There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Stopped_lurking]

Your only proving my point that no matter who I put you will want to discredit them all. It only proves your biased.

No.

All the tests and files are on this site under Vase Scan Resources. I am pretty sure I linked this before.

But these are the vase reports that show that they are not as precise as modern objects. The report on the OG vase shows a concentricity of 0.312 mm (page 4/8), that is > 1/100th of an inch. Granted I'm not an expert, but I can see those numbers and it is at least an apparent contradiction to the claims of modern day precision.

Ancient Precision: Confirmed!
Led by Chris Dunn, Alex Dunn and Nick Sierra, the team gathered in a precision lab in Danville IL to do a hands-on metrology inspection of several vases. Not only that, but many more of the remarkable ancient, hard stone vases that come from pre-dynastic and early dynastic ancient Egypt have been scanned via structured light and CT-Xray, and the results are frankly astonishing.

https://unchartedx.com/site/2023/11/02/ancient-precision-confirmed/

Dr Max is an expert in metrology ans scientific testing. Being an archologists or Egyptologists is the wrong industry for precision testing which is more to do with engineering and precision tooling. I am pretty sure the skeptics on this page are also not archeologists and Egyptologists. Yet their opinion is being claimed as credible to dispute these researchers. Its gross hypocrac y.

His expertise is in measuring radioactivity. The importqance of archeologists and egyptologists is that they can put the numbers in their correct context. Like, provenance in general but geograpichal origin and time period is vital here. I used or as a conjunction, no one has to be expert in everything but all experts are needed.

I did not say that any of this is at the stage of peer review. This is the testing that will go into the papers. You have to do the testing first. The testing of vases only started to gather interest 12 months ago.

But his tests done with experts I named was performed at the Petrie museum. Proper formal tests with proper equipment and then the results published on open source for anyone to review and dispute. Which has not happened yet.

This is the open-source non-peer review that they get if they don't publish in journals.

No one is disputing these findings except those on this social media site. At least they have performed the tests and formerly published the findings for critique. Like I said theres an open source go and refute the findings and send it in.

If they don't send it in, how can they expect any other to do it?

Then you will have to explain why he is there in the background as part of the team testing the vases at the Petrie museum. Yes he was also a expert consultant on the project. Look Karoly is even pointing to him for you. He looks like he is also sick of all these ad hominems lol. Though he puts on a brave face.

View attachment 371493

Thank you, but what was his role? He makes good free hubs and other bike components, I'll give him that.

The funny thing is in looking at this pic is that skeptics use the Russian guys who do experiments in their backyard to show that these precision vases can be made by hand The vases Olga made which were tested. Yet they are happy to use them and never expect they produce peer review. Just the experiment alone in the backyard is used as evidence to refute any advanced tech. Hypocrites.


They actually helps develop the software (Petriescope) to calculate the precision in the vases. They played the most crucial role as the software is what establishes the precision and needs to be accurrate. The most important part. Thats 3 PHD scientists.

Did they get it published where they are listed as authors?

I find this funny. That probably half if not 2/3 of this post and this entire thread is now dedicated to logical fallacies. Expending all this time and energy on ad hominems.

If you try to establish their credentials in post #656, I'm allowed to take a critical look at them. That is not an ad hominiem.

Ironically or rather hypocritically those creating these fallacies have not themselves established their credibility and expect everyone to just accept their words as though it has been peer reviewed. Like I said at least these researchers have expertise and have actually done tests and published the results for others to formerly refute. Not on some social media page.

Self-publishing is on par with discussions on Reddit, Facebook etc. and yes even discussions on christianforums.com

Above. Ad hominems are attacking the source, authors, researchers and not addressing the actual content (test results) and how they are wrong. You spend more time on attacking the source than showing their results are actually wrong. Your aim is to discredit the source to discredit the results. While I might add not showing your own credentials in doing any of this like its some social media blog.

If you try to establish their credentials in post #656, I'm allowed to take a critical look at them. That is not an ad hominiem.

You missed the point. Your complaining about the lack of experts doing the tests but your doing this yourself without establishing you are an expert to make these claims that they are not experts. It works both ways. I am using your own fallacy on you. If these researchers are not experts then the same applied to you. Your not an expert to determine their not experts lol.

I'm not an expert, but you haven't shown them to be either.

But they are experts and that's the other fallacy of a false representation. Dunns team are experts in the very metrology thaty has measured the vases having expensive knowledge and experience in NASA level precision tooling.

But the overlap of artifacts that have been investigated by UnchartedX, the Artifact Foundation and Max is unclear. It would be much better if they actually published their results in articles with tables, figures and references to each others work, things scientists in general do.

The vase signatures are compared to modern tolerances of precision tooling. The exact industry and expertise needed. Better than archeologists and Egyptologists.

The Artifact Foundation has experts on the team. PHD level in the software that measures the precision. Expertise like Dunn in Christ Smith who also has expertise knowledge and experience in engineering and precision tooling at the aerospace level. Dr Max is a physicist and well positioned to be dealing with micron precision.

On their about page there are no PhDs? To whom are you referring? Karoly's earlier supervisor (Szemenyei?)? Max does not normally work with length measures.

The only thing I agree on is that it would be better if these results were at the stage of peer review. Its not that they are not willing. IN some ways they are already open for peer review in that they are open to the public to review and critique formerly. But as I said more testing is ongoing to build a robust data base to then be able to make a stronger case.

This is nonsense, they should start with getting their data published. Once the discussion is rolling, they'll find it much easier t ogain access to better provenanced objects.

Only one museum has been tested. As a big part of the objection is providance then more museum vases are needed to be tested to ensure these vases were common part of the pre dynastics.

Thats a unsubstanciated claim. How they choose to disseminate their findings is rigorous and factual. In fact I find it one of the most credible ways of doing things in science. That they actually have the live tests to see the actual readings for yourself. You can't fake an instrument in front of people. When the results are repeated independently at least 3 times thats good science.

Three independent groups? Max seem to do his measurements independently, but Adam Youngs name can be seen in both the results from the Artifact Foundation and UnchartedX. Which is the 3rd independent group?

So therefore just like the testers anyone who wants to refute these tests needs to do the same and formerly retest their results to see if they come to a different findings. Not sit in some laounge chair on social media complaining or creating some numbers conspiracy that in without any formal published article.

As long as they don't publish in peer-reviewed journals this is the level engagement they can expect.

I could go on social media claiming all sorts of stuff and that others have got it wrong.

Just like these guys do, you mean?

Its full of stuff like that lol.

Its the only stuff we have at the moment. The idea of precision vases only became a thing around 8 years ago. But no one offically started until 2023 and even then no one had tested museum vases until 2025. Its literally happening now as a new area of research. So these tests are really the first ones.

