There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

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.

No I am pointing out that all this outcry of credibility and credentials is itself a big fallacy. Because in going about discrediting those who have actually done the tests your claiming to be expert enough to do that in the first place. Without applying the same scrutiny and level of proving expertise to yourselves.

This alone is enough to say its highly suspect and biased and cannot be trusted. We would expect at least as high a scutiny and investigation into the back grounds and question all qualifications of those making these complaints. But no one has. Its just assumed that they all pass the test and have the expertise to be making such ad hominems that relegate the researchers as whackos.

Grossly inconsistent and biased.

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.

Yes thats the mentality of cynnics. They double down on the trash talk lol.

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.

You still can't answer a simple question. Did the Naqada people use some sort of lathe in making these precision or exceptional precision compared to other vases.

Forget about all the semantics of software. The guage metrology without the software shows very good circularity. The Polyworks shows good cencentricity.

We can quibble about how precise this is. But theres a certain level of precision or tolerance that indicates lathing or not.

So the question is basic and simple. Was a lathe used or not. In fact was even a pretty good lathe used. What about a reasonable lathe. Or a basic lathe.

Was a lathe at all used or are the vases hand made with chisels, pounders and rubbing and no lathe at all. Thats the first step. Whether you think a lathe was used. Its a simple question you have now avoided three times for some reason.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thanks Homer.

It has to do with the fact that he is a physicist and works with measurement down to the quantum level.

Not acording to him:

Dr. Fomitchev-Zamilov taught software engineering and computer science at Penn State for eight years before leaving academia to pursue his research. He wrote books on software engineering and holds an M.S. and Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from the National Research University of Electronic Technology.​

That isn't physics.

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.

Did I call him a wacko? No, I did not. Is he Chris Dunn? No, he is not.

You are claiming credentials for people that are either irrelevant credentials or you get them wrong.

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.

Assuming that he is legitimately experienced in the measurement of neutrons and gamma rays that has nothing to do with the measurements described for these vases. Yet, of all of the "reports" on the vases, his, though incomplete, is the closest to what I would expect from a professional analysis.

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.

Are you sure about that? What instrumentation does he know? Silicon strip detectors? Calorimeters? CCDs? Cloud chambers, Fabry-Perot cavities? Mass spectroscopy? PCR? Proportional counters? NMR? HPLC?

My point: instrumentation is not a general specialty. It is quite specific.

He has all the equipment so its been part of his research for years. He has taught this at Penn State for years.

What classes did he teach at Penn State?

He's a scientists who does good scientific work so stop trying to discredit him.

Does he? Again neither Google Scholar nor ADS shows a broad, well received research record. It is thin and poorly cited.

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.

I leave the analysis of the posted data to my comrades-at-arms.

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

LOL

Cavitation-Induced Fusion: Proof of Concept​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.2407

Not the traditional "cold fusion", but not likely to be useful even if nuclear reactions happen.

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.

You are just flailing around.

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 don't need your AI slop. The actual name of the department at Penn State is....

EECS - Computer Science and Engineering Department | Penn State Engineering

A department he hasn't been associated with that department for over a decade according to his own "research gate" profile.

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.

I'll stop when you stop posting garbage. Also, learn what your "experts" actual expertise is instead of passing off some puffery without knowing what and who they are.

 

[sjastro]

No I am pointing out that all this outcry of credibility and credentials is itself a big fallacy. Because in going about discrediting those who have actually done the tests your claiming to be expert enough to do that in the first place. Without applying the same scrutiny and level of proving expertise to yourselves.

This alone is enough to say its highly suspect and biased and cannot be trusted. We would expect at least as high a scutiny and investigation into the back grounds and question all qualifications of those making these complaints. But no one has. Its just assumed that they all pass the test and have the expertise to be making such ad hominems that relegate the researchers as whackos.

Grossly inconsistent and biased.

This is pure comedy while you rile against the 'credibility and credentials' fallacy used to discredit your so called experts, it's perfectly OK to use against individuals in this thread. I can use the same idiotic line by claiming since you have no experience, qualifications or credentials you are in no position to judge Karoyl and co. as being experts or even novices.

All that is required is the ability to read, understand and do basic research which reveals your so called called expects are not expects at metrology coding let alone the development of software which is going to overturn existing software.
You are the only person participating in this thread that does not understand this.

Yes thats the mentality of cynnics. They double down on the trash talk lol.

You still can't answer a simple question. Did the Naqada people use some sort of lathe in making these precision or exceptional precision compared to other vases.

Forget about all the semantics of software. The guage metrology without the software shows very good circularity. The Polyworks shows good cencentricity.

We can quibble about how precise this is. But theres a certain level of precision or tolerance that indicates lathing or not.

So the question is basic and simple. Was a lathe used or not. In fact was even a pretty good lathe used. What about a reasonable lathe. Or a basic lathe.

Was a lathe at all used or are the vases hand made with chisels, pounders and rubbing and no lathe at all. Thats the first step. Whether you think a lathe was used. Its a simple question you have now avoided three times for some reason.

The more you ask the question which has been answered numerous times the more ridiculous you look.
If you are so concerned in being labelled an idiot stop turning it into a self fulfilled prophesy by asking the same question over and over again.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

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.

So from the data they show there are things that needs explanations, they show their own measure but I don't believe that measure means what is normally used in 3D tolerance specifications more than in name.

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.

So which of Petries vases came from where? This is what an archeologsist would contribute.

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.

This is not something that inspires confidence.

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.

View attachment 371515
The Worldwide Megalithic Wall Mystery #podcast #science ...

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.

Most means that they all must be individually evaluated preferably by archeologists.

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.

Self-publishing is not formal.

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.

What bits did I pick out of context? The surface deviation plots at the Artifact Foundation shows deviations in the mm scale, belieing modern lathing performance https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf. It's a very big pdf.

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.

No, I view the analysis that have been presented in this thread as on par with what is presented by the Artifact Foundation and Max. It's interesting but probably not the final word, it is enough to realise that more analysis on well provenanced objects is needed.

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.

They have as much credibility, I'm for peer-review. It is done by experts in their respective field, but then Chris Dunn, the Artifact Foundation and Max need to get going and actually publish their findings.

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.

They haven't presented any formal article, so they get what they wanted.

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.

It's not a fallacy.

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.

Where did I say they are not experts? I said their expertise in relevant subjects haven't been shown. Do they publish in metrology? Max is the closest one but his scientific output is not in 3D scanning.

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.

The data if true is nothing more than there exists vases with very good quality. I have no problem with someone arguing, that perhaps the potter's wheel made it across the Red Sea 1000 years earlier therefore I'll go and try to find it.

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

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.

Most engineers do not do the science of metrology.

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.

To do the measurements, not the metrology.

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.

Why? There's no connection between having a nuclear reactor in the lab and using a light scanner.

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

No

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.

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.

But the use of turntables has already been hypothesised by an article that YOU referenced. They existed in the world at that time, there would be cool if they found explicit evidence for it. This wouldn't be a crisis for egyptology.

Is that your expert and peer reviewed opinion lol.

No, I'm not an expert in these fields.

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.

Without an editor and peer-review that is all that is presented to us.

I did not claim that Karoyl had a PhD.

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.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

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.

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.

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.

I have never said that any specific measurement is wrong? I'm saying they need to get their data published and peer-reviewed, if they want to be taken seriously. Right now all they're doing is conjecture.

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.

Three independents, are we talking about groups or tests now.

Independent tests. They redid tests and got the same results.

This wouldn't solve any systemic errors. And for it to help they need to measure the same vases.

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.

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.

What claims?

 

[sjastro]

What bits did I pick out of context? The surface deviation plots at the Artifact Foundation shows deviations in the mm scale, belieing modern lathing performance https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf. It's a very big pdf.

The link raises more questions than answers.

The surface deviation plots again were done using Zeiss Inspect 2025, I assume since they had access to the software why didn't they take the opportunity of 3D measurements and calculations for cylindricity, perpendicularity, parallelism etc?
The other question is why didn't they compare the circularity calculation of their software to Zeiss Inspect 2025?

A possible answer to this as explained in another post, since the amateur software uses the least square method while ISO 1101 compliant software uses minimum circle zones, the results are going to be different and will lead to confusion.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The link raises more questions than answers.

The surface deviation plots again were done using Zeiss Inspect 2025, I assume since they had access to the software why didn't they take the opportunity of 3D measurements and calculations for cylindricity, perpendicularity, parallelism etc?
The other question is why didn't they compare the circularity calculation of their software to Zeiss Inspect 2025?

A possible answer to this as explained in another post, since the amateur software uses the least square method while ISO 1101 compliant software uses minimum circle zones, the results are going to be different and will lead to confusion.

When I look at the empirical cumulative distribution function of surface deviation for the Petrie vases, I think it is clear that the single proposed quality metric doesn't tell the whole story even if it is done as described. Of course, this is just my layman's opinion. Why do they even talk about internal quality, when almost no internal surfaces have been completely captured and the amount scanned differ wildly between different objects so what does it mean when comparing it between objects.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Thank you, at least I'm good for something and I don't mind the pay.

(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.

Ok so lets flip this narrative. How precise do you think the vases are. Are they precise enough to be the product of some sort of lathe. Or are hand made without any lathing or wheel.

(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?

No we don't need to play those semantics anymore. I am asking you. How precise you think these vases are. In your expert opinion. Are the errors you are complaining about big enough to show that these vases were not the product of lathing.

(3) Since you now appear to accept the use of ISO 1101 compliant software

I'm pretty sure your original complaint was no compliant software was used from memory. May be wrong but I recall such an objection when first introduced.

