There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

An appropriate measuring device. Maybe you should learn about them and determine which ones might have been available to ancient Egyptian craftsmen.

I don't think there is any that the ancients could have used. Certainly not to the micron level. That takes modern tech like a guage sensor or structured light. You can't do it with a ruler. You keep forgetting that the precision lines have to be cut into the object. Measuring is one thing. Cutting to that precision is another.

Now you're beginning to catch on.

And tell me again what was the measuring tool that could be used to know when to stop rubbing. Why grind, rub and repeat 100 times when one or two passes with the lathe will get the symmetry down to the micron level. Thats how we normally do it.

Because they didn't have it, they had to do without.

How do you know. This is denying their ability as ancient craftsman lol. Being creative with tech is just as creative. If someone found a vase from modern CNC machining in 5,000 years they would think this culture was very talented.

That's a bare-face lie and you know it.

Actually its not as it uses the exact same logic as yourself. You object that I am denying the craftsmanship of ancients by suggesting they had modern type tech that helped them achieve the precision. Rather than their unaided freehands as an artist in sculpturing the vase.

Yet you are quite happy to allow that these ancients used other tools like chisels, grinders and some sort of wheel or lathe. The majority of people on this thread acknowledge that the symmetry and circularity in the vases was achieved by some sort of lathing or wheel.

This is the same thing as I am doing except I am taking it one step further and saying they had tools just like you say but just more sophisticated tools to achieve the high precision.

How is this different.

All part of the craft of using hand tools, then and now.

Are you saying that the hand tools such as a chisel, pounders and rubbing achieved the near perfect symmetry and circularity. Or did they get help from some sort of lathe or wheel to ensure circularity.

No, I don't see any logic. What I do see is a dishonest attempt to win an argument by constantly shifting your assertions about what constitutes "tech."

The assertions is exactly what it needs to be. Your saying the ancients were aided by tools and measurements to get the precision and not their bare unaided hands without tools. I am saying the same thing. Just making the tools more sophisticated to match the high precision.

Its logical because everyone recognises that precise symmetry and circularity are an obvious result and signature of a lathe and not unaided hands or hands with a chisel and pounding stone. The lathe and not the artists is what gets the precision because thats what lathes do and we recognise this.

The chisel or grinder is what helps get a certain level of shape and precision and not the bare hands. Same thing, the lathing helps get the better shape and precision and not the unaided hands or unguided hands with chisels and pounders in them.

What you want me to believe is that a human can create a precision machine part that we can only achieve with lathe machining but without a lathe or any machining. When its a logical and evidential fact is precise symmetry and circularity is the result of lathing of some sort. But you want to make a special case for these ancients otherwise we are denying the artistry lol.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't think there is any that the ancients could have used. Certainly not to the micron level. That takes modern tech like a guage sensor or structured light. You can't do it with a ruler. You keep forgetting that the precision lines have to be cut into the object. Measuring is one thing. Cutting to that precision is another.

And tell me again what was the measuring tool that could be used to know when to stop rubbing. Why grind, rub and repeat 100 times when one or two passes with the lathe will get the symmetry down to the micron level. Thats how we normally do it.

Right, it saves a lot of work.

How do you know. This is denying their ability as ancient craftsman lol. Being creative with tech is just as creative. If someone found a vase from modern CNC machining in 5,000 years they would think this culture was very talented.

Yes the "culture" but not necessarily the craftsmen themselves. QED, huh?

Actually its not as it uses the exact same logic as yourself. You object that I am denying the craftsmanship of ancients by suggesting they had modern type tech that helped them achieve the precision. Rather than their unaided freehands as an artist in sculpturing the vase.

More lies. No one has suggested that they used nothing but their "unaided freehands."

Yet you are quite happy to allow that these ancients used other tools like chisels, grinders and some sort of wheel or lathe. The majority of people on this thread acknowledge that the symmetry and circularity in the vases was achieved by some sort of lathing or wheel.

More lies. I have never denied that some sort of wheel or lathe might have been used.

This is the same thing as I am doing except I am taking it one step further and saying they had tools just like you say but just more sophisticated tools to achieve the high precision.

How is this different.

Because you are downgrading the ability of ancient Egyptian craftsman to use the tools that were known to be used by them or were possibly available to them.

Are you saying that the hand tools such as a chisel, pounders and rubbing achieved the near perfect symmetry and circularity. Or did they get help from some sort of lathe or wheel to ensure circularity.

I don't know. The lathe question is certainly up in the air, though you have denied the possibility of any lathe that would be within the scope of their ability to construct. Their "culture" wasn't good enough for you.