So you have to deal with whats available and what stage its at and what is being claimed. I have also pointed out that mainstream archeology has known of the out of place works for decades but either hid it or did not bother to look into it. These vases were talked about as precise and beyond the predynastics tech 100 years ago by Petrie. \

Others have already floated the idea that som kind of turntable was available, it was even in an article you referenced. So that is not the reason to avoid peer-review, in fact it would probably make a career in the field of archeology, if it could be explicitly proven. That's why I say go out and find the tools, that's the real test.

Other articles just on the Naqada or predynastic Egyptians generally have always mentioned these vases as being the peak of the pottery and vase making and being made by some sort of lathe. Its just that no one bothered to measure them with modern tech until recently.

Believe me it is. Yours is just one in a long line of logical fallacies I have had to deal with lol. Anyway it doesn't change the fact its an ad hominem that you are spending more time, over half this post on the credibility of sources and nothing on the actual content and whether it is correct or not.

If you claim that they have credentials, it's ok to ask for them. That is not an ad hominem.

 

[sjastro]

But these are the vase reports that show that they are not as precise as modern objects. The report on the OG vase shows a concentricity of 0.312 mm (page 4/8), that is > 1/100th of an inch. Granted I'm not an expert, but I can see those numbers and it is at least an apparent contradiction to the claims of modern day precision.

Note the report is in Polyworks which is an ISO 1101 compliant professional metrology software.
Yet the resident crank is under the impression Artifacts Foundation and Maximus.energy have developed new software since ISO 1101 compliant software is insufficient for the examination of vases!

 

[stevevw]

No.

Your response speaks different.

But these are the vase reports that show that they are not as precise as modern objects. The report on the OG vase shows a concentricity of 0.312 mm (page 4/8), that is > 1/100th of an inch. Granted I'm not an expert, but I can see those numbers and it is at least an apparent contradiction to the claims of modern day precision.

OK first here is the circularity. This reading alone puts the vase in the precision and modern machining level. Impossible to obtain by hand.
The Red Granite Amphora Jar or "OG Vase" was found to exhibit exterior circularity tolerances as low as 0.0004 inches or 0.0094 mm. In fact the median circularity across the entire vertical (z-axis) of the vessel is approximately 0.0006 inches or 0.0162 mm.

The exterior median concentricity was 0.0018 of an inch. The interior was 0.0019 inches.

OG Vase | Artifact Foundation

www.artifactfoundation.org

This is from the original testing of the original red granite vase.
Based on the plate layout inspection performed, we recognize that the manufacturing precision of the six ancient granite vessels is comparable in accuracy to modern processes such as CNC lathe turning, exhibited in the modern control vessel. In terms of concentricity, roundness, and continuity, we believe such results are typically achieved using high-precision modern machinery.

Vase Scan Resources – UnchartedX

Now it may be your reading a partuclar measure that is less precise in places. That is the case in some places due to wear or damage or just slightly less precise work. But its the median score that is used which puts it in the precision class. But even the less precise readings we are only talking 2 or 3 thicknesses of paper up to the best precision of a hair or two.

His expertise is in measuring radioactivity. The importqance of archeologists and egyptologists is that they can put the numbers in their correct context.

What context. Archeologist categorising has nothing to do with engineering or forensics on tool marks to determine what caused them. They just attribute artifacts based on form or where they are found or whose name was scratched on them. They have no idea about forensic tooling methods.

Whereas precision tool experts who come from a background in engineering. Reverse engineer the signatures and understand the types to tools that make the different marks on items. Know the tolerances, what can create tight tolerances ect into different kinds of material.

Like, provenance in general but geograpichal origin and time period is vital here. I used or as a conjunction, no one has to be expert in everything but all experts are needed.

Yes this method of determining artifact origin and methods is faulty as it assums certain styles belong to certain periods or people. Two vases may look superficially the same but one is actually a copy of the other or has completely different methods of creation.

Like the precision vases were also found with soft imprecise vases which are more like later vases. So the precision vases are out of place for that peoples level of tech and knowledge.

This is the open-source non-peer review that they get if they don't publish in journals.

No open source non peer reviewed published science is not some social media complains. It needs to be at the same level as the testers. Done formerly with proper equipement and a detailed analysis from the tests with diagrams and explainations.

Like for like. If you do a test in a lab with proper testing and data then this requires retesting in labs with proper equipment and analysis that goes with it.

If they don't send it in, how can they expect any other to do it?

Their tests and open source nature is designed to allow skeptics to download the files run the tests and analysis themselves and then upload the findings that disagree.

Perhaps the open source nature is part of determining any errors in the testing before it is presented in a paper. Thats good science in being open to challenging their results.

Thank you, but what was his role? He makes good free hubs and other bike components, I'll give him that.

Well thats where you have to look at the video as he explains his imput and expertise on the findings. He certainly was at the testing and measuring the vases. Considering he is a percision parts expert he would know a thing or two about metrology and precision.

What is your role that you are in a position to be determining the validity of these researchers. You seem to be vague on even knowing their bac kground let alone be making judgements about which researcher counts or not lol.

Did they get it published where they are listed as authors?

I am speaking of publishing azs far as allowing others to download the results to verify or refute them. They are not at the stage of peer review publishing yet. The tests and feedback or refuting is part of determining the strength of the evidence.

So in the meantime you can submit a formal article refuting the tests or testers if you want and they can then respond. Show that your complain is invalid or reveals something.

If you try to establish their credentials in post #656, I'm allowed to take a critical look at them. That is not an ad hominiem.

Fait enough. But in that post I think I was responding to the same ad hominiem. So for me it was like a ad hominiem on a ad hominiem lol. Because thats all that was happening. Just post after post of ad hominiems.

The thing is I am pretty sure you have made claims ie archeologists are the best experts, ancient could have had a lathe, lathes or devices can be made easy, you just have to do this and this ect. None with any expert support lol..

But I am still engaging in reasoning the contents and not saying your not qualified to say this or that. Whereas it seems discrediting the sources or the providence of the vases has now become the attack point rather than just dealing with the plain hard data that the tests found.

Self-publishing is on par with discussions on Reddit, Facebook etc. and yes even discussions on christianforums.com

No its not and thats another misrepresentation. Did the reddit guys have formal tests, did they lay out a paper that explains the steps and analysis. No. They are just giving a social media comment.

There is no obligation to show every step and explain thing. Whereis there are in these articles. Can I go to the reddit and find an article they made showing they properly calibrated or went through all the steps. Afterall your making claims. I am to just take your 1 and 2 sentense objections as a formal analysis or something off the top of your head. I can't see any steps where you came to your conclusions.

If you try to establish their credentials in post #656, I'm allowed to take a critical look at them. That is not an ad hominiem.