But being dumb as you say I accepted all the software versions and all the results as I thought they had followed proper procedures and they explained things. I still do as regardless of methods they all came to the same results. From memory the Artifact Research team also measured the OG vase and came to the same readings.

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.

This section begins at around the 21 minute mark where Nick and Alex explain the cylindricity that your highlighting. In context they have established the primary datum A in the horizontal axis across the top of the vase lip which was flat to within 0.003 inches.

Then datam A is used to measure the perpendicularity of the vase mouths cyclinder to that flat plane. That cyclinder used more than 10,000 points of reference to construct that cyclinder. This showed only a deviation of 0.001 inches from the cyclinder being perfectly perpendicular.

The next measure was how cyclindrical the vase mouth is and it was as you said 0.013 inches. But as Nick said this is from a perfect cyclinder of over 10,000 reference points. As he said this is amazing considering its a 5,000 year old vase with wear and some damage around the opening.

Your also using this one measure to define the entire vase. It is the median of all the measures that puts it in the precise class like modern machining.

What exactly are you saying. That the less perfect measure of the vases cyclindricity at the opening somehow means no lathe was used. Are you saying that this specific less than perfect measure either caused a wobble which means there was a less sophisticated lathe or no lathe at all.

If there is a wobble then how do you explain the good circularity and concentricity. Would not the wobble also skew all these other measures.

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

And once again why would the researchers say in clear words that the vases precision is on par with modern lathing.
Are they lying. I keep asking you this and you refuse to answer.

This seems to be coming down to your word against theirs.

 

[sjastro]

Thank you, at least I'm good for something and I don't mind the pay.

Ok so lets flip this narrative. How precise do you think the vases are. Are they precise enough to be the product of some sort of lathe. Or are hand made without any lathing or wheel.

No we don't need to play those semantics anymore. I am asking you. How precise you think these vases are. In your expert opinion. Are the errors you are complaining about big enough to show that these vases were not the product of lathing.

I'm pretty sure your original complaint was no compliant software was used from memory. May be wrong but I recall such an objection when first introduced.

But being dumb as you say I accepted all the software versions and all the results as I thought they had followed proper procedures and they explained things. I still do as regardless of methods they all came to the same results. From memory the Artifact Research team also measured the OG vase and came to the same readings.

This section begins at around the 21 minute mark where Nick and Alex explain the cylindricity that your highlighting. In context they have established the primary datum A in the horizontal axis across the top of the vase lip which was flat to within 0.003 inches.

Then datam A is used to measure the perpendicularity of the vase mouths cyclinder to that flat plane. That cyclinder used more than 10,000 points of reference to construct that cyclinder. This showed only a deviation of 0.001 inches from the cyclinder being perfectly perpendicular.

The next measure was how cyclindrical the vase mouth is and it was as you said 0.013 inches. But as Nick said this is from a perfect cyclinder of over 10,000 reference points. As he said this is amazing considering its a 5,000 year old vase with wear and some damage around the opening.

Your also using this one measure to define the entire vase. It is the median of all the measures that puts it in the precise class like modern machining.

What exactly are you saying. That the less perfect measure of the vases cyclindricity at the opening somehow means no lathe was used. Are you saying that this specific less than perfect measure either caused a wobble which means there was a less sophisticated lathe or no lathe at all.

If there is a wobble then how do you explain the good circularity and concentricity. Would not the wobble also skew all these other measures.


And once again why would the researchers say in clear words that the vases precision is on par with modern lathing.
Are they lying. I keep asking you this and you refuse to answer.

This seems to be coming down to your word against theirs.

As usual you keep on asking questions that have been answered.
The only reliable data that is obtained is when vases are analysed to ISO 1101 compliant software.

On a CNC lathe the cylindricity <0.01mm and concentricity 0.003 - 0.02 mm.
Given the cylindricity and concentricity values are 0.326 mm and 0.313 mm respectively the vase was not produced on a CNC lathe or any modern type lathe.

 

[stevevw]

So from the data they show there are things that needs explanations, they show their own measure but I don't believe that measure means what is normally used in 3D tolerance specifications more than in name.

As far as I understand on this particular measure which is from the UnChartedX site is in both guage sensor and CT scanning from memory. Its in 3d as its talking about cyclinricity on the opening to determine axis B which is the horizontal center line of that cyclinder down the vase.

So the specific widest point on the vase that number is measuring for concentricity is based on a 3D reference point which is axis B the center line of the cyclinder running down the vase.

So which of Petries vases came from where? This is what an archeologsist would contribute.

The vases tested at Petrie museum are from Petries digs in the late 19th and early 20th century. Most vases would be from Petries digs as he was the pioneer and has whole museums full of stuff.

This is not something that inspires confidence.

Thats why it takes time to ensure everything is done properly. They started testing vases and came up against the providence issue and then Karoly began to test vases at museums with good providence only this year. So more needs doing. But so far very interesting results.

Most means that they all must be individually evaluated preferably by archeologists.

Yeah I would expect all areas need to be consulted. But as mentioned the aim is to test vases which have already been verified by archeologists like at museums.

Self-publishing is not formal.

Why. What I mean by formal is that if you notice the tests and analysis is written like a paper with method, results, discussion and conclusion. Proper tests are done and the process is explained. All the steps are laid out that will support the conclusion so that people can read it and check it.

Its sort of on the level of a scientific paper that is submitted to peer review. Except its just not being submitted to peer review if you know what I mean. Rather than on a social media site where you don't have to follow that rigor and formality.

What bits did I pick out of context? The surface deviation plots at the Artifact Foundation shows deviations in the mm scale, belieing modern lathing performance https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf. It's a very big pdf.

I don't know. Thats why I keep going back to the conclusions and summaries. They explicitly state that the findings show the precision in some vases to be on par with modern machining and lathing. I must have said this 10 times now. REgardless of all these objections they still clearly contradict the claim that these vases are not on par with modern machined vases on some sort of lathe.

They all, every independent research group all say this. Like I asked other posters. Are they lying, or misrepresenting the data. Or just so dumb that they don't see these obvious mistakes.

Are these deviations so big that these researchers are just blind that they cannot see what you see. This is what it comes down to. Your and other peoples opinion as opposed to these researchers.

No, I view the analysis that have been presented in this thread as on par with what is presented by the Artifact Foundation and Max. It's interesting but probably not the final word, it is enough to realise that more analysis on well provenanced objects is needed.

OK fair enough. Then perhaps we should dedicate as much time on scrutinising those making analysis on this thread to the same level as what has been thrust upon the researchers. Questioning their credibility, wanting to know every detail about their qualifications and questions their qualifications as to whether they are most suitable for the testing. I don;t see any consistency here.

They have as much credibility, I'm for peer-review. It is done by experts in their respective field, but then Chris Dunn, the Artifact Foundation and Max need to get going and actually publish their findings.

See this is a prime example of the inconsistency applied by skeptics. You and I know to what extent skeptics have been subjecting these researchers to. I can go back and show you if you want. But all sorts of demeaning names and questioning every little thing. I don't see that level of scrutiny on those objecting like yourself.

No one has hounded you for every qualification and then questioning whether you have the expertise. You don't question others on this thread to that level when they make their little claims and analysis. You just accept them as credible without asking to see their credentials. This reflects the inconsistency and bias.

They haven't presented any formal article, so they get what they wanted.

I think this is dishonest. To begin with the researchers article is done like a peer reviewed paper with the abstract, method, analysis, discussion and conclusion. Thats the formal way scientfific articles are done. I don't see any of that on this thread. Or are you now lowering the bar on this thread and allowing parts there of as equivelant.

They simply don't even look the same or have anywhere near as much info. Surely your not saying the complaints about one part of one a specific measure represents the entire article and testing of the whole vase. Where is this 3 or 4 page article with all these steps lol.

It's not a fallacy.

The point is I can say "it is a fallacy" just like you have your opinion. If you can say it without qualification then so can I and it can keep on going. If you say that remarks on this social media are good enough and are equivelant to a 5 or 10 page formal test and analysis. Then anyone can say anything and it counts as a formal scientific article. Its a crazy way to do acience.

Where did I say they are not experts? I said their expertise in relevant subjects haven't been shown. Do they publish in metrology? Max is the closest one but his scientific output is not in 3D scanning.

But what you don't realise in saying that their expertise has not been shown. I can just say your expertise has not been shown for you to make such a complaint lol. I can say I don't trust your credentials. If this social media site is equivelant to a formal science article then we can say anything and its classed as science.

The data if true is nothing more than there exists vases with very good quality. I have no problem with someone arguing, that perhaps the potter's wheel made it across the Red Sea 1000 years earlier therefore I'll go and try to find it.

Wow, thats all I am saying but its like its the hardest thing for some to admit. Just to admit these vases are out of the ordinary for that time. You have added that perhaps a wheel or lathe was around 1,000 years before the orthodox story tells us.

Thats better than pretending that these vases don't exist. But it does acknowledge how we have to somehow adjust things ie either they are fakes, the measures are wrong or the tech must have been there earlier than we think.

Which all supports what I have been saying all along. Which was that simple these vases are out of place artifacts. It may be they are fakes, or that the tech was there earlier than we thought. But please don't pretend the question and mystery does not exist one way or another.

You have come closest because you at least acknowledge that they exist and come from that time and that they are at least precise enough to have required a wheel which is like a lathe.

Most engineers do not do the science of metrology.

Of note I pointed out that these engineers are also specialists in precision tooling up to the aerospace precision. Dunn in particular over 50 years in machining, tool making from the basic laths of the 60s to modern CNC for NASA. So they know metrology as that is a key part in tolerances.