The assertions is exactly what it needs to be. Your saying the ancients were aided by tools and measurements to get the precision and not their bare unaided hands without tools. I am saying the same thing. Just making the tools more sophisticated to match the high precision.

And I am trying to explain to you why that is not necessary.

Its logical because everyone recognises that precise symmetry and circularity are an obvious result and signature of a lathe and not unaided hands. The lathe and not the artists unaided steady hand is what gets the precision.

The chisel or grinder is what helps get the shape and not the bare hands. Same thing, the lathing helps get the better shape and not the bare hands.

You seem fascinated with "bare hands." I would tell you what to do with your "bare hands" but I don't think they would both fit.

 

[BCP1928]

OK, that was mean, and I apologise. so let me try and be more helpful. You will remember that I once explained to you that a common task for an apprentice machinist was to produce a 1” steel cube square and regular to 0.001” all around, using hand tools. The tools are, from left to right, a hacksaw, files, a square, calipers, a calibrated gage block and a vise.

These pictures show modern versions of these tools, of course but they were ALL AVAILABLE TO ANCIENT EGYPTIAN CRAFTSMEN WHO KNEW HOW TO USE THEM whether you like it or not.

 

[sjastro]

@stevevw why do you continue to perpetrate this lie of Egyptian vases being made to near perfect symmetry?
Doubling down on this assertion without reliable evidence is also an exercise in rank stupidity.

At this stage no one knows the answer until an in depth study is performed using ISO 1101 approved metrology software for calculations.

 

[stevevw]

Right, it saves a lot of work.

Then why object to the suggestion that some sort of lathing was involved.

Yes the "culture" but not necessarily the craftsmen themselves. QED, huh?

Ok so we find some precision vases 5,000 years ago and its the culture and not the craftman.

More lies. No one has suggested that they used nothing but their "unaided freehands."

lol you suggested they were using a lathe or wheel. You suggested that a boring bar was used as a lathe to explain the precise synnetry and circularity.

#593
The boring bar is generally used in a lathe, where a lathe is available.

More lies. I have never denied that some sort of wheel or lathe might have been used.

Wait a minute you just literally said above that no one has suggested the ancients use nothing but their unaided hands. Now your saying they used the lathe as an aid to reach the precision.

Because you are downgrading the ability of ancient Egyptian craftsman to use the tools that were known to be used by them or were possibly available to them.

How exactly. How exactly have I said anything different to you. Make up your mind. Did they use a lathe or not. If so your saying exactly what I am saying.

Its not downgrading any craftsmans skill. I am talking about the lathe achieving the near precise symmetry and circularity that everyone recognises is caused by a lathe. Yes they are good craftsman in being able to use a lathe. But its the lathe thats achieving the high precision.

I don't know. The lathe question is certainly up in the air,

You just said you have never denied a lathe being used. You have been explaining how a lathe can answer the question of how the ancients achieved high precision in symmetry and roundness. You said even a 1950's lathe can do this as you have used one lol.

though you have denied the possibility of any lathe that would be within the scope of their ability to construct. Their "culture" wasn't good enough for you.

No this is the consensus opinion of mainstream archeology. The potters wheel and Bore stick did not come along until at least a 1,000 years after the Naqada people.

I deny that they would have had a modern CNC lathe. Obviously as computers and that level of high tech did not come in until late 20th century. But the signatures are the same as modern lathing.

I am actually saying the ancients were smart. I am praising them, highlighting their amazing ability. It is skeptics who are restricting these people to traditional ways and limiting the possibilities.

The ancients themselves claim that they had advanced knowledge that defied convention. If anything I am supporting their culture as I am not denying the possibility of this alternative advanced knowledge.

And I am trying to explain to you why that is not necessary.

Actually you explained why it is necessary. You explained how the near precise symmetry and circularity was produced by lathing. That lathing explains this signature and not unaided hands without lathing and just chisels and pounders.

You seem fascinated with "bare hands." I would tell you what to do with your "bare hands" but I don't think they would both fit.

lol my imagination is making me laugh.

Then after I posted my imagination ran wild lol. I could use my bare hands as you said and pull out a precision vase lol.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw why do you continue to perpetrate this lie of Egyptian vases being made to near perfect symmetry?
Doubling down on this assertion without reliable evidence is also an exercise in rank stupidity.

Its not a lie though. You are complaining about some of the measures that are a little more imprecise. But that those measures like in the widest parts of the vase where there is more room for slight deviations is small fry still. We are talking 2 or 3 thicknesses of a piece of paper lol.

But at the best which in in many more places we are talking a hair or two.

So all the complaining about the so called imprecisement numbers are red herrings as far as whether or not this negates the fact that a lathe was used. We had some saying a 1950's lathe would do that is not as precise as modern machining.

