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.

 

[sjastro]

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.

View attachment 371328 View attachment 371329

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.

View attachment 371330 View attachment 371333

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.

View attachment 371334 View attachment 371335

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.

View attachment 371336 View attachment 371337

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

Let’s critique this latest version of your nonsense.

First of all the screen shots of the vases; these show different applications of software such as the scanner software Shining 3D, the downloadable metrology software Blender 4.4.2 and the free software version of Zeiss Inspector.
Anyone unfamiliar with the corresponding video can be misled into thinking this is part of the Karoyl’s earth shattering metrology software.
Either you are exhibiting gross incompetence by failing to realise the screenshots are misleading or worse still deluded into thinking these are examples of his software which would not be a surprise.
The other alternative this is a deliberate act of deception.

Secondly is the alignment problem, I have watched the video and from the 25 minute 20 second mark, Karoyl admits there is metrology software that does the job, namely ExTool which is the software for the handheld scanner Shining 3D he used in scanning the vases and Polyworks.
Since the software is apparently too expensive, he decides to use the freeware version of Zeiss Inspector with its limited alignment capabilities compared to the professional version.
Since this is not satisfactory, he decides with three other dudes to reinvent the wheel. If this is supposed to be a serious study, he should have purchased Extool or Polyworks which is not only compliant to ISO 1101 and therefore has no known bugs but also has 3D calculation capabilities.

This leads to the third point, you ultimately haven’t proven anything, three independent testers coming to the same conclusion is still a lie and you are completely out of depth by failing to realise your post shows Karoyl’s software is nothing more than a primitive method in evaluating the 2D characteristics of circularity and concentricity. It has no capability for 3D calculations such as cylindricity, profile for a surface and symmetry around a rotation axis.

 

[Ophiolite]

Let’s critique this latest version of your nonsense.

First of all the screen shots of the vases; these show different applications of software such as the scanner software Shining 3D, the downloadable metrology software Blender 4.4.2 and the free software version of Zeiss Inspector.
Anyone unfamiliar with the corresponding video can be misled into thinking this is part of the Karoyl’s earth shattering metrology software.
Either you are exhibiting gross incompetence by failing to realise the screenshots are misleading or worse still deluded into thinking these are examples of his software which would not be a surprise.
The other alternative this is a deliberate act of deception.

Secondly is the alignment problem, I have watched the video and from the 25 minute 20 second mark, Karoyl admits there is metrology software that does the job, namely ExTool which is the software for the handheld scanner Shining 3D he used in scanning the vases and Polyworks.
Since the software is apparently too expensive, he decides to use the freeware version of Zeiss Inspector with its limited alignment capabilities compared to the professional version.
Since this is not satisfactory, he decides with three other dudes to reinvent the wheel. If this is supposed to be a serious study, he should have purchased Extool or Polyworks which is not only compliant to ISO 1101 and therefore has no known bugs but also has 3D calculation capabilities.

This leads to the third point, you ultimately haven’t proven anything, three independent testers coming to the same conclusion is still a lie and you are completely out of depth by failing to realise your post shows Karoyl’s software is nothing more than a primitive method in evaluating the 2D characteristics of circularity and concentricity. It has no capability for 3D calculations such as cylindricity, profile for a surface and symmetry around a rotation axis.

This is the fifth or sixth time you have put his arguments to bed with well researched and presented facts. It will be intersting (amd frustrating) to witness how he imagines he will talk his way out of it.

 

[stevevw]

Let’s critique this latest version of your nonsense.

You have not begun well then. I would never hear such a derogatry word used in a formal paper about another formal paper. That would have immediated disqualified you from even submitting anything lol. Remembering that when you say "your nonsense" your actually speaking about the researchers paper.

First of all the screen shots of the vases; these show different applications of software such as the scanner software Shining 3D, the downloadable metrology software Blender 4.4.2 and the free software version of Zeiss Inspector.
Anyone unfamiliar with the corresponding video can be misled into thinking this is part of the Karoyl’s earth shattering metrology software.
Either you are exhibiting gross incompetence by failing to realise the screenshots are misleading or worse still deluded into thinking these are examples of his software which would not be a surprise.