To do the measurements, not the metrology.

Do you honestly think a expert precision tool maker could not do both the measurements and the scientific study of measurements as part of the same expertise in making precision tools. In fact Dunn makes the machines that make the precision tools.

Why? There's no connection between having a nuclear reactor in the lab and using a light scanner.

I only mentioned that as it sounds cool. But Max does all sorts of scanning and testing. Thats what he specialises in. Half thee reason he is doing the vases is because he already has an equipped lab. Why would he have the equipment and not know how to use it lol.

I would say Christ Dunn, Alex Dunn, Nick Sierra and Chris Knight have the most expertise being machinists and precision tool makers. Petrie was a machinist and archeologists. But when it comes to precision its a machinist and precision tooling. The best as far as practical experience would be a Stone mason and any Stone mason will tell you that these vases could not be done by hand.

No

Then why have not you questions others on this thread about their credentials as much as you have these researchers.

But the use of turntables has already been hypothesised by an article that YOU referenced. They existed in the world at that time, there would be cool if they found explicit evidence for it. This wouldn't be a crisis for egyptology.

Actually they speculate and they are never specific. They have too as the evidence shows these vases were lathed. But the fact is its orthodoxy that the potters wheel and bore stick type lathe did not come in until the old kingdom around 2600BC. A 1,000 years before these vases.

But its also that even if we try and force fit that some sort of lath was around. It would be such a basic one that would not be stable and have tight tolerances. So either way these vases exceed the tech available.

But I keep saying your seeing these vases in isolation. When you understand that there are many examples of advanced tech and knowledge across a variety of works you begin to sort of expect this and not try to deny it. It forms a worldwide pattern that makes too strong a case.

No, I'm not an expert in these fields.

Yet you make claims like you an expert and don't subject yourself to the same scrutiny. You just questioned that the researchers were not qualified enough. But neither are you to make the determination.

Without an editor and peer-review that is all that is presented to us.

The point is you can write in and dispute the findings. Thats how its designed. To be able to down load the files and do it yourself and either find fault or find new discoveries in the works like Unsigned.io did with the geometry.

At least its got a site and base to collect and compare.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

I have never said that any specific measurement is wrong? I'm saying they need to get their data published and peer-reviewed, if they want to be taken seriously. Right now all they're doing is conjecture.

Ok and I agree that its not just peer review but more tests of more vases in museums. More repeated tests of the same vases by the same method and by independent testers. THis is ongoing and the testers admit this. But the findings so far are interesting.

Three independents, are we talking about groups or tests now.

Well thats officially as there have been may 10 plus. A few single tests such as the OG has been done around 6 times or more. A couple of vases replicated by modern CNC and compared, and a lot of guage testing as this is easy. But more museum tests are needed.

This wouldn't solve any systemic errors. And for it to help they need to measure the same vases.

Yes I just mentioned that. Like I said its relatively new and more of a data base is needed.

What claims?

I don't think you realise. For example when you say "I don't believe that measure means what is normally used in 3D tolerance specifications more than in name" or No, I view the analysis that have been presented in this thread as on par with what is presented by the Artifact Foundation and Max.

Just these two and theres more just in this post but also in others are making a unsupported claim as well as one that needs qualification as to what expertise you have to know these things. You may have this but you have never qualified this and just assumed it holds enough factual weight to stand on its own.

Especially the first one which would require some step by step explanation and context. Put it this way I am suspect of your expertise just by the fact you say you "don't believe". So this is clearly an unqualified claim. So imagine all the others from other posters where they have made claims or objected and never gave any qualification of their expertise.

Yet as a total I think we have spent half this last part of the thread on scrutinising the researchers. While accepting out of hand the qualifications and expertise of the objecters.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

As far as I understand on this particular measure which is from the UnChartedX site is in both guage sensor and CT scanning from memory. Its in 3d as its talking about cyclinricity on the opening to determine axis B which is the horizontal center line of that cyclinder down the vase.

So the specific widest point on the vase that number is measuring for concentricity is based on a 3D reference point which is axis B the center line of the cyclinder running down the vase.

The vases tested at Petrie museum are from Petries digs in the late 19th and early 20th century. Most vases would be from Petries digs as he was the pioneer and has whole museums full of stuff.

Thats why it takes time to ensure everything is done properly. They started testing vases and came up against the providence issue and then Karoly began to test vases at museums with good providence only this year. So more needs doing. But so far very interesting results.

Yeah I would expect all areas need to be consulted. But as mentioned the aim is to test vases which have already been verified by archeologists like at museums.

Why. What I mean by formal is that if you notice the tests and analysis is written like a paper with method, results, discussion and conclusion. Proper tests are done and the process is explained. All the steps are laid out that will support the conclusion so that people can read it and check it.

Apart from Max, where are the witten papers by Karoly, the Artifact Foundation and Chris Dunn?

Its sort of on the level of a scientific paper that is submitted to peer review. Except its just not being submitted to peer review if you know what I mean. Rather than on a social media site where you don't have to follow that rigor and formality.

I don't know. Thats why I keep going back to the conclusions and summaries. They explicitly state that the findings show the precision in some vases to be on par with modern machining and lathing. I must have said this 10 times now. REgardless of all these objections they still clearly contradict the claim that these vases are not on par with modern machined vases on some sort of lathe.

They all, every independent research group all say this. Like I asked other posters. Are they lying, or misrepresenting the data. Or just so dumb that they don't see these obvious mistakes.

Are these deviations so big that these researchers are just blind that they cannot see what you see. This is what it comes down to. Your and other peoples opinion as opposed to these researchers.

OK fair enough. Then perhaps we should dedicate as much time on scrutinising those making analysis on this thread to the same level as what has been thrust upon the researchers. Questioning their credibility, wanting to know every detail about their qualifications and questions their qualifications as to whether they are most suitable for the testing. I don;t see any consistency here.

See this is a prime example of the inconsistency applied by skeptics. You and I know to what extent skeptics have been subjecting these researchers to. I can go back and show you if you want. But all sorts of demeaning names and questioning every little thing. I don't see that level of scrutiny on those objecting like yourself.

No one has hounded you for every qualification and then questioning whether you have the expertise. You don't question others on this thread to that level when they make their little claims and analysis. You just accept them as credible without asking to see their credentials. This reflects the inconsistency and bias.

I think this is dishonest. To begin with the researchers article is done like a peer reviewed paper with the abstract, method, analysis, discussion and conclusion. Thats the formal way scientfific articles are done. I don't see any of that on this thread. Or are you now lowering the bar on this thread and allowing parts there of as equivelant.

Apart from Max, where are the witten papers by Karoly, the Artifact Foundation and Chris Dunn? I like Max's papers, I just feel that they would be better if they would go through peer-review. How big a problem is the lack of provenance? Why did he use that particular quality metric? Are there others? Why is no of the Petrie vases from his analysis in the precise class? When others sort them into their precise class (why is there a difference?).

They simply don't even look the same or have anywhere near as much info. Surely your not saying the complaints about one part of one a specific measure represents the entire article and testing of the whole vase. Where is this 3 or 4 page article with all these steps lol.

The point is I can say "it is a fallacy" just like you have your opinion. If you can say it without qualification then so can I and it can keep on going. If you say that remarks on this social media are good enough and are equivelant to a 5 or 10 page formal test and analysis. Then anyone can say anything and it counts as a formal scientific article. Its a crazy way to do acience.

Sure, keep saying it if you feel like it. I'm not saying what we do here is science, I'm saying that neither Karoly, Max, the Artifact Foundation, Chris Dunn or we are doing science right now. We are all just discussing the data they have put on the table.

But what you don't realise in saying that their expertise has not been shown. I can just say your expertise has not been shown for you to make such a complaint lol. I can say I don't trust your credentials. If this social media site is equivelant to a formal science article then we can say anything and its classed as science.

I'm not saying what we do here is science, I'm saying that neither Karoly, Max, the Artifact Foundation, Chris Dunn or we are doing science right now. We are all just discussing the data they have put on the table. I want peer review for it to be science, what is so hard to understand about that?

Wow, thats all I am saying but its like its the hardest thing for some to admit. Just to admit these vases are out of the ordinary for that time. You have added that perhaps a wheel or lathe was around 1,000 years before the orthodox story tells us.

Without good provenance we don't even know if the data is relevant.

Thats better than pretending that these vases don't exist. But it does acknowledge how we have to somehow adjust things ie either they are fakes, the measures are wrong or the tech must have been there earlier than we think.

Only if they are correctly measured and the provenance is good.

Which all supports what I have been saying all along. Which was that simple these vases are out of place artifacts. It may be they are fakes, or that the tech was there earlier than we thought. But please don't pretend the question and mystery does not exist one way or another.

Or the methodologies are not the best, there are many possibilities. The provenance question for the precise class is a big unknown, at least as Max uses the precise class.

You have come closest because you at least acknowledge that they exist and come from that time and that they are at least precise enough to have required a wheel which is like a lathe.

I've never said they require it. I think Olga vases could be good enough if you had literally thousands of vasemakers making vases for most of their lives.

Of note I pointed out that these engineers are also specialists in precision tooling up to the aerospace precision. Dunn in particular over 50 years in machining, tool making from the basic laths of the 60s to modern CNC for NASA. So they know metrology as that is a key part in tolerances.

Do you honestly think a expert precision tool maker could not do both the measurements and the scientific study of measurements as part of the same expertise in making precision tools. In fact Dunn makes the machines that make the precision tools.

It's not a question of if he could, has he done any research in metrology? This is normally the part where you point out his articles.