To achieve some of these most precise symmetry, circularility, straightness and flatness down to a hair or two is well recognised as signatures of lathing. The more precise the more sophisticated the lathing as far as fixed and stable machining that will not move or deviate hardly at all.

So in reality its not a matter of whether a lathe was used but how sophisticated it was. Skeptics like to say 'no lathe' and it was all free hand with a few simple tools. Expert machine toolers and engineers doing the tests say the witness marks match modern machining to achieve such near precision.

In fact most on this thread have had to begrudgingly acknowledge some sort of lathing was involved. Even if that was a Bore stick type rotation. I have even linked evidence that mainstream archeology acknowledges that some sort of lathing must have been involved with these precision vases going back 100 years.

So all this objection does not negate that some pretty advanced methods were used at a time when the potters wheel was not even around.

At this stage no one knows the answer until an in depth study is performed using ISO 1101 approved metrology software for calculations.

Give me a break. This was used. Its rediculous that you think somehow the proper software is going to suddenly show that the numbers are wrong in the metrology. Explain how the different software will change the measures in the vase. Change the measure for symmetry or circularity found.

How does this change the guage metrology that finds a hairs deviation in circularity or flatness. How does this change the circularity or concentricity found in the vase by structured light scanning. Do the numbers change somehow with the software.

The testers clearly state that these methods of testing are the 'Industry Standard'. They explain why they used the specific methods and software and why they chose this as being the best method.

Why is it that many have downloaded the files and none have complained like you. Why has absolutely no one formally objected but only you on some social media platform. This is all red herrings. Write a formal paper showing that they are using the wrong methods and send it in.

 

[BCP1928]

Then why object to the suggestion that some sort of lathing was involved.

I don't. But your instance that it must be some "modern" type lathe is baseless.

Ok so we find some precision vases 5,000 years ago and its the culture and not the craftman.

That appears to be what you are trying to prove, yes.

lol you suggested they were using a lathe or wheel. You suggested that a boring bar was used as a lathe to explain the precise synnetry and circularity.

#593
The boring bar is generally used in a lathe, where a lathe is available.

Wait a minute you just literally said above that no one has suggested the ancients use nothing but their unaided hands.

You are the only one suggesting that they used nothing but their unaided hands. I'm not even sure you know what that means.

Now your saying they used the lathe as an aid to reach the precision.

I have no idea what they used. Like you, I'm just speculating.

How exactly. How exactly have I said anything different to you. Make up your mind. Did they use a lathe or not. If so your saying exactly what I am saying.

Its not downgrading any craftsmans skill. I am talking about the lathe achieving the near precise symmetry and circularity that everyone recognises is caused by a lathe. Yes they are good craftsman in being able to use a lathe. But its the lathe thats achieving the high precision.

You just said you have never denied a lathe being used. You have been explaining how a lathe can answer the question of how the ancients achieved high precision in symmetry and roundness. You said even a 1950's lathe can do this as you have used one lol.

So what?

No this is the consensus opinion of mainstream archeology. The potters wheel and Bore stick did not come along until at least a 1,000 years after the Naqada people.

I deny that they would have had a modern CNC lathe. Obviously as computers and that level of high tech did not come in until late 20th century. But the signatures are the same as modern lathing.

I am actually saying the ancients were smart. I am praising them, highlighting their amazing ability. It is skeptics who are restricting these people to traditional ways and limiting the possibilities.

The ancients themselves claim that they had advanced knowledge that defied convention. If anything I am supporting their culture as I am not denying the possibility of this alternative advanced knowledge.

Actually you explained why it is necessary. You explained how the near precise symmetry and circularity was produced by lathing. That lathing explains this signature and not unaided hands without lathing and just chisels and pounders.

lol my imagination is making me laugh.

Then after I posted my imagination ran wild lol. I could use my bare hands as you said and pull out a precision vase lol.

Really, I have lost track of what you are trying to prove by showing that ancient Egyptians used stonecutting lathes.

 

[sjastro]

Its not a lie though. You are complaining about some of the measures that are a little more imprecise. But that those measures like in the widest parts of the vase where there is more room for slight deviations is small fry still. We are talking 2 or 3 thicknesses of a piece of paper lol.

But at the best which in in many more places we are talking a hair or two.

So all the complaining about the so called imprecisement numbers are red herrings as far as whether or not this negates the fact that a lathe was used. We had some saying a 1950's lathe would do that is not as precise as modern machining.

To achieve some of these most precise symmetry, circularility, straightness and flatness down to a hair or two is well recognised as signatures of lathing. The more precise the more sophisticated the lathing as far as fixed and stable machining that will not move or deviate hardly at all.