Never said that. I am just linking the screen shots of the stages of how the analogy was done. You can see those screen shots in context. I am not hiding anything. However the researchers done the tests and analysis is how I want to relay their work. As you say I don't know as I am not an expert.

All I am intested in is relaying as best I can what the researchers are saying. It is fact they developed a new software to handle these vases. As I am not familar with different applications I could not even tell lol. But I am not saying that spoecific pages are what they developed. Just that they had to develop or adjust a software application to properly handle these vases. Thats exactly what was said.

The other alternative this is a deliberate act of deception.

Nope, just relaying exactly what was said in the article. In fact its almost word for word if you watch the video at the points I mentioned.

Secondly is the alignment problem, I have watched the video and from the 25 minute 20 second mark, Karoyl admits there is metrology software that does the job, namely ExTool which is the software for the handheld scanner Shining 3D he used in scanning the vases and Polyworks.
Since the software is apparently too expensive, he decides to use the freeware version of Zeiss Inspector with its limited alignment capabilities compared to the professional version.
Since this is not satisfactory, he decides with three other dudes to reinvent the wheel. If this is supposed to be a serious study, he should have purchased Extool or Polyworks which is not only compliant to ISO 1101 and therefore has no known bugs but also has 3D calculation capabilities.

This is another logical fallacy a non sequitor. Obviously as mentioned this is unfunded research. Like all researchers you are on a budget and have to find other ways. Karoyl even makes as he says an unabashed appeal to any tech companies to help. Which has been the case in other projects. If it was not for the connections with Dunn and others in the Aerospace industry UnchartedX would not have access to the tech either.

But the fallacy that somehow finding a way around this issue by creating your own softward to specifically handle these unprecedented vases is somehow going to produce false results does not follow. Karoyl also states that they addressed the alignment issue and consulted experts and not just the 3 scientists you once again use another logical fallacy as being somehow unqualified because they are part of something you don't like the results of.

They also consulted Zeiss and other specialist to develop the software. For all you know it may end up being groundbreaking and pioneering work.

I have noticed all these red herrings and little unfounded complaints about method. Which tells me you acknowledge that there is precision in these vase. Your just trying to reduce that precision anyway you can.

This leads to the third point, you ultimately haven’t proven anything, three independent testers coming to the same conclusion is still a lie and you are completely out of depth by failing to realise your post shows Karoyl’s software is nothing more than a primitive method in evaluating the 2D characteristics of circularity and concentricity. It has no capability for 3D calculations such as cylindricity, profile for a surface and symmetry around a rotation axis.

Ok so I have three independent testers who have actually done tests and formal analysis and published the work. As opposed to someone on social media making a lot of logical fallacies. I know which way I will go. You will have to do better than that to convince me lol.

Just the tone of your posts and the name calling disqualifies you from any formal credibility.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok so I have three independent testers who have actually done tests and formal analysis and published the work. As opposed to someone on social media making a lot of logical fallacies. I know which way I will go. You will have to do better than that to convince me lol.

What journal is this published in?

Just the tone of your posts and the name calling disqualifies you from any formal credibility.

Have you met the kettle, Mr. Pot?

 

[sjastro]

You have not begun well then. I would never hear such a derogatry word used in a formal paper about another formal paper. That would have immediated disqualified you from even submitting anything lol. Remembering that when you say "your nonsense" your actually speaking about the researchers paper.

This explains why your posts are incoherent, you do not even comprehend basic English.
"Your nonsense" pertains to you not the researchers, it explains why you are confused in being unable to distinguish who the criticisms are directed against.

Never said that. I am just linking the screen shots of the stages of how the analogy was done. You can see those screen shots in context. I am not hiding anything. However the researchers done the tests and analysis is how I want to relay their work. As you say I don't know as I am not an expert.

