There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

Ok so despite my objection to having to do all the explaining and analysis for the links I posted. Because its already there and explains all the objections raised so I figure its up to the skeptic to research this themselves.

But nevertheless I dug out sections where I think this is relevant to the objections. Here Karoyl explains the software used to analyse the vase. Despite the ad hominems about these researchers being amateurs the software developed to handle these unusual vases as precedents in precision metrology had several experts behind it.

Professor Marian Marcis PHD: Photogrametry, image scanning, 3D reconstruction and digitalisation of cultural heritage.
Johannes Bjorn Meyer PHD: Mathmatics, Geometry on negatively curved spaces, Signal Processing, and Medical research Engineering.
Marton Szemenyei PHD: Electrical Engineer, Computer Vision and Deep Learning research, Ai and 3D in Robotic perception.

In fact they are pioneering new software and methods for detecting these unusual and unprecedented precision vases.

From about the 28 minute mark Karoyl Poka who also has a PHD in Electrical Engineering and computer science explains how the software was developed and how it does render 3D models for analysis.

At the 29.20 minute mark it explains the software called Petriescope and how it works in cleaning up images of unnecessary obvious noise.

Segmentation.

Once clean it is exported as a STM Mesh. The realignment is done using Principle Coordinate Analysers (PCA) which analyses all the points in the mesh to find its main orientation of the vase for alignment. From there an automatic segmentation algorythm identilogue is created of all vase sections or points. It only needs two imputs (top and bottom vertices) on the vase and it generates the required vertex groups. This step lets allows testers to isolate intersections while ignoring chips and missing pieces.

Alignment.

Set the vase straight in the grid relative to the global Z axis. The core of the alignment process in Petriescope uses two algorithms. One alogorithm slices the vase in 3D layers as did Maximus.

Each slice is measured for circularity against the best fit circle to the cross section outline of the vase. Then connects the center of all those cross section circles effectively tracing the objects central axis from bottom to top. The estimated axis is then aligned to the global Z axis.

Analysis
Mainly focuses on circularity or how perfectly round a cross section is and concentricity which means how well centered the cross sections are to the global axis Z.

For circularity the software slices align the vase into many horizontal sections almost like a Cat Scan but are a mesh. For each slice it fits a perfect circle to the outline of the cross section. Then it calculates a value called Root Means Square Deviation (RMSD) for that slice. In simple terms RMSD is like an average error. It measures how far each cross section deviates from the perfect circle. Each slice gets its own RMSD value telling us the level of roundness in that slice of the vase.

Then the single metric or (Median) is used for the entire vase as explained earlier. It is the best method as it allows for chips, damage or scanning noise outliers that may skew the findings.

Standard geometric dimensioning and tolerances practice or GD & T often uses a high to low median for roundness. Basically the difference between the maximum and minimum radius in a cross section.

Then placing these circles in a CAD model as the perfect reference points. This produces color coded heat maps that reveal the true surface deviations. This offers a full 3D picture graph view rather than a flat 2D view arrow plot.

Industrial inspection normally compares parts to the original CAD drawings. Since we lack 5,000 year old designs we used the vases best geometric shape as our design intent highlighting tool marks and asymmetries directly on the artifact.

Then it goes into the results of each vase as I linked earlier. Each vase based on the median of the circularity and concentricity and gets a score. The best vase being 0.062mm median error deviation.

Petrie Museum | Artifact Foundation

www.artifactfoundation.org

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Despite the ad hominems about these researchers being amateurs the software developed to handle these unusual vases as precedents in precision metrology had several experts behind it.

Professor Marian Marcis PHD: Photogrametry, image scanning, 3D reconstruction and digitalisation of cultural heritage.
Johannes Bjorn Meyer PHD: Mathmatics, Geometry on negatively curved spaces, Signal Processing, and Medical research Engineering.
Marton Szemenyei PHD: Electrical Engineer, Computer Vision and Deep Learning research, Ai and 3D in Robotic perception.

They where reportedly consulted during the in-house development of a non-standard alignment tool from the video. Not really involved in the scanning and calculations on the vases. That part is the work of either the Artifact Foundation or Max from what I can gather.

In fact they are pioneering new software and methods for detecting these unusual and unprecedented precision vases.

From about the 28 minute mark Karoyl Poka who also has a PHD in Electrical Engineering and computer science explains how the software was developed and how it does render 3D models for analysis.

He has a PhD now? Congrats to him! Last I checked, he had a MSc. I hope this isn't you being hyperbolic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

They are not "published". A few YT videos and short documents posted to personal web pages do not constitute "published".

 

[BCP1928]

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.

Assuming that the vases were produced by rotating them while being cut--a lathe-like device of some sort--the key to precision is rigidity, not "modernity." Circularity, concentricity, cylindricity all depend on the rigidity of the machine. If the machining was done between centers, then the "lathe" need not even have any rotating parts itself to achieve any desired degree of precision.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Coming from you, the phrase "orthodox narrative" is always a straw man.

is always a straw man.

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.