So in reality its not a matter of whether a lathe was used but how sophisticated it was. Skeptics like to say 'no lathe' and it was all free hand with a few simple tools. Expert machine toolers and engineers doing the tests say the witness marks match modern machining to achieve such near precision.

In fact most on this thread have had to begrudgingly acknowledge some sort of lathing was involved. Even if that was a Bore stick type rotation. I have even linked evidence that mainstream archeology acknowledges that some sort of lathing must have been involved with these precision vases going back 100 years.

So all this objection does not negate that some pretty advanced methods were used at a time when the potters wheel was not even around.

Your cognitive dissonance has apparently affected your understanding of the English language. What part of my post(s) did you not understand where suspect software or its failure to analyse scans as 3D objects which is a given fact, cannot lead to any form of conclusion on how the vases were manufactured?

Give me a break. This was used. Its rediculous that you think somehow the proper software is going to suddenly show that the numbers are wrong in the metrology. Explain how the different software will change the measures in the vase. Change the measure for symmetry or circularity found.

Stop making stupid ignorant comments on subject matters clearly beyond your level of understanding.
ISO 1101 is nothing more than a collection of letters and numbers to you, it defines zonal tolerances for 3D objects which is beyond the scope of the amateur software of Maximus.energy and Artifacts Foundation.

How does this change the guage metrology that finds a hairs deviation in circularity or flatness. How does this change the circularity or concentricity found in the vase by structured light scanning. Do the numbers change somehow with the software.

If you had the necessary comprehension skills, the answer has been given on numerous occasions. Also don't let the facts get in the way when vase data analysed by Polyworks and Zeiss Inspector do not show 'hairs' deviation.

The testers clearly state that these methods of testing are the 'Industry Standard'. They explain why they used the specific methods and software and why they chose this as being the best method.

What a load of BS the software they used is not industry standard.

Why is it that many have downloaded the files and none have complained like you. Why has absolutely no one formally objected but only you on some social media platform. This is all red herrings. Write a formal paper showing that they are using the wrong methods and send it in.

Another concept beyond your level of understanding involves echo chambers. Did it ever occur to you they are preaching to the converted and so why should any doubts be raised?

Since you are presenting their arguments here I'm asking you why did they not use professional approved software in the analysis?

 

[sjastro]

To further illustrate that @stevevw doesn't know what he is talking about, here is the method used by Artifacts Foundation and Maximus.energy for determining circularity.

​

They are both using the method of least squares which is a curve fitting exercise.

By comparison circularity known as roundness in ISO 1101 uses MCZ (minimum circle zone) which is defined as all points fitting inside two concentric circles (Figure 81).

​

Artifacts Foundation and Maximus.energy use a curve fitting method which focuses on average error minimization, not maximum deviation where outliers or extreme values are averaged out.
In the ISO 1100 method all points are handled equally including statistical outliers, furthermore the more circular the cross section the less the radius difference between the concentric circles.

The least square method makes cross sections look more circular compared to MCZ which is used by all professional metrology software conforming to ISO 1101.
Given the near perfect symmetry and circularity nonsense spouted by @stevevw it's not surprising this is the case when amateur software is used.

 

[stevevw]

Your cognitive dissonance has apparently affected your understanding of the English language. What part of my post(s) did you not understand where suspect software or its failure to analyse scans as 3D objects which is a given fact, cannot lead to any form of conclusion on how the vases were manufactured?

Because the vases were analysed as 3D vases. We have several independent tests and 3D analysis has been included. You keep creating red herrings with this false idea that the vases must be analysed by some specific softward or they are wrong. They mention that new methods were created because these vases had no precedence to be able to measure the 3D surfaces.

You keep making out that this obviously and simple error you have created in your own mind makes all the independent tests from several research groups invalid. Yet they all speak in language that these vases have been verified as being 3D precise.

Your single objection is wiping out pages and pages of analysis that clearly contradicts your claim. They speak of industry standards in hardware and softeware for comparison to how they have analysed the software. I think I would rather believe the words spoken by the actual people doing the tests and that it is actually you who are in error.

We 3D Scanned Egypt's Oldest Vases | Micron-Level ...

Introducing Precision Metrology in the Study of Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels

Surface variability (deviations from an idealized smooth surface) has been quantified for each object by comparing 3D scan data to a derived best-fit surface model. This innovative approach eliminates the traditional reliance on CAD models, which are currently the standard for analyzing manufactured parts. The best-fit model is generated by fitting a series of mathematical functions to the 2D profile of the scan data, creating a smooth, continuous surface that mathematically represents the artifact’s actual curvature. By comparing the scanned surface points (yi) to this derived best-fit surface (^y), we can quantify deviations across the entire object.