I only mentioned that as it sounds cool. But Max does all sorts of scanning and testing. Thats what he specialises in. Half thee reason he is doing the vases is because he already has an equipped lab. Why would he have the equipment and not know how to use it lol.

That is not supported by his scientific output.

I would say Christ Dunn, Alex Dunn, Nick Sierra and Chris Knight have the most expertise being machinists and precision tool makers. Petrie was a machinist and archeologists. But when it comes to precision its a machinist and precision tooling. The best as far as practical experience would be a Stone mason and any Stone mason will tell you that these vases could not be done by hand.

Then why have not you questions others on this thread about their credentials as much as you have these researchers.

Because they are not arguing that their objections are the final word. They are highlighting what they see as problems, then the researchers should go back and do some additional analysis. This is what happens in peer-review but since they never publish in any journals it remains just conjecture.

Actually they speculate and they are never specific. They have too as the evidence shows these vases were lathed. But the fact is its orthodoxy that the potters wheel and bore stick type lathe did not come in until the old kingdom around 2600BC. A 1,000 years before these vases.

Given that we don't even know the provenance of any vase in Max's precise class (which is populated only by vases from Matt Bealls collection, Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED), I think that it is premature to invoke machining on par with modern machining to explain anything (this is a statement about my opinion).

But its also that even if we try and force fit that some sort of lath was around. It would be such a basic one that would not be stable and have tight tolerances. So either way these vases exceed the tech available.

Do you have a reference for that? This isn't a normal scientific statement, "they look to good therefore it must be unknown method X". Find the tool that match those toolmarks, then you can make a statement like "it's probable that these marks where made with this tool". Hence, why I think they should be out doing digs.

But I keep saying your seeing these vases in isolation. When you understand that there are many examples of advanced tech and knowledge across a variety of works you begin to sort of expect this and not try to deny it. It forms a worldwide pattern that makes too strong a case.

Every instance of advanced tech and knowledge will need to go through the same tedious process with editors and peer review for me to take it serious, I'm sorry that's just the modern scientific process. You can't build a holistic argument if you haven't first shown that the parts are relevant.

Yet you make claims like you an expert and don't subject yourself to the same scrutiny. You just questioned that the researchers were not qualified enough. But neither are you to make the determination.

I'm not an expert and any data I have highlighted have come from the researcher themselves.

The point is you can write in and dispute the findings. Thats how its designed. To be able to down load the files and do it yourself and either find fault or find new discoveries in the works like Unsigned.io did with the geometry.

Whilst highlighting that they don't believe the OG vase in its current form to be from ancient Egypt.

At least its got a site and base to collect and compare.

Ok and I agree that its not just peer review but more tests of more vases in museums. More repeated tests of the same vases by the same method and by independent testers. THis is ongoing and the testers admit this. But the findings so far are interesting.

Well thats officially as there have been may 10 plus. A few single tests such as the OG has been done around 6 times or more. A couple of vases replicated by modern CNC and compared, and a lot of guage testing as this is easy. But more museum tests are needed.

Yes I just mentioned that. Like I said its relatively new and more of a data base is needed.

I don't think you realise. For example when you say "I don't believe that measure means what is normally used in 3D tolerance specifications more than in name" or No, I view the analysis that have been presented in this thread as on par with what is presented by the Artifact Foundation and Max.

These are statements about ME and my opinions, you do realise I have first-person access to my own thought processes?

Just these two and theres more just in this post but also in others are making a unsupported claim as well as one that needs qualification as to what expertise you have to know these things. You may have this but you have never qualified this and just assumed it holds enough factual weight to stand on its own.

So what is it in those two statements that you mean I need to support?

Especially the first one which would require some step by step explanation and context. Put it this way I am suspect of your expertise just by the fact you say you "don't believe". So this is clearly an unqualified claim.

It's a claim about me! I didn't say "They are using circularity in a non-standard way". Even though I think I can argue that point if you would like? The normal way to report circularity according to ISO 1101 (see below) is different than what they do. So to use the term circularity in their case is (slightly) misleading. So a quality measure dependent on circularity and concentricity is a bit unfortunate, as circularity sounds like it is one thing but they actually mean something else.

So imagine all the others from other posters where they have made claims or objected and never gave any qualification of their expertise.

Yet as a total I think we have spent half this last part of the thread on scrutinising the researchers. While accepting out of hand the qualifications and expertise of the objecters.

Stop, making it sound as the researchers are victims in this. If they wanted to they could have published their findings in an appropriate journal. They want this kind of attention, that why they present it as they do.

 

[BCP1928]

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.

Are you not attributing the precision of these vases to the now lost technology of a previous superior civilization? You don't like Atlantis? How about the Lost Continent of Mu?

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.

No, you've backed down from that at least.

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, that's your line--that the Naqada people made stone pots which would absolutely require a lathe but they absolutely did not have the lathe, Atlantis QED.
That's your crap argument which is why you are being accused of ignorance and illogic.

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.

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.

Yet you insist that the Naqada people could not have developed any such technology for themselves because they were too primitive, You're not even interested in exploring how they might have developed the technology because that would spoil your fantasy. Which is too bad, because the question is quite an interesting one.

 

[sjastro]

When I look at the empirical cumulative distribution function of surface deviation for the Petrie vases, I think it is clear that the single proposed quality metric doesn't tell the whole story even if it is done as described. Of course, this is just my layman's opinion. Why do they even talk about internal quality, when almost no internal surfaces have been completely captured and the amount scanned differ wildly between different objects so what does it mean when comparing it between objects.

Giving this a bit more thought I had a closer examination of the Maximus.energy paper and while not based on the Artifacts Foundation link the coding for both is to use the least square method for circularity and central coordinate difference for concentricity.
At least Maximus.energy has provided information which can be analysed and critiqued.

https://maximus.energy/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Precision-and-Classification-of-Predynastic-Egyptian-Stone-Vessels_-A-Metrological-Study.pdf

As we all know by now vase V18 has 'fantastic precision' to a degree the value of the quality metric M is below the spatial resolution of the scanning mesh. First some basics.

RMSE is the root mean square error for circularity, dR is the root mean square error for centering and is related to the concentricity for both inner and outer diameters as defined in the diagram.

​

Given each term in M is a positive value and all terms are summed it is highly suspicious for M to fall below the scanner limit.
It means either a low resolution scanner was used resulting in the point spacing of the mesh being too large or there is something suspiciously wrong with the code.

The answer is found when the centering error data dR for vase V18 is plotted against the vase height z.

​

There is absolutely no reason for the average centering error for the inner diameter to be around 3X larger than the outer diameter as one would expect a random distribution.
It points to some systematic bias introduced by the code.

 

[stevevw]

Apart from Max, where are the witten papers by Karoly, the Artifact Foundation and Chris Dunn?

The Chris Dunn's team has done a Report which is another form of an academic paper with Overview, method, then analysis, findings and conclusion.

Vase Scan Resources – UnchartedX

Also here with the geometry which is fully laid out in steps with calculations.

Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Granite Artifact

An interesting geometrical analysis of an extremely precise and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured light scanning of a granite artifact, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt.

unsigned.io

The Artifact Foundation also done a Report.

Petrie Museum | Artifact Foundation

www.artifactfoundation.org

I like Max's papers, I just feel that they would be better if they would go through peer-review. How big a problem is the lack of provenance? Why did he use that particular quality metric?

I think they all explain why they used the specific quality metric. I think Karolys method is the same. Certainly in using layers to determine circularity and concentricity. I think the method had to be adjusted to measure the vases as there was no precedent to go by.

Providence seems to be an issue in the least because skeptics use that to dispute the vases. The Artifact Foundation began testing museum vases only this year.

Are there others? Why is no of the Petrie vases from his analysis in the precise class? When others sort them into their precise class (why is there a difference?).

There are Petrie vases in the precise class from the Artifact Foundations tests. They set the parameters of the precise class which was 0.001mm to I think 0.200mm which was the tolerance accepted in precision tooling. Five or 6 vases from memory came under this. One at 48 microns median score.

Max was testing vases that were from a private collections (Matt Beall) but also housed at the Petrie museum. Thats why I was saying that people can question the providence of private collections but the Petrie museum regards them as genuine enough to display them as authentic. Max also found around 11 vases in the precise class.

There are no other researchers or tests as far as I know. Like I said there are many small tests of one off vases. You can even see a guage test done on line before your eyes showing the precision.

Starts at 1.20 minute mark. Now thats a proper social media test. Live on camera for everyone to see.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7397182299185483013

Sure, keep saying it if you feel like it. I'm not saying what we do here is science, I'm saying that neither Karoly, Max, the Artifact Foundation, Chris Dunn or we are doing science right now. We are all just discussing the data they have put on the table.

I disagree. Karoly and the Artifact Foundation, Chris Dunn and team and Max are all doing science. The equipment they have used, the calibration of that equipment, the various methods of testing ie Light Scan, Lazer and Guage sensors and the reports coming from them are science. Theres no spectulation. This is hard data and not spectulations about peoples credibility.

No sure if you have used all these devices or even understand them. Or actually done tests on vases. Your standing on the sidelines. If you want to dispute the tests then you have to repeat the tests and show how you done it to arrive at a different finding.

I want peer review for it to be science, what is so hard to understand about that?

Peer review does not make it science. You don't need peer review to confirm that an object measures 5 cm on a ruler. Do you think you need some professor in a tower confirming that the guage measure above is correct. You can get a set of guage sensors and see for yourself. No better evidence.

Without good provenance we don't even know if the data is relevant.

WE have good providence vases showing precision. This whole thread has become about knocking down logical fallacy. You know very well that vases from Petrie museum tested precise.