Lol like I said you need to read the reply in its context. My reply was not me trying to establish their credentials. It was skeptics attacking the researchers and I feel for their ad hominem and was defending the researchers. You just compounded the ad hominem.

I'm not an expert, but you haven't shown them to be either.

I have in that at least they have bothers to get the right equipement, the experts to at least know the equipement and do the metrology and then make a formal analysis and put it in a formal article for the public with the steps they took toi show how. What you doing is no where near that. I would expect the same level of formal effort and steps to refute the researchers. Its only fair.

But the overlap of artifacts that have been investigated by UnchartedX, the Artifact Foundation and Max is unclear.

See this is exactly what I mean. You just literally speak the words without any expert qualification or context or explaination or steps in how you determined this and I'm suppose to take this like its peer reviewed. Your expecting unreal or unfair levels of these researchers while lowering the bar for yourself.

What is the inconsistency. They all reach the same findings lol. Theres even a couple of short videos where they use guage wrenches or callipers with digital readouts live and you see the circularity right before your eyes. How many ways do they have to measure circularity of the vase to show the numbers don't lie. Its not as if the numbers change themselves on the digital readouts.

On their about page there are no PhDs? To whom are you referring? Karoly's earlier supervisor (Szemenyei?)? Max does not normally work with length measures.

This is nonsense, they should start with getting their data published. Once the discussion is rolling, they'll find it much easier t ogain access to better provenanced objects.

Three independent groups? Max seem to do his measurements independently, but Adam Youngs name can be seen in both the results from the Artifact Foundation and UnchartedX. Which is the 3rd independent group?

As long as they don't publish in peer-reviewed journals this is the level engagement they can expect.

Just like these guys do, you mean?

Others have already floated the idea that som kind of turntable was available, it was even in an article you referenced. So that is not the reason to avoid peer-review, in fact it would probably make a career in the field of archeology, if it could be explicitly proven. That's why I say go out and find the tools, that's the real test.

If you claim that they have credentials, it's ok to ask for them. That is not an ad hominem.

I give up this whole post is one big ad hominem. What about your credentials in even determining all this. Are we to just take your words at face value as the true representation and that your not adding in your own bias. How do we tell.

How does any of this change the hard data of the numbers that are produced by the measuring devices. What about the gusage metrology. You can literally sit there and watch the readouts as the sensors are going round thevase or the callipers are pinching the uniformity of the wall thickness.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Your response speaks different.

No

OK first here is the circularity. This reading alone puts the vase in the precision and modern machining level. Impossible to obtain by hand.
The Red Granite Amphora Jar or "OG Vase" was found to exhibit exterior circularity tolerances as low as 0.0004 inches or 0.0094 mm. In fact the median circularity across the entire vertical (z-axis) of the vessel is approximately 0.0006 inches or 0.0162 mm.

The exterior median concentricity was 0.0018 of an inch. The interior was 0.0019 inches.

View attachment 371509

OG Vase | Artifact Foundation

www.artifactfoundation.org

This is from the original testing of the original red granite vase.
Based on the plate layout inspection performed, we recognize that the manufacturing precision of the six ancient granite vessels is comparable in accuracy to modern processes such as CNC lathe turning, exhibited in the modern control vessel. In terms of concentricity, roundness, and continuity, we believe such results are typically achieved using high-precision modern machinery.

Vase Scan Resources – UnchartedX

Now it may be your reading a partuclar measure that is less precise in places. That is the case in some places due to wear or damage or just slightly less precise work. But its the median score that is used which puts it in the precision class. But even the less precise readings we are only talking 2 or 3 thicknesses of paper up to the best precision of a hair or two.

Im using the VASE-REPORT-METRIC (https://unchartedx.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/VASE-REPORT-METRIC.pdf). It clearly says 0.313 mm for concentricity on page 4/8.

What context. Archeologist categorising has nothing to do with engineering or forensics on tool marks to determine what caused them. They just attribute artifacts based on form or where they are found or whose name was scratched on them. They have no idea about forensic tooling methods.

Where the objects were found and under what circumstances of course.

Whereas precision tool experts who come from a background in engineering. Reverse engineer the signatures and understand the types to tools that make the different marks on items. Know the tolerances, what can create tight tolerances ect into different kinds of material.

Yes this method of determining artifact origin and methods is faulty as it assums certain styles belong to certain periods or people. Two vases may look superficially the same but one is actually a copy of the other or has completely different methods of creation.

Yes, hence why it is important to document them all the way from the ground to the laboratory.

Like the precision vases were also found with soft imprecise vases which are more like later vases. So the precision vases are out of place for that peoples level of tech and knowledge.

No open source non peer reviewed published science is not some social media complains. It needs to be at the same level as the testers. Done formerly with proper equipement and a detailed analysis from the tests with diagrams and explainations.

Self-publishing is on par with social media complaints.

Like for like. If you do a test in a lab with proper testing and data then this requires retesting in labs with proper equipment and analysis that goes with it.

Now you are almost there, this is why peer-review is important.

Their tests and open source nature is designed to allow skeptics to download the files run the tests and analysis themselves and then upload the findings that disagree.

Which have been done in this thread, but now you say that the ones complaining must be experts. Voila, now you're arguing for peer-review.

Perhaps the open source nature is part of determining any errors in the testing before it is presented in a paper. Thats good science in being open to challenging their results.

Which has been done in this thread.

Well thats where you have to look at the video as he explains his imput and expertise on the findings. He certainly was at the testing and measuring the vases. Considering he is a percision parts expert he would know a thing or two about metrology and precision.

Put it in writing.

What is your role that you are in a position to be determining the validity of these researchers. You seem to be vague on even knowing their bac kground let alone be making judgements about which researcher counts or not lol.

I've not said anything disparaging about these researchers, they are simply presenting conjecture this far.

I am speaking of publishing azs far as allowing others to download the results to verify or refute them. They are not at the stage of peer review publishing yet. The tests and feedback or refuting is part of determining the strength of the evidence.

If they refuse to interact with the subject matter experts, then they'll have to contend with people like me.

So in the meantime you can submit a formal article refuting the tests or testers if you want and they can then respond. Show that your complain is invalid or reveals something.

I don't really care about correcting them, if there are some truth to their findings it will be reported eventually.

Fait enough. But in that post I think I was responding to the same ad hominiem. So for me it was like a ad hominiem on a ad hominiem lol. Because thats all that was happening. Just post after post of ad hominiems.

These guys don't have a known track record in publishing in metrology or archeology, so what credentials are I'm supposed to be impressed about.

The thing is I am pretty sure you have made claims ie archeologists are the best experts,

I don't think I have actually but I can do it now, archeologists are the best experts on archeology and provenance, yes.

ancient could have had a lathe

could, but I have never claimed that they did, and I'm not arguing that they must have had it either.