This process, developed to address limitations in conventional metrology, enables precise, artifact-specific analysis without prior design information.

Arc Scientific

Arc Scientific

arcsci.foundation

The 3D models of CAT scans of the ‘precise’ vases look like CAD models: their symmetry is so perfect that it is difficult to spot any surface profile variability when these models are rotated – Fig. 23-24.
https://maximus.energy/wp-content/u...ptian-Stone-Vessels_-A-Metrological-Study.pdf

If they can rotate a scanned vase in the software in 3D then they can analyse the vase in 3D. Simple as that.

Stop making stupid ignorant comments on subject matters clearly beyond your level of understanding.
ISO 1101 is nothing more than a collection of letters and numbers to you, it defines zonal tolerances for 3D objects which is beyond the scope of the amateur software of Maximus.energy and Artifacts Foundation.

Yes so I figure out that the actual language being used is speaking on the vases in 3D language and not 2D. Your trying to use tech speak and the general laypersons ignorance to fool them with fallacies lol. In the hope that we won't see through your false analogies and misrepresentation of the findings.

I just don't think these researchers are lying when they say they analysed these vases in their 3D forms and not just 2D that it renders pages of anaysis as wrong based on such an obvious and simple error. I think you are mistaken and have not yourself understood their methods and how they incoporated 3D analysis.

From what I understand they more or less created new software to analysis these vases in 3D because they had no recedent to go by as far as precision tooling and machining is concerned. To say that these projects that wanted to use the latest tech in show that these vases are precise would neglect the most obvious measure which would be required to support their precision (3D) metrology and analysis seems too obvious a thing to be missed.

If you had the necessary comprehension skills, the answer has been given on numerous occasions. Also don't let the facts get in the way when vase data analysed by Polyworks and Zeiss Inspector do not show 'hairs' deviation.

But other methods were used as well. Besides exactly what level of deviation would Polyworks and Zeiss inspector show. How can all the research groups with different independent hardware and softeware all come to the same findings of up to hair thickness precision. Its the different methods coming to similar findings that refutes your claim. All the methods cannot be wrong.

Those that are independent and different will lend support for the other methods that find similar precision.

What a load of BS the software they used is not industry standard.

I have your opinion and I have theirs actually in a paper with actual research, tests and analysis published formerly.

Another concept beyond your level of understanding involves echo chambers. Did it ever occur to you they are preaching to the converted and so why should any doubts be raised?

Like I said mainstream archeology recognises the precision and that this is from some sort of lathing or wheel. They even cheat with wheels to try and get similar precision lol. The idea that these vases involve some sort of tech beyond the orthodoxy is mainstream and not just a small group of whackos lol.

Have you ever considered that this 'echo chamber' might also be coming from skeptics and cynnics. The gatekeepers who want to preserve a certain paradigm or worldview about human history and knowledge.

This is just as likely as you claim the conspiracy groups. In fact if we look over the history of science we see that it was actually the ideas that contradicted the consensus and were deemed whacko that ended up becoming the fact. So I would not be too quick to lump those who are open to alternative ideas are in an ech chamber.

Since you are presenting their arguments here I'm asking you why did they not use professional approved software in the analysis?

If you read the articles as I linked part of above they actually address and explain this very point. Hopw about you explain why their methods are not valid. Remembering that this is new software created to analysed these vases.

In other words they are not only preficent in using the standard industry software but they are skilled enough to create new industry standards of software to properly analyse the vases in full 3D form as they are unrecedented objects that required new methods of anaysing. .

 

[stevevw]

To further illustrate that @stevevw doesn't know what he is talking about, here is the method used by Artifacts Foundation and Maximus.energy for determining circularity.

View attachment 371306
​

They are both using the method of least squares which is a curve fitting exercise.

By comparison circularity known as roundness in ISO 1101 uses MCZ (minimum circle zone) which is defined as all points fitting inside two concentric circles (Figure 81).

View attachment 371307

​

Artifacts Foundation and Maximus.energy use a curve fitting method which focuses on average error minimization, not maximum deviation where outliers or extreme values are averaged out.
In the ISO 1100 method all points are handled equally including statistical outliers, furthermore the more circular the cross section the less the radius difference between the concentric circles.

The least square method makes cross sections look more circular compared to MCZ which is used by all professional metrology software conforming to ISO 1101.
Given the near perfect symmetry and circularity nonsense spouted by @stevevw it's not surprising this is the case when amateur software is used.

I give up. You win lol. I can't keep doing this techno stuff. Your killing me with science lol. I have two different claims. In fact I have several independent groups saying these are 3D anaysis and they speak in 3D language about the vases precision in the shapes like spheres and cyclinders.