Once again this indicates your failure to understand simple English, in this case the word 'context'. If your screen shots were in context and defined accordingly they would not be so misleading.

All I am intested in is relaying as best I can what the researchers are saying. It is fact they developed a new software to handle these vases. As I am not familar with different applications I could not even tell lol. But I am not saying that spoecific pages are what they developed. Just that they had to develop or adjust a software application to properly handle these vases. Thats exactly what was said.

Nope, just relaying exactly what was said in the article. In fact its almost word for word if you watch the video at the points I mentioned.

This is another logical fallacy a non sequitor. Obviously as mentioned this is unfunded research. Like all researchers you are on a budget and have to find other ways. Karoyl even makes as he says an unabashed appeal to any tech companies to help. Which has been the case in other projects. If it was not for the connections with Dunn and others in the Aerospace industry UnchartedX would not have access to the tech either.

But the fallacy that somehow finding a way around this issue by creating your own softward to specifically handle these unprecedented vases is somehow going to produce false results does not follow. Karoyl also states that they addressed the alignment issue and consulted experts and not just the 3 scientists you once again use another logical fallacy as being somehow unqualified because they are part of something you don't like the results of.

Given you do not understand what the word 'your' means I'm afraid there is very little hope of you comprehending multiple words such 'logical fallacy' and 'non sequitor'. Your motivation for such terms is described by a word which you will clearly struggle to understand it's called 'projection'.

They also consulted Zeiss and other specialist to develop the software. For all you know it may end up being groundbreaking and pioneering work.

And this a term that you will really struggle with as it involves Latin, it's the 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' fallacy.

I have noticed all these red herrings and little unfounded complaints about method. Which tells me you acknowledge that there is precision in these vase. Your just trying to reduce that precision anyway you can.

This has got to be one of your stupid comments.

Ok so I have three independent testers who have actually done tests and formal analysis and published the work. As opposed to someone on social media making a lot of logical fallacies. I know which way I will go. You will have to do better than that to convince me lol.

Just the tone of your posts and the name calling disqualifies you from any formal credibility.

This encapsulates (sorry for the big word) what happens when you struggle with simple English.
I asked a very simple question show me the test results of these three independent testers for me to be the judge.
While a six year old may not understand the technical background, they will understand the sentence construction and meaning, you clearly don't.

 

[stevevw]

This explains why your posts are incoherent, you do not even comprehend basic English.
"Your nonsense" pertains to you not the researchers, it explains why you are confused in being unable to distinguish who the criticisms are directed against.

So your not disputing the researchers. I am a bit confused now. If your disputing me how does this dispute the researchers. Perhaps thats your problem. That your hyper focused on me and not the evidence. I know I am not the best at trying to relay the researchers findings. But it is their work I am trying to highlight.

Once again this indicates your failure to understand simple English, in this case the word 'context'. If your screen shots were in context and defined accordingly they would not be so misleading.

So therefore a good researcher will first get to understand that context by taking time to look at the whole article or video. The onus is on you to investigate the full article in its context before making and further comments about what the summary I made is about. Its just basic good epistemics.

Given you do not understand what the word 'your' means I'm afraid there is very little hope of you comprehending multiple words such 'logical fallacy' and 'non sequitor'. Your motivation for such terms is described by a word which you will clearly struggle to understand it's called 'projection'.

More logical fallacies lol. What you gonna do now that I am saying your complaints about me pointing out the fallacies is just more logical fallacies.

This is what I have noticed. That most of your posts have been attacks on people. If its not the researchers are amateurs and whackos or whatever derogative names you use. Its me lol. Anyone who is so concerned to come on a social media site and name call others is obviously more concerned about other stuff besides the actual topic. The cold hard data.

And this a term that you will really struggle with as it involves Latin, it's the 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' fallacy.

This has got to be one of your stupid comments.

This encapsulates (sorry for the big word) what happens when you struggle with simple English.