, lathes or devices can be made easy, you just have to do this and this ect. None with any expert support lol..

So I think you would be wrong

But I am still engaging in reasoning the contents and not saying your not qualified to say this or that. Whereas it seems discrediting the sources or the providence of the vases has now become the attack point rather than just dealing with the plain hard data that the tests found.

No its not and thats another misrepresentation. Did the reddit guys have formal tests, did they lay out a paper that explains the steps and analysis. No. They are just giving a social media comment.

There is no obligation to show every step and explain thing. Whereis there are in these articles. Can I go to the reddit and find an article they made showing they properly calibrated or went through all the steps. Afterall your making claims.

What claim did I make?

I am to just take your 1 and 2 sentense objections as a formal analysis or something off the top of your head. I can't see any steps where you came to your conclusions.

What conclusions did I draw? That I view self-publishing to be on par with discussions on social media? Yes, that is how I view self-publishing.

Lol like I said you need to read the reply in its context. My reply was not me trying to establish their credentials. It was skeptics attacking the researchers and I feel for their ad hominem and was defending the researchers. You just compounded the ad hominem.

It is not an ad hominem if their credibility haven't been established. Your credibility when it comes to reporting their credentials is shaky, since you claimed Karoly Poka had a PhD when I can find no trace of anything of the sort online. It reports him having a MSc.

I have in that at least they have bothers to get the right equipement, the experts to at least know the equipement and do the metrology and then make a formal analysis and put it in a formal article for the public with the steps they took toi show how. What you doing is no where near that. I would expect the same level of formal effort and steps to refute the researchers. Its only fair.

All the data they present might be correct (or parts, or nothing). I don't know for sure, until they actually get going publishing it no one of us might know for sure.

See this is exactly what I mean. You just literally speak the words without any expert qualification or context or explaination or steps in how you determined this and I'm suppose to take this like its peer reviewed.

It's non-peer review just what they implicitly asked for by not publishing it in a journal. Do you know of any table that collates which vases have been tested where?

Your expecting unreal or unfair levels of these researchers while lowering the bar for yourself.

No, you should wait until their findings are published before taking them at face value.

What is the inconsistency. They all reach the same findings lol. Theres even a couple of short videos where they use guage wrenches or callipers with digital readouts live and you see the circularity right before your eyes. How many ways do they have to measure circularity of the vase to show the numbers don't lie. Its not as if the numbers change themselves on the digital readouts.

You made a claim of three independent groups testing these vases. Unless they are testing the same vases they only weakly supports each others claims, especially if they use different methodologies. Adam Young seems to be in close contact with at least two of the groups, so what do you mean by independent in this scenario?

The most tested vase I guess is the OG vase, which has a 3000+ year hole in it's provenance no one is going to look at it and be convinced.

I give up this whole post is one big ad hominem. What about your credentials in even determining all this. Are we to just take your words at face value as the true representation and that your not adding in your own bias. How do we tell.

What statement of fact do you believe I have done? I linked to the about page of the Artifact Foundation and the scientific output from Max in post #658, if there is something I have misrepresented please point it out.

How does any of this change the hard data of the numbers that are produced by the measuring devices. What about the gusage metrology. You can literally sit there and watch the readouts as the sensors are going round thevase or the callipers are pinching the uniformity of the wall thickness.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What context. Archeologist categorising has nothing to do with engineering or forensics on tool marks to determine what caused them. They just attribute artifacts based on form or where they are found or whose name was scratched on them. They have no idea about forensic tooling methods.

Oh my. Your dismissal of archeology is rather striking. It's archeologists that can tell you if those are pre-dynastic objects, etc. The whole "advanced ancient tech" claim is based entirely on their ability to date the objects.

Whereas precision tool experts who come from a background in engineering. Reverse engineer the signatures and understand the types to tools that make the different marks on items. Know the tolerances, what can create tight tolerances ect into different kinds of material.

These experts have a severe case of "hammeritis".

 

[BCP1928]

Your response speaks different.

OK first here is the circularity. This reading alone puts the vase in the precision and modern machining level. Impossible to obtain by hand.
The Red Granite Amphora Jar or "OG Vase" was found to exhibit exterior circularity tolerances as low as 0.0004 inches or 0.0094 mm. In fact the median circularity across the entire vertical (z-axis) of the vessel is approximately 0.0006 inches or 0.0162 mm.

The exterior median concentricity was 0.0018 of an inch. The interior was 0.0019 inches.

View attachment 371509

OG Vase | Artifact Foundation

www.artifactfoundation.org

This is from the original testing of the original red granite vase.
Based on the plate layout inspection performed, we recognize that the manufacturing precision of the six ancient granite vessels is comparable in accuracy to modern processes such as CNC lathe turning, exhibited in the modern control vessel. In terms of concentricity, roundness, and continuity, we believe such results are typically achieved using high-precision modern machinery.

Vase Scan Resources – UnchartedX

Now it may be your reading a partuclar measure that is less precise in places. That is the case in some places due to wear or damage or just slightly less precise work. But its the median score that is used which puts it in the precision class. But even the less precise readings we are only talking 2 or 3 thicknesses of paper up to the best precision of a hair or two.


What context. Archeologist categorising has nothing to do with engineering or forensics on tool marks to determine what caused them. They just attribute artifacts based on form or where they are found or whose name was scratched on them. They have no idea about forensic tooling methods.

Whereas precision tool experts who come from a background in engineering. Reverse engineer the signatures and understand the types to tools that make the different marks on items. Know the tolerances, what can create tight tolerances ect into different kinds of material.

Yes this method of determining artifact origin and methods is faulty as it assums certain styles belong to certain periods or people. Two vases may look superficially the same but one is actually a copy of the other or has completely different methods of creation.

Like the precision vases were also found with soft imprecise vases which are more like later vases. So the precision vases are out of place for that peoples level of tech and knowledge.

No open source non peer reviewed published science is not some social media complains. It needs to be at the same level as the testers. Done formerly with proper equipement and a detailed analysis from the tests with diagrams and explainations.

Like for like. If you do a test in a lab with proper testing and data then this requires retesting in labs with proper equipment and analysis that goes with it.


Their tests and open source nature is designed to allow skeptics to download the files run the tests and analysis themselves and then upload the findings that disagree.

Perhaps the open source nature is part of determining any errors in the testing before it is presented in a paper. Thats good science in being open to challenging their results.

Well thats where you have to look at the video as he explains his imput and expertise on the findings. He certainly was at the testing and measuring the vases. Considering he is a percision parts expert he would know a thing or two about metrology and precision.