They appear to have done the 3D metrology and software analysis in the language they use over and over and over again.

If you claim that I am not technically able to go into the specific then why are you throwing this stuff at me.

Like I said write a paper. You have half done it already it seems. Finish it and send it in to the research groups to point out this obvious error they all overlooked and that you are the only one who spotted it lol.

 

[stevevw]

I don't. But your instance that it must be some "modern" type lathe is baseless.

But why. The same logic that even pretty good symmetry and circularity is achieved by a pretty basic wheel or lathing uses the same logic for more precise symmetry and circularity.

If we can say that rough circularity is cased by a rudimentary rotating device. Then the same logic would follow that very good circularity was achieved by a much better wheel or lathe.

If you can use the logic that at some point roundness requires some sort of rotating device. Then the better the roundness the better the device.

That appears to be what you are trying to prove, yes.

Culture or craftsman. I think its irrelevant as to the signatures and tech. Some cultures like China evolved to make fine china and vases, Others didn't. So the craft as an industry is what produced great craftsman that they specialised.

It may be that as a culture they had evolved knowledge about the workings of nature that allowed them to achieve results beyond the traditional methods.

You are the only one suggesting that they used nothing but their unaided hands. I'm not even sure you know what that means.

I was trying to make destinctions and break down the difference between unaided hands say for example in coil pottery that only uses the hands to coil the vase up and then blend it into a vase or pot shape by hands.

The next level is simple tools like chisels and pounders, Its still unaided in that the chiseling and pounding or rubbing is not guided by some machine to achieve the precision. A measuring device adds another piece of tech above unaided hands thus another little aid that helps with precision.

Then the wheel and bore stick are another step in the technical aids. A free hand or a hand with a tool in it but still free moving can be used but the tech is what achieved the circularity.

Then we can go all the way up to sophisticated lathing that is stable and controlled to achieve the greatest precision that eventually reaches the highest levels such as NASA level precision which involved no humans at all.

So all I am do is breaking down the stages of how tech aids in achieving the signatures. Then as others have done reverse engineering the signatures in vases to work out what level of tech had to have been used. Obviously the more precise the more sophisticated the tech.

I have no idea what they used. Like you, I'm just speculating.

Yes but like most people have concluded some sort of lathing or wheel was involved. Its a matter of what level of sophistication that was. Or maybe it was something completely different like stone softening which allowed conventional tools to be used. But could still produce similar signatures.

But whatever it was the signatures speak for themselves and show something beyond the orthodox methods which have been tested and cannot reproduce the same signatures.

So what?

So what in that you are objecting to me using the same logic but extending it, You think the signatures are caused by some sort of lathing or wheel or bore stick that is wobbly.

I am saying the lathing was more sophisticated based on the same analysis of the signatures that point to lathing in the first place. Just a more elaborate take on your own conclusions that this lathing was more modern like lol.

Really, I have lost track of what you are trying to prove by showing that ancient Egyptians used stonecutting lathes.

You probably missed the first part where it was not about anything in particular but that there was advanced tech and knowledge and that the orthodox narrative is flawed.

As a natural consequence the thread went into specific examples and the vases became the main focus in supporting that advanced knowledge. But as I said we could go into many examples and as a total the overall evidence makes a strong case.

But if we only focus on one specific example its easy to get lost in those specifics and lose sight of the overall point. I said I don't mind going into specific as it may help support the advanced knowledge. But now I think its time to move on as it will only continue the same.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Like I said write a paper. You have half done it already it seems. Finish it and send it in to the research groups to point out this obvious error they all overlooked and that you are the only one who spotted it lol.

This really demonstrates that you have no idea what goes in to an actual scientific study. Nothing put on line by the vase measurers constitutes a "paper" to which a response would be needed. As nice as the work @sjastro has shown it is not half a paper. It constitutes a reasonable set of preliminary examinations from which you could design a study, set up a methodology, data criteria, test hypotheses, etc. But then that study would have to be conducted rigorously using good quality input data. Perhaps the data on the web would qualify for such a study, or perhaps it would need to be reacquired under controlled conditions and calibrations as the data is not properly published and reviewed. Then there is the matter of the objects. Should they be scanned under anonymized conditions? What of the object provenance? And finally what journal would publish such a study if competed?

 

[sjastro]

In other words they are not only preficent in using the standard industry software but they are skilled enough to create new industry standards of software to properly analyse the vases in full 3D form as they are unrecedented objects that required new methods of anaysing. .

To summarize your post it is the usual BS of doubling down because you do not have the capacity of presenting coherent intelligent counterarguments.