Like I said demeaning people just shows that its personal lol. Its more than just data. You seem to be morally outraged over numbers. I am not calling you names and it does not bother me. But it seems to bother you.

I asked a very simple question show me the test results of these three independent testers for me to be the judge.
While a six year old may not understand the technical background, they will understand the sentence construction and meaning, you clearly don't.

And I already did. I have throughout this thread linked everything that they have put out. Maybe theres a couple more but they will be repeats of the same. You have to remember these tests and articles (most of them) have happened only in the last 12 months. Theres not a lot out there. I have given you everything lol. Its all there for you to investigate.

But back up just a minute. I think your missing the point. Lets clarify things.

Do you think some sort of lathing was used or not. Because all this complaints about tiny mislaignments ect is not going to change the fact that there is at least a level of symmetry and circularity that required some sort of lathing.

I can see what your doing. Your trying to introduce the doubt that the precision was not so great and that there was a wobble in the lathing and thus we can say the lathing was basic like the Bore stick technology so a logical explanation.

But lets just start with whether there was a lathe involved fullstop. Or no lathe was involved at all and these vases were made fully by shaping the roundness and symmetry by pounders and chisels and then rubbing.

 

[stevevw]

What journal is this published in?

Its not in a journal yet. Its only been done in the last few months lol. But its still the published results of the tests that are available to downlaod and review. Its only fair that those disputing the findings also go to the trouble of making a formal and published review. Rather than release bits and pieces of complains on social media.

This relates back to the double standards. At least these researchers have obtained a certain level of formality and procedure. But skeptics think it ok to refute this with social media snippets like its the same as peer review. Apply the same criteria that the researchers have obtained and make it formal and then people may take it seriously.

Have you met the kettle, Mr. Pot?

Hum if you think so. I cannot say I have. At least not personally and explicitely directed. Like "you must be stupid" or "Dunn is a whacko" or " those specific experts are amateurs" ect.

I would say maybe half the replies are about attacks on sources rather than anything directly about the context and evidence. I could go back and check. But that in itself is telling.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its not in a journal yet. Its only been done in the last few months lol. But its still the published results of the tests that are available to downlaod and review.

Then it isn't published.

Its only fair that those disputing the findings also go to the trouble of making a formal and published review. Rather than release bits and pieces of complains on social media.

Live by the post, die by the post.

This relates back to the double standards. At least these researchers have obtained a certain level of formality and procedure. But skeptics think it ok to refute this with social media snippets like its the same as peer review. Apply the same criteria that the researchers have obtained and make it formal and then people may take it seriously.

I looked at one "paper" from Maximus something or other. It was woefully incomplete as a scientific document. (See earlier posts.) Everything I had seen up to that point was even further away.

Hum if you think so. I cannot say I have. At least not personally and explicitely directed. Like "you must be stupid" or "Dunn is a whacko" or " those specific experts are amateurs" ect.

He is a nut.

I would say maybe half the replies are about attacks on sources rather than anything directly about the context and evidence. I could go back and check. But that in itself is telling.

Quit citing nuts and you won't get feedback about citing nuts.

 

[sjastro]

So your not disputing the researchers. I am a bit confused now. If your disputing me how does this dispute the researchers. Perhaps thats your problem. That your hyper focused on me and not the evidence. I know I am not the best at trying to relay the researchers findings. But it is their work I am trying to highlight.

So therefore a good researcher will first get to understand that context by taking time to look at the whole article or video. The onus is on you to investigate the full article in its context before making and further comments about what the summary I made is about. Its just basic good epistemics.

More logical fallacies lol. What you gonna do now that I am saying your complaints about me pointing out the fallacies is just more logical fallacies.

This is what I have noticed. That most of your posts have been attacks on people. If its not the researchers are amateurs and whackos or whatever derogative names you use. Its me lol. Anyone who is so concerned to come on a social media site and name call others is obviously more concerned about other stuff besides the actual topic. The cold hard data.