What is your role that you are in a position to be determining the validity of these researchers. You seem to be vague on even knowing their bac kground let alone be making judgements about which researcher counts or not lol.

I am speaking of publishing azs far as allowing others to download the results to verify or refute them. They are not at the stage of peer review publishing yet. The tests and feedback or refuting is part of determining the strength of the evidence.

So in the meantime you can submit a formal article refuting the tests or testers if you want and they can then respond. Show that your complain is invalid or reveals something.

Fait enough. But in that post I think I was responding to the same ad hominiem. So for me it was like a ad hominiem on a ad hominiem lol. Because thats all that was happening. Just post after post of ad hominiems.

The thing is I am pretty sure you have made claims ie archeologists are the best experts, ancient could have had a lathe, lathes or devices can be made easy, you just have to do this and this ect. None with any expert support lol..

But I am still engaging in reasoning the contents and not saying your not qualified to say this or that. Whereas it seems discrediting the sources or the providence of the vases has now become the attack point rather than just dealing with the plain hard data that the tests found.

No its not and thats another misrepresentation. Did the reddit guys have formal tests, did they lay out a paper that explains the steps and analysis. No. They are just giving a social media comment.

There is no obligation to show every step and explain thing. Whereis there are in these articles. Can I go to the reddit and find an article they made showing they properly calibrated or went through all the steps. Afterall your making claims. I am to just take your 1 and 2 sentense objections as a formal analysis or something off the top of your head. I can't see any steps where you came to your conclusions.

Lol like I said you need to read the reply in its context. My reply was not me trying to establish their credentials. It was skeptics attacking the researchers and I feel for their ad hominem and was defending the researchers. You just compounded the ad hominem.

I have in that at least they have bothers to get the right equipement, the experts to at least know the equipement and do the metrology and then make a formal analysis and put it in a formal article for the public with the steps they took toi show how. What you doing is no where near that. I would expect the same level of formal effort and steps to refute the researchers. Its only fair.

See this is exactly what I mean. You just literally speak the words without any expert qualification or context or explaination or steps in how you determined this and I'm suppose to take this like its peer reviewed. Your expecting unreal or unfair levels of these researchers while lowering the bar for yourself.

What is the inconsistency. They all reach the same findings lol. Theres even a couple of short videos where they use guage wrenches or callipers with digital readouts live and you see the circularity right before your eyes. How many ways do they have to measure circularity of the vase to show the numbers don't lie. Its not as if the numbers change themselves on the digital readouts.

I give up this whole post is one big ad hominem. What about your credentials in even determining all this. Are we to just take your words at face value as the true representation and that your not adding in your own bias. How do we tell.

How does any of this change the hard data of the numbers that are produced by the measuring devices. What about the gusage metrology. You can literally sit there and watch the readouts as the sensors are going round thevase or the callipers are pinching the uniformity of the wall thickness.

To sum up, you take "comparable in accuracy to modern processes such as CNC lathe turning," and glibly turn "comparable in accuracy" into "must have used" and then compare that to the entirely fictitious "orthodox" or "mainstream view" which you have conjured up. I'm still not seeing how that gets you any closer to Atlantis.

 

[sjastro]

@stevevw falsely accuses posters of logical fallacies and creating red herrings because like the technical aspect of his posts he doesn't know what he is talking about.

The irony is he blissfully unaware of his own logical fallacies.
Firstly there is the argument from authority fallacy where his so called experts are inviolate, making any counterarguments against them irrelevant.
Secondly is the flow on fallacy of making ad hominem attacks against any poster by claiming they are non experts by comparison and therefore their counterarguments are worthless.

On this basis Steve should be completely ignored as he probably has no credentials or qualifications to speak of.

 

[stevevw]

Im using the VASE-REPORT-METRIC (https://unchartedx.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/VASE-REPORT-METRIC.pdf). It clearly says 0.313 mm for concentricity on page 4/8.

Yes page 4 is of a particular point on the vase which is highlight by the blue band. This represents the widest part of the vase. In other words the furthest point from which the vase outter walls are away from the Z axis. This is to be expected and is on par with modern vases being that its the point at which a deviation will happen.

To only get 0.313 which is around a couple the thickness of a couple of pieces of paper so not much at all. But to only get 0.313 is amazing considering that the cencentricity relies on many points being spot on within the sphere of the vase at its widest point. If that sphere is only slightly out in its 1,000s of points it will skew the concentricity. So to only get a couple of papers thin at the center is incredible. The video will excplain this.

Where the objects were found and under what circumstances of course.

The problem is like many of these precision vases they were found under the Stepped pyramid and we know they are predynastic. Its well acknowledged that Pharoah Djoser collected these vases nad stacked them under his pyramid.

This happens a lot with Egyptian works they get usurped. Most of the sites in Egypt were continuations of earlier works. So you can have old Kingdom pillars standing right next to New Kingdom ones in the same temple.

Look at Perus. The megalithic walls have been attributed to the Inca around 800 years ago and yet there are megalithic walls with a completely different method and material that even the Inca say they did not build and comes from prehistory. But the archeologists stubbonly attribute this to the Inca. The small stones are Inca but the megalith blocks are always at the foundations and are prehistory.

The Worldwide Megalithic Wall Mystery #podcast #science ...

Yes, hence why it is important to document them all the way from the ground to the laboratory.

Thats why the vases in the meseums like at Petrie Museum are important to test as they come directly from digs. Most at the Petrie museum actually come from Petries digs. He discovered the most artifacts and recorded them. Has an entire museum full of his artifacts. So he ain't no average archeologists who knew what he was doing.

Self-publishing is on par with social media complaints.

No its not. Social media is social media. Its social and not formal. You don;t have to meet the rigorous standards of testing. Or at least prove them. Whereas like the researchers they had to go through step by step, get proper equipement, arrange with museum to tests vases, calibrate equipment, perform rigorous tests, scan in all data and then prcess it in the software and then analyse it explaining all the steps.

None of that is expected on a social media platform. The rules say someone can just make a claim without the rigorous step by step verification. That you still try and equate the two as the same shows your bias when they are clearly the same. Show me such a rigorous attempt on this thread. Not pick out bits out of the context and misrepresent them as the entire vase as you have done.

Now you are almost there, this is why peer-review is important.

Lol then why are you insisting that someone on a social media platform can do peer review or even retest this work. I have seen no one on this thread re test and do the hard work to be able to make any formal claims at the researchers. And yet it seems your willing to allow your side to make these social comments as though they are peer reviewed.

Which have been done in this thread, but now you say that the ones complaining must be experts. Voila, now you're arguing for peer-review.

Ok fair enough. But you just wiped out all that has been said against the researchers on this thread. None of it counts or had credibility either. When you complain about a measure you have no credibility as you have not met the rigor of peer review. Or even science for that matter.