Only if they are correctly measured and the provenance is good.

They have been measured in various ways 50 times over. They have been measured properly. And even if we go with the exaggerated slight deviations in some places on the vase. We are talking 2 or 3 thinness of paper. Other parts within a hair thinness. This level of precision has to have been made by a pretty sophisticated lathe. It was not by sticks, flint, chisels and pounders.

Or the methodologies are not the best, there are many possibilities. The provenance question for the precise class is a big unknown, at least as Max uses the precise class.

We have 3 independent tests and they use the same and different methods. The light scanning is a matter of levels of accuracy. The Artifact group mentions results from the OG vase guage method and that the light scans confirmed and tightened the accuracy. Each method is showing the precision in various ways. None are contradicting each other.

I've never said they require it. I think Olga vases could be good enough if you had literally thousands of vasemakers making vases for most of their lives.

The trouble is OLga cheated. She actually used the wheel (like a lathe) to get the better precision and only proving that tech is needed to achieve such precision lol.

It's not a question of if he could, has he done any research in metrology? This is normally the part where you point out his articles.

I don't know what you mean. I am saying as part of being a precision machinist in making parts you have to be able to know the metrology to ensure the parts are precise lol. Its just a given. You don't need an article to prove that.

If they studied precision tooling and did not teach the science of measuring those precision tools and parts then thats pretty silly.

That is not supported by his scientific output.

Most papers don't go into proving the scientists have the equipment or whether they can use them. They just state the equipment, the calibration and the method and findings. Your placing criteria in a paper that is not expected and therefore being bias.

If you want to know the specific scientists ability you research the scientist seperately. If you do that you will find he has vast experience and knowledge in metrology. He measures stull all the time even down to the micro level.

Max does Gamma Spectroscopy, Neutron Detection, Alpha Dection which all require an understanding of metrology. Even more complex than simple vase measures.

Neutron Detection – Maximus Energy

maximus.energy

Because they are not arguing that their objections are the final word. They are highlighting what they see as problems, then the researchers should go back and do some additional analysis. This is what happens in peer-review but since they never publish in any journals it remains just conjecture.

I think you will find they are arguing their opinion is the final word lol. When they call the very testers they are disagreeing with whackpos and amateurs this is not about any fair process. They have it in for them because of an ideological belief and not science. You don't call those who scientists disagree with whackos lol.

Like you said you keep quiet about that and just do the science. Prove it with the actual science. That means doing exactly what the testers did. Redo the tests in the proper way they claim and see what findings they get.

Given that we don't even know the provenance of any vase in Max's precise class (which is populated only by vases from Matt Bealls collection, Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED), I think that it is premature to invoke machining on par with modern machining to explain anything (this is a statement about my opinion).

Well we sort of do know the providence. If the Petrie museum thinks they are genuine enough to house them as examples of Egyptian predyanstic vases then thats pretty good support. Many artifacts in museums come from private collectors on loan. .

Do you have a reference for that? This isn't a normal scientific statement, "they look to good therefore it must be unknown method X". Find the tool that match those toolmarks, then you can make a statement like "it's probable that these marks where made with this tool". Hence, why I think they should be out doing digs.

Lol so if they don't find the tool or device what then. That this must mean no advanced method was used. Of course not. NOt finding the method does not negate the method. The method is determined by the signatures. A certain level of precision in symmetry and roundness is commonly associated with lathing. If we don't find a lathe does that mean it was not created by a lathe.

The problem is we don't find much of any tools and methods fullstop. Even the basic tools. Metals like copper or bronze were reused as it was precisious and useful. BUt if they had some other way we don't understand we would not even know what to look for.

Every instance of advanced tech and knowledge will need to go through the same tedious process with editors and peer review for me to take it serious, I'm sorry that's just the modern scientific process. You can't build a holistic argument if you haven't first shown that the parts are relevant.

Yes for specific examples you have to do a thorough investigation into not just the science but also like you said the cultural aspects, the archeology, social and religious aspects. All aspects to understand the culture and their practices and how this relates to the worls they produce.

But like cultural practice and phenomena we can step back and make some general observations. We can say for example that at a certain point in pre history the world was full of Megalithic cultures as we see the massive works. We don't need to prove every single example. We can make hypothesis about the level of knowledge they had at that time which stands out above other periods.

Even just investigating the out of place works is enough to warrant further investigation and being open to some sort of alternative knowledge that appears beyond that time. Thats why I think those who immediate cry whacko and conspiracy are actually the non scientist. Because science is full of out of place and contradictory ideas that move it forward. Shutting it down immediate is anti scientific and more a belief.

I'm not an expert and any data I have highlighted have come from the researcher themselves.

I have noticed that some are highlighting the less precise specific examples and trying to make out this is the entire vase and therefore not CNC machines. Or exaggerating that less precision when its actually still very good.

Thats why I say I think a formal and complete retesting is required to properly refute the researchers. All this bits and pieces of complaints on social media are too hard to control and ensure proper methods themselves.

But at the same time I am reducing things to the basics and saying ok lets forget about all the semantics about a few so called imprecise examples. As there are many more precise ones. But forget about all that and the basic idea of whether they had a lathe at all. Or made these by chisels, pounders and rubbing. I think we can say the metrology is precise enough to say a lathe was involved. Its just a case of how sophsiticated.

Whilst highlighting that they don't believe the OG vase in its current form to be from ancient Egypt.

Yes the providence again. Thats fair enough. So other vases like the OG have tested precise from the Petrie museum. One I think even more precise than the OG vase. Which sort of lends support for the OG as its not just a one off anymore.

These are statements about ME and my opinions, you do realise I have first-person access to my own thought processes?

But the problem is like all of us when you challenge the tests your not just making a personal opinion. It has to be qualified. It seems everyone in going crazy about the qualifications of every little thing said by these researchers. But no scrutiny on the people who are questioning their credibility.

So what is it in those two statements that you mean I need to support?

You need to support what you said because its actually challenging the testers. In the first example your disputing a measure. But you have provided no support. This is undermining the testers measures. You need to do tests and show how their measures are not reflecting the 3D dimensions of the vase.

The second one is more a general claim that the formal tests that have been officially published and laid out in academic format are the same as a few sentences on a social media platform. Your word just can't be the evidence. I disagreed and gave the arguement why ie done in academic format, did the tests and explained the steps to get to that specific measures.

They are clearly two different formats. You have not provided any evidence for how they are the same. Just your personal opinion.

It's a claim about me! I didn't say "They are using circularity in a non-standard way". Even though I think I can argue that point if you would like? The normal way to report circularity according to ISO 1101 (see below) is different than what they do. So to use the term circularity in their case is (slightly) misleading. So a quality measure dependent on circularity and concentricity is a bit unfortunate, as circularity sounds like it is one thing but they actually mean something else.

Ok well thats a better response. But I think its still out of context. As far as I understand they have done the 3D measure for circularity and concentricity. They even state this. They aim was to prove the precision in the physical 3D vase. Why would they not do this. Are they lying.

• Structured light scanning:
  This process uses structured light to capture the surface of the vases, creating precise 3D models with high resolution (better than a thousandth of an inch).

View attachment 371557

Stop, making it sound as the researchers are victims in this. If they wanted to they could have published their findings in an appropriate journal. They want this kind of attention, that why they present it as they do.

Like I said I am only trying to apply the same criteria of what is being applied to these tests and researchers. Like proper science if a test or claim is being disputed then they should redo the tests and show how this was wrong. Not pick out bits out of context which misrepresents things.

But with all this fixation on a specific example of a specific example is taking away from the bigger picture.

 

[stevevw]

Are you not attributing the precision of these vases to the now lost technology of a previous superior civilization? You don't like Atlantis? How about the Lost Continent of Mu?

These are legends and legands are based on something true. Do you not believe the ancient people themselves. Are you not being imperial lol.

No, you've backed down from that at least.

Another logical fallacy. Go back and check. I am pretty sure I said "like CNC machine" or "on par with CNC machining". Once again you have taken my words and created a stawman.

No, that's your line--that the Naqada people made stone pots which would absolutely require a lathe but they absolutely did not have the lathe, Atlantis QED.
That's your crap argument which is why you are being accused of ignorance and illogic.

No this is the orthodox narrative. Fact the precision vases are found with the Naqada people such as in burial pits (3600-3200BC). Fact they are also found under predynastic Matabas (pre 3000BC). Fact they are found under the Stepped pyramid Djoser (c. 2592–c. 2566 bce) where he gathered them from earlier periods already made.

Fact the potters wheel and Bore stick did not come to Egypt until 2600BC. This is the orthodox timeline. I am only pointing out that these vases are out of place when it comes to the orthodox timeline. You are the one injecting Atlantis into the equation like you want it to be true more than the researchers lol.

Yet you insist that the Naqada people could not have developed any such technology for themselves because they were too primitive, You're not even interested in exploring how they might have developed the technology because that would spoil your fantasy. Which is too bad, because the question is quite an interesting one.

Actually no. The investigation into working out how they may have achieved the level of precision or other works is the followup part to first establishing that this is advanced tech signatures. I mean skeptics are complaining about whether there is advanced tech and knowledge to begin with. So I think first its establishing this fact.

Thats done with the testing and metrology. The more the better to establish for certain there was a level of tech beyond what we would consider for that period. You know the narrative, first there were primitive neolithic flint cultures who had basic shelters and hunted and all that lol. The consensus is certain timelines for certain levels of tech and development.

Only in recent times the consensus was sophisticated cognition happened 50K ago. Now this is pushed back to 200 or 300K. So it makes sense that we also push back the timeline for tech and knowledge. This comes from the out of place works we see all over the world.