Like I said demeaning people just shows that its personal lol. Its more than just data. You seem to be morally outraged over numbers. I am not calling you names and it does not bother me. But it seems to bother you.

And I already did. I have throughout this thread linked everything that they have put out. Maybe theres a couple more but they will be repeats of the same. You have to remember these tests and articles (most of them) have happened only in the last 12 months. Theres not a lot out there. I have given you everything lol. Its all there for you to investigate.

But back up just a minute. I think your missing the point. Lets clarify things.

Do you think some sort of lathing was used or not. Because all this complaints about tiny mislaignments ect is not going to change the fact that there is at least a level of symmetry and circularity that required some sort of lathing.

I can see what your doing. Your trying to introduce the doubt that the precision was not so great and that there was a wobble in the lathing and thus we can say the lathing was basic like the Bore stick technology so a logical explanation.

But lets just start with whether there was a lathe involved fullstop. Or no lathe was involved at all and these vases were made fully by shaping the roundness and symmetry by pounders and chisels and then rubbing.

You just don't get it, all the issues have been addressed ad nauseum and this latest serving can be described by an analogy.

I ask you what the time is, you respond by giving me the history of the downfall of the Roman Empire. I repeat what is the time and you give the same answer and so on.
You are adamant I didn't ask you what the time was but it was about the Roman Empire.

So the question becomes whether your responses are by accident or design.
If by accident you are clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed, by design you are a lying troll.

Either way it doesn't involve personal attacks, it is based on your behaviour in these threads.

 

[stevevw]

You just don't get it, all the issues have been addressed ad nauseum and this latest serving can be described by an analogy.

I ask you what the time is, you respond by giving me the history of the downfall of the Roman Empire. I repeat what is the time and you give the same answer and so on.
You are adamant I didn't ask you what the time was but it was about the Roman Empire.

Because your questions are red herrings. You claimed the researchers did not measure these vases in 3D and they did. You are finding faults that are not there.

I told you you need to put your complains to the researchers and you keep blaming me. I am only relaying their work. They state in plain english that these tests are in 3D and the results show high precision on par with modern machings.

Do you deny that this was not their conclusion. Then you make ad hominems against them which no formal review would do. Give me a break. If you really want to get my attention then put your complaints in writing to the researchers and not me. I cannot take some social media complaint seriously. Especially over the researchers who at least have done the hard work and formerly published it.

So the question becomes whether your responses are by accident or design.
If by accident you are clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed, by design you are a lying troll.

More name calling and fallacies. This time and either/or that is reduced to posionous name calling and considers no other option. Let me just say that it is not just my position but that of many. It is the position of the culture themselves. So your tarring a lot of people who are expressing a disagreement with you.

Either way it doesn't involve personal attacks, it is based on your behaviour in these threads.

No its personal attacks. No matter what you think of others who hold different beliefs or opinions to you personally attacking their credibility and character is wrong fullstop. I have not stooped to this even though I disagree with your opinion.

You have to consider my position. I have two different groups making claims. I am not an expert though have logic and commonsense and can understand the clear words that are said in videos and articles. They clearly state that the methods are good and the data is properly gathered. They clearly state that some of these vases including those with good providance are in the precise class on par with modern maching.

Heck they even show me live tests with the numbers popping up on the screens before my eyes. They even show me images of what looks like modern machine marks inside the vase. Which alone shows me it was a pretty sophisticated lathe.

On the other side I have someone who says they know what they are talking about on a social media platform. They may very well know. But they are name calling and deriding the researchers. They have not done tests or any formal analysis and published the findings or supported the objections.

Who am I to believe has more credibility. At the very least I have several experts who are saying the same thing and independently repeated the findings in a number of ways. On the other a lone person who is complaining about all this. Would any rational person take the word of one over many who have actually at least done some work.

Your more or less saying they are all conspiring to lie and present falsehoods and you are telling the truth without offering any formal evidence.