Which has been done in this thread.

No it hasn't. The objections need to be made in a formal article and done officially and then at least published on line in some formal way. Preferable sent to the researchers. In that way its formal and official and can be reviewed by all. But especially the researchers who have the chance to respond.

Put it in writing.

How do you know he hasn't. This is what I am saying. Your making social media coments that have no backing or rational as to why you even make it or come to that conclusion. He may be the silent expert that helps with the analysis which someone else writes. Thats obviously true because we see hom testing and commenting on the vases. You have no evidence that he is not involved and frankly all this concern is a fallacy.

I've not said anything disparaging about these researchers, they are simply presenting conjecture this far.

Ah like they are not experts. Like there were no experts involved. Thats disparenging to those who are actually experts. Everything I have said in support of these researchers you have more or less said, "so what" without one bit of evidence. Thats disparaging and a misrepresentation. Simple because you don't know but you chose to make out they were unrelaible and discredited.

If they refuse to interact with the subject matter experts, then they'll have to contend with people like me.

Thats the problem. Your biased and have it in for them before we have even formerly investigated lol. Because you don't like their findings.

I don't really care about correcting them, if there are some truth to their findings it will be reported eventually.

Yet you like disparaging and discrediting them and their work. Its easy to knock people from far away on a social media platform.

These guys don't have a known track record in publishing in metrology or archeology, so what credentials are I'm supposed to be impressed about.

Yes they do. Please do the research before you opem you make these off the top of your head claims. Half the testers work in industries that do metrology as part of the industry. They are engineers and precision tool makers.

They already own the equipment or have contacts in the industry to access the equipment to do the metrology. Which is half the issue. Can you souse the equipement. Can anyone one this thread thats complaining.

Dr Max has a neuclear reactor in his lab for God sake lol. He has all the equipement, has worked in metrology or various sorts for decades. He taught Computer Engineering Science at Penn State Uni for years and has a Cold Fusion Nuclear reactor in in lab lol. I think he knows how to use a light scanner lol.

Your being oh so bias. More than you would if these scientists were agreeing with you.

I don't think I have actually but I can do it now, archeologists are the best experts on archeology and provenance, yes.

Who would be most suited to tells tooling marks and methods of tooling. An engineer and precision tool expert or an archeologist. I am talking about the specific identification of marks in stone or metal that show precision such as tight tolerances that can help determine methods.

could, but I have never claimed that they did, and I'm not arguing that they must have had it either.

The problem is the signatures. Even if we say they are not as precise as claimed they are precise enough that a lathe was used.

So I think you would be wrong

Is that your expert and peer reviewed opinion lol.

What conclusions did I draw? That I view self-publishing to be on par with discussions on social media? Yes, that is how I view self-publishing.

Thats obvious bias because its obvious they are not the same. The research articles are full of steps and explanations, have done actual tests. Where are the tests and steps with the social media examples. They just give a social opinion.

It is not an ad hominem if their credibility haven't been established. Your credibility when it comes to reporting their credentials is shaky, since you claimed Karoly Poka had a PhD when I can find no trace of anything of the sort online. It reports him having a MSc.

I did not claim that Karoyl had a PhD. Its a ad hominem because you are claiming they have no credentials or enough to support proper research which is false and you have focused way more on credentials then the actual content.

All the data they present might be correct (or parts, or nothing). I don't know for sure, until they actually get going publishing it no one of us might know for sure.

Ah its quite easy to find the data. Even you found it with the measure you mentioned. Numbers don't lie. If the instrument shows near perfect circularity then its near perfect circularity.

It's non-peer review just what they implicitly asked for by not publishing it in a journal. Do you know of any table that collates which vases have been tested where?

No its not. You complained about credibility about the researchers and then you make claims without any credibility. Thats not even science or anything. Just a laymans opinion. You need to qualify everything like they did. Show the step by step process and not just say this or that measure is wrong without any explanation.

No, you should wait until their findings are published before taking them at face value.

When they measure near perfect circularity and I see it live on the readouts and then they put that in the rport I know its correct as I witnessed the test. Besides three independents did the same tests and got the same results. Your too skeptical to the point where you would not do this for something that you agreed with.

You made a claim of three independent groups testing these vases. Unless they are testing the same vases they only weakly supports each others claims, especially if they use different methodologies. Adam Young seems to be in close contact with at least two of the groups, so what do you mean by independent in this scenario?

Independent tests. They redid tests and got the same results. It doesnpt matter whether its different methods. Its like using a steel ruler and a plastic ruler. They do the same thing. All light scanning is the same. Just different degrees of accuracy. But the degree of accuracy is all in the micron level so they are all accurate. Your too skeptical. Even cynnical.

What statement of fact do you believe I have done? I linked to the about page of the Artifact Foundation and the scientific output from Max in post #658, if there is something I have misrepresented please point it out.

You have made all sorts of unsupported claims. Never provinging credentials or any formal article published on line to be serious. All social media claims.

 

[stevevw]

To sum up, you take "comparable in accuracy to modern processes such as CNC lathe turning," and glibly turn "comparable in accuracy" into "must have used"

Yes must have used. Near perfect or even very good symmetry and circularity is well recognised as a signature of lathing. You seem to be the only one who wants to make out its not.

and then compare that to the entirely fictitious "orthodox" or "mainstream view" which you have conjured up.

No its the well accepted orthodox view.

I'm still not seeing how that gets you any closer to Atlantis.

So were lathes used in Neolithic Naqada times or not to make these precision vases. Its a simple question.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw falsely accuses posters of logical fallacies and creating red herrings because like the technical aspect of his posts he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Its easy to point out logical fallacies. Like ad hominems. The posts have been over half fixated on the sources and people involved. Thats an obvious fallacious arguement that attacks the credibility of the researchers.

When over half the thread is on ad hominems its not a false accusation. Its beyong justified and into fixation because they want to discredit the sources to discredit the findings.

When someone calls an expert in engineering and precision tool with over 50 years of experience a whacko and doesn't know what he is doing in the very industry they specialise in thats an obvious ad hominem. When someone else automatically calls PHD level specialist as ameteurs you know its a fallacy and unjustified.

Do you really want me to go back and point out the utter trash talk that as been directed at these researchers and myself. I think you will find I am correct.

So no they are not false accusations and your claim is itself a false accusation lol.

The irony is he blissfully unaware of his own logical fallacies.
Firstly there is the argument from authority fallacy where his so called experts are inviolate, making any counterarguments against them irrelevant.

This is itself a fallacy and misrepresentation. The skeptics concerns about the sources and researchers is a valid one. But what is happening here is beyond valid and into a witch hunt lol.