Your creating a false representation when you say that this advanced tech and knowledge has to be like todays methods. We don't know. All I am saying is that the signatures look like modern methods. It may be like I mentioned theres some other kind of knowledge that can manipulate nature, the physics of stones and soften them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Most papers don't go into proving the scientists have the equipment or whether they can use them. They just state the equipment, the calibration and the method and findings. Your placing criteria in a paper that is not expected and therefore being bias.

Have you read many scientific papers? It doesn't seem like it. If you build a new instrument -- you write a paper about it. If you develop a new method -- you write a paper about it. If you develop a new analysis technique -- you write a paper about it. Alternatively, you write pages to describe it.

If you want to know the specific scientists ability you research the scientist seperately. If you do that you will find he has vast experience and knowledge in metrology. He measures stull all the time even down to the micro level.

I looked into "Max", and I wasn't that impressed. Not sure what about his CV indicates he should be the trusted guy to got to for measurements and analysis of ancient stone vases.

Max does Gamma Spectroscopy, Neutron Detection, Alpha Dection which all require an understanding of metrology. Even more complex than simple vase measures.

More importantly gamma spectroscopy, neutron and alpha detection are VERY DIFFERENT from measuring the dimensions of a stone artifact. Complexity has nothing to do with it. "Measurement experience" is not some broad category of fungible skills. I wouldn't ask a PCR technician to do NMR spectroscopy, or ask an NMR expert to do mass spectrometry, or as a mass spectroscopist to do PCR, and neither would any sane person.

Could you explain how experience with the specific methodologies of gamma-ray spectroscopy is applicable to stone vessel shape measurement?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The Chris Dunn's team has done a Report which is another form of an academic paper with Overview, method, then analysis, findings and conclusion.

Vase Scan Resources – UnchartedX

Not one well provenanced vase in the bunch. Many measured runouts in excess of 0.1 mm. No procedure described to calculate any quality metrics.

Also here with the geometry which is fully laid out in steps with calculations.

Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Granite Artifact

An interesting geometrical analysis of an extremely precise and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured light scanning of a granite artifact, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt.

unsigned.io

Where the author believes it to be a modern fake or reworked original.

The Artifact Foundation also done a Report.

Petrie Museum | Artifact Foundation

www.artifactfoundation.org

And in their table all but two vases have a median circularity > 0.1 mm (they are 72 and 96 µm). And median doesn't tell the complete story. Look in the surface deviation plots for all the vases (https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf) not the cherry picked best example.

I think they all explain why they used the specific quality metric. I think Karolys method is the same.

It's not he uses the the geometric mean of the median circularity and concentricity, Max sums the mean error rmse and concentricity offset and standard deviation of the concentricity offset. Just as you were wrong when you falsely ascribed a PhD to Karoly.

Certainly in using layers to determine circularity and concentricity. I think the method had to be adjusted to measure the vases as there was no precedent to go by.

If you're going to find the symmetry axis of the hypothalamus then you need to use PCA to determine the best symmetry axis, on what is in effect cylindrical objects it is not needed. Max didn't feel the need in any case.

Providence seems to be an issue in the least because skeptics use that to dispute the vases. The Artifact Foundation began testing museum vases only this year.

There are Petrie vases in the precise class from the Artifact Foundations tests. They set the parameters of the precise class which was 0.001mm to I think 0.200mm which was the tolerance accepted in precision tooling. Five or 6 vases from memory came under this. One at 48 microns median score.

0.2 mm as a median score is not the normal tolerance metric such as it would be if it is the difference in radius between the an inner and outer circle that covers all the measured points (see ISO 1101). So there is some sleight-of-hand with definitions going on here.

Max was testing vases that were from a private collections (Matt Beall) but also housed at the Petrie museum. Thats why I was saying that people can question the providence of private collections but the Petrie museum regards them as genuine enough to display them as authentic. Max also found around 11 vases in the precise class.

Those were not from the Petrie museum collection.

There are no other researchers or tests as far as I know. Like I said there are many small tests of one off vases. You can even see a guage test done on line before your eyes showing the precision.

View attachment 371597 View attachment 371598 View attachment 371599

Starts at 1.20 minute mark. Now thats a proper social media test. Live on camera for everyone to see.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7397182299185483013

I disagree. Karoly and the Artifact Foundation, Chris Dunn and team and Max are all doing science. The equipment they have used, the calibration of that equipment, the various methods of testing ie Light Scan, Lazer and Guage sensors and the reports coming from them are science. Theres no spectulation. This is hard data and not spectulations about peoples credibility.

Measures themselves are not science, they speculating on the skills of egyptian artisans is not science.

No sure if you have used all these devices or even understand them. Or actually done tests on vases. Your standing on the sidelines. If you want to dispute the tests then you have to repeat the tests and show how you done it to arrive at a different finding.

I don't need to do anything other than tell them that until they publish their results in peer-reviewed journals all they are doing is conjecture.

Peer review does not make it science. You don't need peer review to confirm that an object measures 5 cm on a ruler. Do you think you need some professor in a tower confirming that the guage measure above is correct. You can get a set of guage sensors and see for yourself. No better evidence.

An object measuring 5 cm is not science.

WE have good providence vases showing precision. This whole thread has become about knocking down logical fallacy. You know very well that vases from Petrie museum tested precise.

According to Max they didn't cluster with the precise vases.

They have been measured in various ways 50 times over. They have been measured properly. And even if we go with the exaggerated slight deviations in some places on the vase. We are talking 2 or 3 thinness of paper. Other parts within a hair thinness. This level of precision has to have been made by a pretty sophisticated lathe. It was not by sticks, flint, chisels and pounders.

We have 3 independent tests and they use the same and different methods. The light scanning is a matter of levels of accuracy. The Artifact group mentions results from the OG vase guage method and that the light scans confirmed and tightened the accuracy. Each method is showing the precision in various ways. None are contradicting each other.

Independent but with overlap in participants.

The trouble is OLga cheated. She actually used the wheel (like a lathe) to get the better precision and only proving that tech is needed to achieve such precision lol.

I don't know what you mean. I am saying as part of being a precision machinist in making parts you have to be able to know the metrology to ensure the parts are precise lol. Its just a given. You don't need an article to prove that.

Metrology is a science in itself, people do science in the field of metrology. If you say some is doing the science of metrology your saying something more than they know how to take a measure. So yes, to be good in the science of metrology you actually need to publish is metrology journals.

If they studied precision tooling and did not teach the science of measuring those precision tools and parts then thats pretty silly.

Taking measures by it self is not the science of metrology.

Most papers don't go into proving the scientists have the equipment or whether they can use them. They just state the equipment, the calibration and the method and findings. Your placing criteria in a paper that is not expected and therefore being bias.

If they publish in metrology journals they go over the equipment and methods in excruciating detail.

If you want to know the specific scientists ability you research the scientist seperately. If you do that you will find he has vast experience and knowledge in metrology. He measures stull all the time even down to the micro level.

He has two peer-reviewed articles, neither of which is in any adjacent field to geomtrical light scanning.

Max does Gamma Spectroscopy, Neutron Detection, Alpha Dection which all require an understanding of metrology. Even more complex than simple vase measures.

Neutron Detection – Maximus Energy

maximus.energy

Yes, but it is not related to geometry scanning of vases.

I think you will find they are arguing their opinion is the final word lol. When they call the very testers they are disagreeing with whackpos and amateurs this is not about any fair process. They have it in for them because of an ideological belief and not science. You don't call those who scientists disagree with whackos lol.

That depends on how obviously wrong they are, flat earthers are wackos even if they happen to be scientistst.

Like you said you keep quiet about that and just do the science. Prove it with the actual science. That means doing exactly what the testers did. Redo the tests in the proper way they claim and see what findings they get.

No need since they don't seem to want to publish in peer-reviewed journals.

Well we sort of do know the providence. If the Petrie museum thinks they are genuine enough to house them as examples of Egyptian predyanstic vases then thats pretty good support. Many artifacts in museums come from private collectors on loan. .

Yes, and it has been a problem since the advent of modern scientific practices.

Lol so if they don't find the tool or device what then.

Then we will have to live in forever suspense, not speculating on unknown technology X.

That this must mean no advanced method was used. Of course not. NOt finding the method does not negate the method. The method is determined by the signatures. A certain level of precision in symmetry and roundness is commonly associated with lathing. If we don't find a lathe does that mean it was not created by a lathe.

So what are the pairwise likelihood ratios or Bayes factors for using unknown method X vs "ortohodox measures" vs "ortohodox measures" + turntable vs modern fakery?

The problem is we don't find much of any tools and methods fullstop. Even the basic tools. Metals like copper or bronze were reused as it was precisious and useful. BUt if they had some other way we don't understand we would not even know what to look for.

Then we will probably never guess it correctly either, what's the problem?

Yes for specific examples you have to do a thorough investigation into not just the science but also like you said the cultural aspects, the archeology, social and religious aspects. All aspects to understand the culture and their practices and how this relates to the worls they produce.

But like cultural practice and phenomena we can step back and make some general observations. We can say for example that at a certain point in pre history the world was full of Megalithic cultures as we see the massive works. We don't need to prove every single example.

Yes, every single example you say is a product of an megalithic culture needs to be investigated and placed by the best researchers in that field as an megalithic culture work.

We can make hypothesis about the level of knowledge they had at that time which stands out above other periods.

Sitting at home guessing is all good, trying to convince others in the field requires more that that (let's start with peer-review).