You have saved the best piece of BS for last, if you think part time amateur metrology coders have been using standard industry software for calculations or better still have created new industry standards then prove it.
You can start by showing their methods are recognised by ISO, ASTM, SAE, SA, JIS etc while the old metrology procedures have been discontinued.

I expect the standard lie “it’s not my responsibility” for good reason the various organizations listed which develop the standards represent little more to you than letters of the alphabet.

 

[sjastro]

I give up. You win lol. I can't keep doing this techno stuff. Your killing me with science lol. I have two different claims. In fact I have several independent groups saying these are 3D anaysis and they speak in 3D language about the vases precision in the shapes like spheres and cyclinders.

They appear to have done the 3D metrology and software analysis in the language they use over and over and over again.

If you claim that I am not technically able to go into the specific then why are you throwing this stuff at me.

Like I said write a paper. You have half done it already it seems. Finish it and send it in to the research groups to point out this obvious error they all overlooked and that you are the only one who spotted it lol.

Needless to say your response has nothing to with addressing the differences between the 'superior' least square method of some part time amateur code writers over the approved ISO standard involving years (often decades) of technical development, international collaboration, and validation before approval is granted.
It simply proves the techno stuff is beyond you capability for comprehension.

 

[stevevw]

To summarize your post it is the usual BS of doubling down because you do not have the capacity of presenting coherent intelligent counterarguments.

What am I doubling down on lol. If I have not got the expertise to detail the metrology and analysis then what am I doubling down on. All I am saying is that the actual words., I repeat the actual words used by the researchers contradicts what you say. They clearly state they have analysed the vases in 3D and found them precisie.

Three different independent sources that state they analysed these vases in 3D and found them in the precise class. Even the skeptics agree that some are in the precise class but are fakes. Your the only one disputing that these vases are in at least a precise class that required some sort of lathing.

The only thing I am doubling down on is that I choose to go with the three independent published sources who have actually formerly done tests and published them. As opposed to your complaints on some social media platform. I think most people would go with the formal published work than some social opinion.

You are more or less asking me to take your word for it despite not being peer reviwed or even published. This is what I mean by double standards. You complain about the researched and published papers while demanding we take your unpublished and informal opinions over the published work.

You have saved the best piece of BS for last, if you think part time amateur metrology coders have been using standard industry software for calculations or better still have created new industry standards then prove it.

There you go and thats why I think your too biased to trust. You label these researchers as part time and amateur exposing your true colors. You have it in for anyone who dare suggest that these ancient vases involved advanced knowledge and tech. Before any credentials are checked.

They happen to be employed in precision tooling and one with over 50 years including NASA and pioneering tooling techniques. As well as actually living and being employed in the industry to see the evolution of machining from the 60s to modern times.

So if your using ad hominems then I am afraid you come out far worse on credibility. I would rather trust experts actually working in the very fields that most know about these vases and cover many more years experience and qualifications than yourself.

You can start by showing their methods are recognised by ISO, ASTM, SAE, SA, JIS etc while the old metrology procedures have been discontinued.

I expect the standard lie “it’s not my responsibility” for good reason the various organizations listed which develop the standards represent little more to you than letters of the alphabet.

I linked the articles and videos stating this. Go back and find it and then show how its wrong. I bet you don't even know and are just creating a red herring. This is between yourself and these experts. I want to see a formal article and they rebuttal.

Let me ask a simple question. When the reserachers state they have analysed these vases in 3D are you saying they are lying. When they speak of the 3D precision in circularity and for example shapes like cylinders and spheres. Are they lying that they have determined those 3D shapes in the software analysis.

Dataset​

The source dataset consisted of 2 optical scans (for the objects O1 and O2) and 25 CAT scans processed into 3D models that were saved as STL files.

How did they rotate the vase in 3D to analyse them if they did not have 3D scans in the software in the first place. Is Dr Max lying. Is he so dumb that he thinks 2D is 3D.

 

[stevevw]

Needless to say your response has nothing to with addressing the differences between the 'superior' least square method of some part time amateur code writers over the approved ISO standard involving years (often decades) of technical development, international collaboration, and validation before approval is granted.
It simply proves the techno stuff is beyond you capability for comprehension.

More red herrings. They are anaysing the vases in 3D for Gods sake. They speak the language all through the analysis. Are they lying. They state that this was the best way to analyse the vases.

Karoyl is even stating as he is rotating the 3D image that this was the best and most accurate way to scan the vases down to the micron level. The data is on the software right before our eyes.

How can they all be wrong. It seems the only one out of kilt with all these findings is you.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

There you go and thats why I think your too biased to trust. You label these researchers as part time and amateur exposing your true colors. You have it in for anyone who dare suggest that these ancient vases involved advanced knowledge and tech. Before any credentials are checked.