When posters call people like Dunn a whacko and doing psuedoscience but in reality he is probably one of the best experts to do these kinds of tests you know its biased and unjustified attacks. When posters automatically call these researchers ameteurs you know its biased.

This would not happen in any formal response. Unlike a social media site where people can get away with such blanatant personal attacks on people. I could go back if you want and show you all the attacks. Even on the first page before the actual content was discussed it was all relegated to whackery lol. Clear bias.

Secondly is the flow on fallacy of making ad hominem attacks against any poster by claiming they are non experts by comparison and therefore their counterarguments are worthless.

On this basis Steve should be completely ignored as he probably has no credentials or qualifications to speak of.

Except Steve is pointing to the actual experts who have actually done the work and at least put it online open for you and others to challenged. But not on some social media site. If you think they are wrong then write up an article, do the tests, make an appointment at the Petrie museum and retest the vases.

I have several experts who clearly state these vases are in the precise class. Are they lying.

You seem to keep avaoiding this question. Its a simpl;e question.

Was a lathe used and are the researchers lying when they say these vases are precise and on par with mordern machining. Did they fake the lathing marks in the vases.

 

[stevevw]

Note the report is in Polyworks which is an ISO 1101 compliant professional metrology software.
Yet the resident crank is under the impression Artifacts Foundation and Maximus.energy have developed new software since ISO 1101 compliant software is insufficient for the examination of vases!

It really doesn't matter because they all came to the same findings. They actually reinforced each others findings. If there was any doubt on the method then it was dispelled when they found the same precision and matched. They all tested Olgas vases (imprecise), and the OG vase (precise) and they all came to the same conclusions.

Are they all lying. Forget about all the fixation on specific methods. They clearly state in words that the findings of their tests (methods) show the predynastic vases as precise and on par with modern machining such as lathing.

Based on the plate layout inspection performed, we recognize that the manufacturing precision of the six ancient granite vessels is comparable in accuracy to modern processes such as CNC lathe turning, exhibited in the modern control vessel.

Are they lying. Or are misrepresenting the vases. According to you if they did not do ample testing or they did faulty testing they could not justify such a statement.

So are they lying.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes must have used. Near perfect or even very good symmetry and circularity is well recognised as a signature of lathing. You seem to be the only one who wants to make out its not.

No, that's a fib. I have been trying to tell you about the capabilities of a strap lathe or some other lathe-like machine. You say not, you say that they must have used a real modern lathe made in Atlantis or some other imaginary place because those poor primitive Egyptians couldn't figure out how to do it themselves.

No its the well accepted orthodox view.

No it's not. That's another fib.

So were lathes used in Neolithic Naqada times or not to make these precision vases. Its a simple question.

I have no idea for sure how they were made and neither do you. All we have is conjecture at this point and all you care to conjecture about is Atlantis.

 

[Hans Blaster]

When posters call people like Dunn a whacko and doing psuedoscience but in reality he is probably one of the best experts to do these kinds of tests you know its biased and unjustified attacks. When posters automatically call these researchers ameteurs you know its biased.

Dunn *IS* a wacko. Period.

He is also put forth as some machining expert, but has no known expertise in working stone or working with archeological objects. His actual record on archeology is nuts. He is a flat-out pseudo-archeologist with his patently false notions about Egypt's past, particularly his pyramid "theories".

 

[Hans Blaster]

Dr Max has a neuclear reactor in his lab for God sake lol.

Which has exactly what to do with any of this?

Now, I'm going to turn this over to my friend Homer from Sector 7-G:

Homer: It's pronounced "nuc-u-ler"

Thanks, Homer.

He has all the equipement, has worked in metrology or various sorts for decades.

Measuring what? What is his metrology expertise?

He taught Computer Engineering Science at Penn State Uni for years and has a Cold Fusion Nuclear reactor in in lab lol.

Cold fusion? Oh brother. Cold fusion was an error made by a couple of physical chemists. Any working on "cold fusion" after 1995 is chasing nonsense.

I think he knows how to use a light scanner lol.

Why? What does "Computer Engineering Science" (sic) have to do with scanning things? Please explain.

 

[stevevw]

No, that's a fib. I have been trying to tell you about the capabilities of a strap lathe or some other lathe-like machine. You say not, you say that they must have used a real modern lathe made in Atlantis or some other imaginary place because those poor primitive Egyptians couldn't figure out how to do it themselves.

Actually I was not alluding to anything like Atlantis. If you have this in your mind then I think you are the one elevating this to conspiracy or something unreal.

I was using the same logic as yourself. You are obviously explaining the capabilities of a strap lathe or similar. That they can somehow fix the setup to be stable to to get better symmetry and circularity. Your more or less trying to build a modern style lathe but with primitive ways. Same thing.

I am not saying it must be a modern type CNC lathe. I am saying the signatures are the same as modern machining on a lathe of some sort. A lathe that has to be very stable with a stable cutter that will maintain the high tolerances.

We are actually saying the same thing. Your just trying to create a more elaborate version of the rudimentary one orthodox methods claims on the wall and in experiments. Which is the bore stick that wobbles.

The logic being the more precise and tight the tolerances are the more sophisticated the lathing. Whether that be made by some sticks, hemp rope and tar or a modern machine. They are achieving a similar result. Either way its far more advanced than what the orthody claims. Which is there was no potters wheel or lathe at all.

No it's not. That's another fib.

Does the orthodox view actually say the Naqada people had some sophisticated lathing which was very stable and fast turning like a strap lathe. I think you will find they say they did not even have the potters wheel and made pts by the coil method. They assume that they must have somehow made them. But they have never found any laths or potters wheels. Found plenty of vases though.

I have no idea for sure how they were made and neither do you. All we have is conjecture at this point and all you care to conjecture about is Atlantis.

Common sense recognises that good to excellent symmetry and circularity is achieved on a potters wheel or lathe. So its not conjecture. But it is conjecture to say that obvious signatures that point to machining and lathing are not pointing to machining and lathing.

How that was done is conjecture. I am just saying the signatures are on par with modern machining such as CNC lathing because of the tight tolerances ect. That they match modern vases.

 

[stevevw]

Dunn *IS* a wacko. Period.

He is also put forth as some machining expert, but has no known expertise in working stone or working with archeological objects. His actual record on archeology is nuts. He is a flat-out pseudo-archeologist with his patently false notions about Egypt's past, particularly his pyramid "theories".

Which have been verified now by other science. He is a pioneer in that sense lol. Just like other great scientists who were called whacko and were right all along.

The fact is Dunn is clearly an expert on precision tooling having worked in the industry up to the level of Aerospace precision. He knows the signatures and methods. He knows metrology.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which have been verified now by other science.

No, the "electric generator" has not been varified.

He is a pioneer in that sense lol. Just like other great scientists who were called whacko and were right all along.

