins I guess it has to have some power to make it turn.

OK that is good to know. Sometimes it is hard to tell if you are conflating modern devices with ancient ones in your terminology.

To cut through granite and diorite it would have to either spin fast and/or have great stability to apply pressure to cut into granite and not move.

Copper and flint drills have been clearly demonstrated as to their functionality.

Petrie mentioned the rotation may not have been fast but could eat into the granite with each turn as though tremendous pressure was applied. Some have suggested a large horizontal wheel with belts that rotated the work. Or the cutter. How it was powered I don't know.

"tremendous pressure" is not required. (See copper drills)

Or like I mentioned it could be that they somehow could soften hard stone that conventional tools could cut and shape it.

That's not realistic.

 

[BCP1928]

lol. You just used tech to show how the craftman could achieve the precision in the first place and now you want to object to me saying the tech may have been the whole job lol.

Its making the idea that some back street forger was lathing and then rubbing away for weeks to get the high precision just to fake a vase. Its getting more rediculous. Why would they go to such hassel and time to fake a vase they could just not bother with all the precision to near perfect. Just lathe it and if its in the imprecise range it doesn't matter as no one is checking or worried about it.

Besides how can a craftman hand rub a shape or surface into micron precision when they cannot possible see at that level to know they were spot on with their rubbing. It would surely have to be by naked eye or feel and therefore a guess.

Why? Does measurement of the work as the craftsman proceeds require more skill than you will allow someone who is not a product of anglo-Protestant culture?

He does not know. He has some ideas but they are spectulative. As is all attempts. He mentions something along the lines of stone softening. Something to do with the constitutions of different stones and how they can react to each other. There is evidence for stone softening in other cultures like in Peru for example.

But I don't know its all spectualtion. All we can do is look at the signatures and collect more data until a clear understanding. For example other tests for metals in the stones such as from copper tools have been done and there has been no copper found in tool marks on vases. Which seems strange. But titaniam has been found. How weird is that.

Yes, it's all speculation. But depite that, you know for sure that whatever methods or tools were used they could not achieve the results observed if they relied on the skill of the individual craftsmen.