They happen to be employed in precision tooling and one with over 50 years including NASA and pioneering tooling techniques. As well as actually living and being employed in the industry to see the evolution of machining from the 60s to modern times.

So what are their credentials then?
No one at the Artifact Foundation seems to have a strong foundation in metrology (the science).
About | Artifact Foundation

Maximus Energy is the product of Max Fomitchev-Zamilov, and he publishes in actual scientific journals (at least one, Scientific reports).
Max Fomitchev-Zamilov
Nothing that is relevant for 3D measurements though.

So who are the metrology experts that I'm missing? It seems that I'm missing one group here, since you said that there were 3 groups doing these kinds of measurements.

 

[sjastro]

What am I doubling down on lol. If I have not got the expertise to detail the metrology and analysis then what am I doubling down on. All I am saying is that the actual words., I repeat the actual words used by the researchers contradicts what you say. They clearly state they have analysed the vases in 3D and found them precisie.

Three different independent sources that state they analysed these vases in 3D and found them in the precise class. Even the skeptics agree that some are in the precise class but are fakes. Your the only one disputing that these vases are in at least a precise class that required some sort of lathing.

The only thing I am doubling down on is that I choose to go with the three independent published sources who have actually formerly done tests and published them. As opposed to your complaints on some social media platform. I think most people would go with the formal published work than some social opinion.

You are more or less asking me to take your word for it despite not being peer reviwed or even published. This is what I mean by double standards. You complain about the researched and published papers while demanding we take your unpublished and informal opinions over the published work.

You double down because you do not possess the intellectual capability of understanding let alone recognizing a refutation.
If you want to double down after making idiotic comments such as part time amateurs revolutionizing the world of metrology coding, you had better support the assertion otherwise you being both dishonest and foolish.

There you go and thats why I think your too biased to trust. You label these researchers as part time and amateur exposing your true colors. You have it in for anyone who dare suggest that these ancient vases involved advanced knowledge and tech. Before any credentials are checked.

They happen to be employed in precision tooling and one with over 50 years including NASA and pioneering tooling techniques. As well as actually living and being employed in the industry to see the evolution of machining from the 60s to modern times.

So if your using ad hominems then I am afraid you come out far worse on credibility. I would rather trust experts actually working in the very fields that most know about these vases and cover many more years experience and qualifications than yourself.

Why do you persist with this nonsense when anyone with half a brain realises their expertise is not in the field of metrology coding?
I also did a fair amount of coding in my own line of work but was a part time amateur because (a) it only occupied a small percentage of my work time, (b) I was not paid as a programmer and (c) a dedicated professional programmer would have done a better job.

Your so called experts fall in the same category and therefore to describe them as part time amateurs is not an ad hom attack.

I linked the articles and videos stating this. Go back and find it and then show how its wrong. I bet you don't even know and are just creating a red herring. This is between yourself and these experts. I want to see a formal article and they rebuttal.

This is an example of doubling down with end result of confirming you have lied by making assertions you cannot support.

Let me ask a simple question. When the reserachers state they have analysed these vases in 3D are you saying they are lying. When they speak of the 3D precision in circularity and for example shapes like cylinders and spheres. Are they lying that they have determined those 3D shapes in the software analysis.

How many times do I have to answer this before it gets through your thick skull?
They are not speaking about 3D in circularity which becomes cylindricity, their code is not designed for 3D measurements.
Why do you have this obsession that I am insinuating the researchers are lying when the only individual I have pointed out lying is yourself.

Dataset​

The source dataset consisted of 2 optical scans (for the objects O1 and O2) and 25 CAT scans processed into 3D models that were saved as STL files.

How did they rotate the vase in 3D to analyse them if they did not have 3D scans in the software in the first place. Is Dr Max lying. Is he so dumb that he thinks 2D is 3D.

Your level of ignorance is astounding. Scanners come with their own software which includes saving STL files and functions ranging from rotating the 3D scans in the STL file to full blown metrology analysis.
This has nothing to do Dr Max lying as his amateur code only handles 2D slicing.

 

[sjastro]

More red herrings. They are anaysing the vases in 3D for Gods sake. They speak the language all through the analysis. Are they lying. They state that this was the best way to analyse the vases.

Karoyl is even stating as he is rotating the 3D image that this was the best and most accurate way to scan the vases down to the micron level. The data is on the software right before our eyes.

How can they all be wrong. It seems the only one out of kilt with all these findings is you.

And my hovercraft is full of eels.
Your response does not even remotely address the bogus claim of how Max, Karoyl, Titch and Doofus have revolutionized the world of metrology coding and why has this not been recognized in any of the test standards.