Even just investigating the out of place works is enough to warrant further investigation and being open to some sort of alternative knowledge that appears beyond that time. Thats why I think those who immediate cry whacko and conspiracy are actually the non scientist. Because science is full of out of place and contradictory ideas that move it forward. Shutting it down immediate is anti scientific and more a belief.

No one is stopping them.

I have noticed that some are highlighting the less precise specific examples and trying to make out this is the entire vase and therefore not CNC machines. Or exaggerating that less precision when its actually still very good.

Very good, is a very subjective term.

Thats why I say I think a formal and complete retesting is required to properly refute the researchers. All this bits and pieces of complaints on social media are too hard to control and ensure proper methods themselves.

They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.

But at the same time I am reducing things to the basics and saying ok lets forget about all the semantics about a few so called imprecise examples. As there are many more precise ones. But forget about all that and the basic idea of whether they had a lathe at all. Or made these by chisels, pounders and rubbing. I think we can say the metrology is precise enough to say a lathe was involved. Its just a case of how sophsiticated.

Your opinion is noted, I don't share it.

Yes the providence again. Thats fair enough. So other vases like the OG have tested precise from the Petrie museum. One I think even more precise than the OG vase. Which sort of lends support for the OG as its not just a one off anymore.

But the problem is like all of us when you challenge the tests your not just making a personal opinion. It has to be qualified. It seems everyone in going crazy about the qualifications of every little thing said by these researchers. But no scrutiny on the people who are questioning their credibility.

They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.

You need to support what you said because its actually challenging the testers. In the first example your disputing a measure. But you have provided no support. This is undermining the testers measures. You need to do tests and show how their measures are not reflecting the 3D dimensions of the vase.

I said something about me.

The second one is more a general claim that the formal tests that have been officially published and laid out in academic format are the same as a few sentences on a social media platform. Your word just can't be the evidence. I disagreed and gave the arguement why ie done in academic format, did the tests and explained the steps to get to that specific measures.

They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.

They are clearly two different formats. You have not provided any evidence for how they are the same. Just your personal opinion.

They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.

Ok well thats a better response. But I think its still out of context. As far as I understand they have done the 3D measure for circularity and concentricity. They even state this. They aim was to prove the precision in the physical 3D vase. Why would they not do this. Are they lying.

That wasn't close to my admittedly badly written objection. Why dont they just use the normal ISO 1101 measure of circularity or roundness?

• Structured light scanning:
  This process uses structured light to capture the surface of the vases, creating precise 3D models with high resolution (better than a thousandth of an inch).

Like I said I am only trying to apply the same criteria of what is being applied to these tests and researchers. Like proper science if a test or claim is being disputed then they should redo the tests and show how this was wrong. Not pick out bits out of context which misrepresents things.

But with all this fixation on a specific example of a specific example is taking away from the bigger picture.

There's no bigger picture if the constituent parts haven't been criticized and published.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

There have obviously been some internal strife within the non-academic vase analysis community. An earlier analyst, Stine Gerdes have written a quite scathing critic of the behaviour of the Artifact Foundation through Adam Young and Karoly Poka. She also critiques some of the choices they have made in their quality measure.
Revisiting Old Findings: A Journey Through Precision and Time

She also present her analysis of the vases (as a added bonus you can also see how much of the interior of each vase that goes into the the internal score).
Catalogue

And her analysis doesn't show that the Petrie vases as a group kluster with modern lathe-made vases. Is it time to stop with self-publishing now?!

 

[stevevw]

Not one well provenanced vase in the bunch. Many measured runouts in excess of 0.1 mm. No procedure described to calculate any quality metrics.

Where the author believes it to be a modern fake or reworked original.

And in their table all but two vases have a median circularity > 0.1 mm (they are 72 and 96 µm). And median doesn't tell the complete story. Look in the surface deviation plots for all the vases (https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf) not the cherry picked best example.

Your just doing what I said was the problem. That is picking out bits and not actually doing the tests and mapping out the steps to be able to make these claims.

This is about the process of what is regarded as academic standards of science and reporting to refute another academic test or analysis. Not whether the tests and methods are correct.

It's not he uses the the geometric mean of the median circularity and concentricity, Max sums the mean error rmse and concentricity offset and standard deviation of the concentricity offset. Just as you were wrong when you falsely ascribed a PhD to Karoly.

As far as I understand Karoly explains his method of median circularity and concentricity is the same as the mean error rmse.

Ok so as I said I am not an expert in this. As far as I understand (Root Means Squared Deviation) which is basically the median error is more or less derived by the same process and is a reflection of the 3D circularity and concentricity.

What are you saying that they use the same basic method of establishing the error or deviation from perfect except Max uses (Mean) and Karoyl uses (Median).

If you're going to find the symmetry axis of the hypothalamus then you need to use PCA to determine the best symmetry axis, on what is in effect cylindrical objects it is not needed. Max didn't feel the need in any case.

So what does this mean all his measurements are wrong.

0.2 mm as a median score is not the normal tolerance metric such as it would be if it is the difference in radius between the an inner and outer circle that covers all the measured points (see ISO 1101). So there is some sleight-of-hand with definitions going on here.

Enough to negate the precision in other places. Like when you use guage sensors and it reads out near perfect circularity of the body or lip. I feel its really a storm in a tea cup as far as negating all the metrology done. But fair enough more testing needs to be done to dispel all these objections.

Those were not from the Petrie museum collection.

I know these were tested in Max's lab and are a private collection. But Beall displays his vases in the museums. I read it somewhere and cannot find it now. The logic is that museums often house artifacts from private collections.

Measures themselves are not science, they speculating on the skills of egyptian artisans is not science.

Hum dictionary meaning of metrology (the scientific study of measurement).

They are math, numbers and science. You cannot speculate about a measure like that shown in the last post on a guage sensor. It is what it is.

I don't need to do anything other than tell them that until they publish their results in peer-reviewed journals all they are doing is conjecture.

But is plain hard data, numbers conjecture. We could measure a predynastic vase with a guage sensor and callipers and see for ourselves the circylarity down the vase from lip to base. This alone will tell us that the vase is very circular that it was created by some wheel or lathe. Thats not conjecture. No more than using a ruler to measure the standard door size 2040 x 820 x 35mm cannot conjecture to change the measure.

An object measuring 5 cm is not science.

No but the method that determines it is 5 cm is. If the vase is 5cm or 10cm tall then the measure will show its 5 or 10 cm tall. Its hard data that cannot lie. If it shows excellect circularity ie deviation from a perfect circle then its the same. The outline of the vase circle is measured by sensor or light and compared to a perfect circle. The median or mean or average error or deviation is recorded. Either way we can to a real measure.

Its just a case that some are questioning the degree of that precision.

According to Max they didn't cluster with the precise vases.

Your getting them mixed up. Some of Matts vases were in the imprecise and some were in the precise and even better than the modern machined ones.

The ‘PRECISE’ class includes modern stone vases, which were machined and polished on a lathe as well as 11 objects from Matt Beall’s collection. The vases V4 and V18 appear to be 10 times more precise (in terms of the quality metric M) compared to the modern vases.

The ‘IMPRECISE’ class includes 11 objects from Matt Beall’s collection and the two contemporary replica vases made using wood, stone, and copper tools consistent with the technology available to the ancient Egyptians according to academic science.

In other words, the ‘PRECISE’ class appears to be consistent with machining, whereas the ‘IMPRECISE’ class appears to be consistent with manual labor.

Astonishing Precision of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study

Support The Research Do you want to know the truth about our past? Fuel the research. Your participation matters and makes the difference. Download Paper For complete details, download my paper: Pr…

maximus.energy

Independent but with overlap in participants.

Not sure what you mean.

Metrology is a science in itself, people do science in the field of metrology. If you say some is doing the science of metrology your saying something more than they know how to take a measure. So yes, to be good in the science of metrology you actually need to publish is metrology journals.

OK so I was thinking of two aspects. There is the science of engineering and machining and precision tooling. The physical making of objects and the methods. Which includes the measures, distances, angles, weights ect.

Then there is the art of measuring stuff which is a science in itself. There may be completely different applications in different fields. Like metrology in tooling or engineering as opposed to quantum physics and measurement. But each require scientific knowledge to be able to measure in those fields.

So a machinist or precision tool maker will automatically be also trained in the scientific measure of the tools he is physically making. To understand what methods and materials ect produce precision ect and how to measure that it is within precision.

If they publish in metrology journals they go over the equipment and methods in excruciating detail.

Then they don't need to do that. Just show they can use the equipment.

He has two peer-reviewed articles, neither of which is in any adjacent field to geomtrical light scanning.

Are you saying you need a degree in light scanning. That a scientists dabbling in likewise methods, using canning equipment and the like cannot apply this or learn to use a light scanner. What specific science does a light scanner operater have to have.

Yes, but it is not related to geometry scanning of vases.

I just find this level of scrutiny unreal and would not be applied to other situations.

That depends on how obviously wrong they are, flat earthers are wackos even if they happen to be scientistst.

We are talking about 2 to 3 thickness of a page of paper in the deviation at worst. I don't think thats in the flat earthers league. In fact those exaggerating that this somehow proves lathes were not used is in the flat earthers league on that one lol.

No need since they don't seem to want to publish in peer-reviewed journals.

Its not that they don't want to. This really only started testing vases in museums this year. Like you said Dr Max vases have unknown providence. It was his forst test so why would he then want to base a peer reviewed paper on just one test so far. Its actually prudent science in that they recognise more testing is needed.

Yes, and it has been a problem since the advent of modern scientific practices.