Don't play that game. It did go well for you the last time.

The fact is Dunn is clearly an expert on precision tooling having worked in the industry up to the level of Aerospace precision. He knows the signatures and methods. He knows metrology.

In light weight metals. What does he know of turning stone?

 

[stevevw]

Which has exactly what to do with any of this?

Now, I'm going to turn this over to my friend Homer from Sector 7-G:

Homer: It's pronounced "nuc-u-ler"

Thanks, Homer.

Thanks Homer.

It has to do with the fact that he is a physicist and works with measurement down to the quantum level. He understands metrology lol. He has a scientific mind, thinks in deduction and empiriclism. He ain't a whacko and has performed the tests and found the precision. Just accept it and move on lol. Or write in and dispute his findings.

Measuring what? What is his metrology expertise?

Man all this conflation. First you whinge these are not archeologists and now your whinging about them not being good metrologists. You will whinge about everything no matter what qualifications. Your aim is to discredit from the get go lol.

Cold fusion? Oh brother. Cold fusion was an error made by a couple of physical chemists. Any working on "cold fusion" after 1995 is chasing nonsense.

Here we go again. Any alternative ideas are relegated to whackery. Your only proving my point. Plus the point was that Max understands instrumentation and testing methods at that level. So basic metrology is well within his abilities.

He has all the equipment so its been part of his research for years. He has taught this at Penn State for years. He's a scientists who does good scientific work so stop trying to discredit him. Just deal with the data, the hard numbers he has found and if you think they are wrong then refute them in writing to him and he will correct them lol.

Fusion energy gets a boost from cold fusion chemistry​

Chemists used an electrochemical method to enhance the rates of fusion in a desktop reactor

Fusion energy gets a boost from cold fusion chemistry

Hear the biggest stories from the world of science | 18 August 2025

www.nature.com

Cavitation-Induced Fusion: Proof of Concept​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.2407

Why? What does "Computer Engineering Science" (sic) have to do with scanning things? Please explain.

Its obvious I think. First engineering which relates to measurement and design of physical objects. Computer science speaks for itself. As the metrology is now done in ditigal then expertise in digital applications of the hard data to properly reflect the physical environment.

Computer Engineering Science can be related to
Civil engineer, Data scientist, Electrical engineer, Machine learning engineer, Software engineer and Mechatronic engineer. It seems to me considering Karoly wanted a specific software to crunch the data to relect the scans in the software that these skills are perfect.

I think thats your mission now, to find fault. I don't think this would be done to any ideas you agreed with lol. Its a bit inconsistent and sort of proving the point about peoples worldview getting in the way of how they see things.

 

[sjastro]

Its easy to point out logical fallacies. Like ad hominems. The posts have been over half fixated on the sources and people involved. Thats an obvious fallacious arguement that attacks the credibility of the researchers.

When over half the thread is on ad hominems its not a false accusation. Its beyong justified and into fixation because they want to discredit the sources to discredit the findings.

When someone calls an expert in engineering and precision tool with over 50 years of experience a whacko and doesn't know what he is doing in the very industry they specialise in thats an obvious ad hominem. When someone else automatically calls PHD level specialist as ameteurs you know its a fallacy and unjustified.

Do you really want me to go back and point out the utter trash talk that as been directed at these researchers and myself. I think you will find I am correct.

So no they are not false accusations and your claim is itself a false accusation lol.

This is itself a fallacy and misrepresentation. The skeptics concerns about the sources and researchers is a valid one. But what is happening here is beyond valid and into a witch hunt lol.

When posters call people like Dunn a whacko and doing psuedoscience but in reality he is probably one of the best experts to do these kinds of tests you know its biased and unjustified attacks. When posters automatically call these researchers ameteurs you know its biased.

This would not happen in any formal response. Unlike a social media site where people can get away with such blanatant personal attacks on people. I could go back if you want and show you all the attacks. Even on the first page before the actual content was discussed it was all relegated to whackery lol. Clear bias.

Except Steve is pointing to the actual experts who have actually done the work and at least put it online open for you and others to challenged. But not on some social media site. If you think they are wrong then write up an article, do the tests, make an appointment at the Petrie museum and retest the vases.

I have several experts who clearly state these vases are in the precise class. Are they lying.

You are one confused individual instead of making the case of not engaging in logical fallacies you have reinforced them.

Since you occasionally dabble in armchair psychology, you suffer from the “False Consensus Effect” where you assume individuals in this forum operate at the same intellectual and educational level as yourself. To put it diplomatically on the evidence of your posts let’s just say there is considerable divergence.
Since you cannot comprehend something as simple as having a PhD is not a guarantee for expertise across the board as is evidenced in your very links, your conclusion is to attack individuals for very ignorance you display.

You seem to keep avaoiding this question. Its a simpl;e question.

Was a lathe used and are the researchers lying when they say these vases are precise and on par with mordern machining. Did they fake the lathing marks in the vases.

And you wander why you are the victim of perceived trash talk when you create the very conditions given I have answered your question on numerous occasions.
I even gave you two versions how the amateur software versions tells you nothing about lathe work, while the Polyworks version indicates a modern lathe was not used let alone a CNC version.

 

[sjastro]

It really doesn't matter because they all came to the same findings. They actually reinforced each others findings. If there was any doubt on the method then it was dispelled when they found the same precision and matched. They all tested Olgas vases (imprecise), and the OG vase (precise) and they all came to the same conclusions.

Are they all lying. Forget about all the fixation on specific methods. They clearly state in words that the findings of their tests (methods) show the predynastic vases as precise and on par with modern machining such as lathing.

Based on the plate layout inspection performed, we recognize that the manufacturing precision of the six ancient granite vessels is comparable in accuracy to modern processes such as CNC lathe turning, exhibited in the modern control vessel.

Are they lying. Or are misrepresenting the vases. According to you if they did not do ample testing or they did faulty testing they could not justify such a statement.

So are they lying.

You put your foot in your mouth on so many occasions you should audition for the role of the Joker in the next Batman movie as no mouth prosthetic would be necessary.

(1) Do I need to remind your experts are going to revolutionize metrology as ISO 1101 compliant software is unsuitable for Egyptian vases. It shouldn’t take much to realise results compatible with Polyworks doesn’t say much of your expert’s software.
(2) Are we going to have to go down this line again when I ask you to show me the comparison results on the vase and you are going to lie again by telling me it's not your responsibility?
(3) Since you now appear to accept the use of ISO 1101 compliant software Page 3 of the Polyworks report indicates the cylindricity of the vase mouth is 0.326 mm whereas CNC controlled lathes are capable of < 0.01mm.

So much for the evidence of CNC lathe turning and is always the case don’t let the facts get in the way.