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?