Yes but I think there are ways of knowing. Do you realise that the majority of predynastic vases are probably in private collections. There are suppose to be 1,000s and the most precise ones were given away by Petrie as gifts as they were the most beautifully crafted.

So if we take the attitude that private means fake then we are dismissing many great works. We have to some way come to a point where we can state these are authetic or not. There are ways. But of course skeptics will always say their fake no matter what.

Then we will have to live in forever suspense, not speculating on unknown technology X.

Not good science. We move on and find other ways to discover and understand. Like I say your fixing the idea of what we should be finding and if we don't then its not true. I am saying don't fix anything to any particular kind of tech or knowledge that we should find. Just be open to all possibilities even if it seems crazy.

So what are the pairwise likelihood ratios or Bayes factors for using unknown method X vs "ortohodox measures" vs "ortohodox measures" + turntable vs modern fakery?

Then we will probably never guess it correctly either, what's the problem?


Yes, every single example you say is a product of an megalithic culture needs to be investigated and placed by the best researchers in that field as an megalithic culture work.

Yes and this is a good example of how the orthodoxy and reality differ and why there are out of place works. Because Megalithic cultures are claimed to be later cultures. Like the how the Inca are attributed the megaliths when their culture built and worked to a completely different method and signature. Thats an example of a culture wide false narrative.

Sitting at home guessing is all good, trying to convince others in the field requires more that that (let's start with peer-review).

No one is stopping them.

Very good, is a very subjective term.

They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.

Your opinion is noted, I don't share it.

They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.

I said something about me.

They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.

They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.

That wasn't close to my admittedly badly written objection. Why dont they just use the normal ISO 1101 measure of circularity or roundness?

There's no bigger picture if the constituent parts haven't been criticized and published.

Anyway I see that the rest is more or less about the same thing as to the validity and more testing. I must say I thank you as you are quite reasonable and though you have objections your open and your approach is fair.

 

[stevevw]

There have obviously been some internal strife within the non-academic vase analysis community. An earlier analyst, Stine Gerdes have written a quite scathing critic of the behaviour of the Artifact Foundation through Adam Young and Karoly Poka. She also critiques some of the choices they have made in their quality measure.
Revisiting Old Findings: A Journey Through Precision and Time

She also present her analysis of the vases (as a added bonus you can also see how much of the interior of each vase that goes into the the internal score).
Catalogue

And her analysis doesn't show that the Petrie vases as a group kluster with modern lathe-made vases. Is it time to stop with self-publishing now?!

Ok so you claimed that Dr Max was more precise in his method which was the "mean error rmse and concentricity offset and standard deviation of the concentricity offset".

I mentioned that Karoly explained that their method was the same except they are using the median devaition rather than 'mean error'. Either way this is a sort of average of the overall vases circularity and concentricity.

Thats because in areas like the base, handles and top which may have wear, and damage will skew the results if included. So an average or median or mean has to be used.

Otherwise how can they measure the entire vases precision to match whether it was hand made with chisels, pounders and rubbing to get that precision. Even if pretty good precision they have all the hallmarks of being turned. Why would we even contemplate that somehow ancients hand chiseled and rubbed what looks like being turned lol.

I showed a live guage sensor measure of the circularity of the spinner vase with gold handles around the middle. It was 0.005 off being perfectly circular. How can this be achieved by naked eye, grinding and rubbing. The interiors being more precise. How can this be by blind rubbing. When this good circularity is a classic sign of turning.

Are you saying people can get that precise circularity by the naked eye and feel without turning the vase. Why did Olga cheat and use a wheel to get the good precision.

I might also add I find it ironic that you complain about using peer review and then use an opinion piece to declare that people should not use opinion pieces lol. I could do what has been done to these researchers and say I don't trust your article and its credibility.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Your just doing what I said was the problem. That is picking out bits and not actually doing the tests and mapping out the steps to be able to make these claims.

This is about the process of what is regarded as academic standards of science and reporting to refute another academic test or analysis. Not whether the tests and methods are correct.

As far as I understand Karoly explains his method of median circularity and concentricity is the same as the mean error rmse.

View attachment 371602View attachment 371604 View attachment 371603

Ok so as I said I am not an expert in this. As far as I understand (Root Means Squared Deviation) which is basically the median error is more or less derived by the same process and is a reflection of the 3D circularity and concentricity.

What are you saying that they use the same basic method of establishing the error or deviation from perfect except Max uses (Mean) and Karoyl uses (Median).

They both use RMSD, but Karoly uses the median and Max uses the mean. They also differ in how they calculate their metrics, Karoly uses the geometric mean (g1*g2*...*gn)^(1/n) of the different median values whilst Max adds different error sources together RMSD + diff(centerpoint) + std(centerpoint) where he optimizes the z-axis to minimize diff(centerpoint). So their quality metrics are not directly comparable.

So what does this mean all his measurements are wrong.

It can mean that, we won't know until the differences are ironed out.

Enough to negate the precision in other places. Like when you use guage sensors and it reads out near perfect circularity of the body or lip. I feel its really a storm in a tea cup as far as negating all the metrology done. But fair enough more testing needs to be done to dispel all these objections.

I know these were tested in Max's lab and are a private collection. But Beall displays his vases in the museums. I read it somewhere and cannot find it now. The logic is that museums often house artifacts from private collections.

Hum dictionary meaning of metrology (the scientific study of measurement).

Yes, the scientific study of measurement.

They are math, numbers and science. You cannot speculate about a measure like that shown in the last post on a guage sensor. It is what it is.

Even if we take that measure at face value, the implications are the science at hand.

But is plain hard data, numbers conjecture. We could measure a predynastic vase with a guage sensor and callipers and see for ourselves the circylarity down the vase from lip to base. This alone will tell us that the vase is very circular that it was created by some wheel or lathe. Thats not conjecture. No more than using a ruler to measure the standard door size 2040 x 820 x 35mm cannot conjecture to change the measure.

No but the method that determines it is 5 cm is. If the vase is 5cm or 10cm tall then the measure will show its 5 or 10 cm tall. Its hard data that cannot lie. If it shows excellect circularity ie deviation from a perfect circle then its the same. The outline of the vase circle is measured by sensor or light and compared to a perfect circle. The median or mean or average error or deviation is recorded. Either way we can to a real measure.

Its just a case that some are questioning the degree of that precision.

I am not sure which vases you are talking about. Is this Max's vases from Bealls collection or the ones done at the Petrie museum by Karoly.

No Max has measured actual vases from the Petrie museum Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels himself. And they are less precise than modern replicas as a group.

Not sure what you mean.

OK so I was thinking of two aspects. There is the science of engineering and machining and precision tooling. The physical making of objects and the methods. Which includes the measures, distances, angles, weights ect.

Then there is the art of measuring stuff which is a science in itself. There may be completely different applications in different fields. Like metrology in tooling or engineering as opposed to quantum physics and measurement. But each require scientific knowledge to be able to measure in those fields.

So a machinist or precision tool maker will automatically be also trained in the scientific measure of the tools he is physically making. To understand what methods and materials ect produce precision ect and how to measure that it is within precision.

Sure, many people are good at using the measurement tools of their trade. However, this is not doing the science of metrology. If these testers actually were the first in scanning complex geometries they could actually publish in metrology journals, but I think they are too late to that party.

Then they don't need to do that. Just show they can use the equipment.

Are you saying you need a degree in light scanning. That a scientists dabbling in likewise methods, using canning equipment and the like cannot apply this or learn to use a light scanner. What specific science does a light scanner operater have to have.

Not specific science, but they should follow what is industry "best practices" or face questions about why not. There are no obvious reason for them to define circularity different from ISO 1101 for example. I understand why RMSE (RMSD) can feel like a good measure but it is not industry standard or the golden standard.

I just find this level of scrutiny unreal and would not be applied to other situations.

We are talking about 2 to 3 thickness of a page of paper in the deviation at worst. I don't think thats in the flat earthers league. In fact those exaggerating that this somehow proves lathes were not used is in the flat earthers league on that one lol.

Its not that they don't want to. This really only started testing vases in museums this year. Like you said Dr Max vases have unknown providence. It was his forst test so why would he then want to base a peer reviewed paper on just one test so far. Its actually prudent science in that they recognise more testing is needed.

He also have scanned Petrie museum vases, see above.

Yes but I think there are ways of knowing. Do you realise that the majority of predynastic vases are probably in private collections. There are suppose to be 1,000s and the most precise ones were given away by Petrie as gifts as they were the most beautifully crafted.

I wouldn't even want to use the ones in museum collections if they can't be traced back to a specific dig. Try to certify a biomedical laboratory by saying "we used this standard we found at the back of freezer".

So if we take the attitude that private means fake then we are dismissing many great works. We have to some way come to a point where we can state these are authetic or not. There are ways. But of course skeptics will always say their fake no matter what.

So be it then, find new vases and measure them.

Not good science. We move on and find other ways to discover and understand. Like I say your fixing the idea of what we should be finding and if we don't then its not true. I am saying don't fix anything to any particular kind of tech or knowledge that we should find. Just be open to all possibilities even if it seems crazy.

That was why I brought up the likelihood ratio or the Bayes factor, they allow us to put a number to competing hypotheses. But more importantly it forces those involved to be specific about their assumptions, now it is conjecture and handwaving.

Yes and this is a good example of how the orthodoxy and reality differ and why there are out of place works. Because Megalithic cultures are claimed to be later cultures. Like the how the Inca are attributed the megaliths when their culture built and worked to a completely different method and signature. Thats an example of a culture wide false narrative.

Anyway I see that the rest is more or less about the same thing as to the validity and more testing. I must say I thank you as you are quite reasonable and though you have objections your open and your approach is fair.